Of course weak-willed men will sell out their ancestors by whatever means to make things easy, or even regular or strong-willed men in a moment of weakness. To an extent I can't blame them, although it's hard to pity the coward too much. On the other hand if things collapse and the white man's fury awakens it's going to be pretty rough for you in our lands, with your foreign semitic religion painting a target on the back of you and your family members. Although you can always drop the act and blend back in a sort of milquetoast gambit if it came to that, assuming you didn't provide material resistance to the enemy. Either way I hope you at a minimum don't give up on your European bloodline, assuming you aren't some form of non-white mix. Racial watering down of European blood has fucked up the potential of every civilization it came in contact with, from central/south america to greece and beyond. We can even see how southern Europe suffers some negative effects in terms of their potential as you run the gradient from north to south.
Thoughts on the Traditionalist worldview?
That's good context, thanks.
Starts a discussion about Evola
Starts complaining about muh small government.
Americans truly are the niggermutts of the world.
Believing in a cyclical nature of anything is just an advanced version of defeatism and taking an excessively broad view to the point of meaninglessness. You are accepting something currently being terrible because that's "just the way things are" and that it will eventually change without your contribution. Some things change. Some thing stay the same. Some things seemingly repeat. Some things go down weird in weird ways or only partially repeat while the rest gets worse or better. It is up to you and others to try to give yourselves and society the best possible path forward.
As far as governance goes, minigov is just asking for other people to take control and make it not minigov, democracy is asking for kikes to take control by appealing and leading things to the lowest, ugliest common and uncommon denominator, while fascism allows for great changes to be made quick and offers the best opportunity to expel some negative aspects (like kikes) of the current system.
the traditional man is not supposed to act by following the course of contingent history like a carrot on a stick, he is rather supposed to act according to timeless principles, valid regardless of the particular era he finds himself in and only adapted to the circumstances
your criticism is not particularly related to cyclicity itself but could be equally applied to a linear and bounded view of history with a definite start and an end like it is typical of abrahamites, it depends on whether you think humans' will determines the course of things or if the course of things is what it is regardless of what humans will
I'm familiar enough with the trad school criticisms, what they don't seem to care to acknowledge is the screamingly obvious fact that you simply cannot take a country/nation/society all the way from the brink of Judeo-Bolshevik takeover, Weimar, democratic socialism, bourgeois secular liberal humanism, castrated Christcuckery, etc. back to the Roman Republic in one step, nor in one decade, nor in one generation. And you cannot simply abandon high industrialism, because you need to have the most powerful military possible, because you're quite literally surrounded by enemies with enormous industrialized militaries and nearly unlimited funding.
Rediscovering the wisdom of ancient Aryans is the easy part, re-implementing it in the world is a billion times harder, and the alternative is destruction. The attitude of "dude it's Kali Yuga, there's nothing you can do, don't even try, just lie down and die, just wait for Kalki to make it all better" is the farthest thing imaginable from the Aryan attitude. The politics of bundling, by any name, is nothing more than simply the emergency-restore-mode innate to all Aryan peoples. No people will ever voluntarily vote its way back to a sound traditional civilization and no one familiar with the content of the traditional school would ever for even a moment entertain the notion, Aryan caste society is always imposed from above by a noble military aristocracy. In the case of Germany, it had just gotten out from under a hated decadent-degenerate secularized aristocracy which had been in all important aspects at odds with Aryan ways since at least the time of Luther, the German people's hatred for the Junkers, following WWI, is hard to overstate, and it was well understood by the public that it was the German nobility that had allowed, habilitated, and eventually emancipated, Jews into German lands, for nearly a thousand years.
That's not completely honest either. The majority of Traditionalists I have read stress not just the esoteric functions of religion but also the exoteric functions as well. If Guenon simply found that Islamic spiritual truths were meaningful towards the development of an inner spiritual practice, he would have wound up like Henry Corbin (who became one of the utmost experts on Islamic philosophy in the West and also a Traditionalist).
Martin Lings's biography of Mohammad is widely regarded as the de facto text on the Prophet and early Islamic society in the English language. The amount of devotion and seriousness he put into that work alone lends me to believe the man was not simply using Islam to justify his own inner spiritual work but truly had become part of the ummah.
On the topic of Islam itself, everyone points to Sufism which isn't really a sect but more of a practice of Sunni Islam. It has a bleak view in modernity (it should be remembered that Wahhabism is a modernist school) but has never traditionally been separate from the Sunni community at large. Additioanlly, Shia Islam has also held the captivation of Traditionalists, typically those influenced by Seyyed Hossein Nasser who is a devout Muslim who would find it lamentable that Westerners were merely adopting the trappings of the Islamic faith with no real belief in the foundational concepts of it.
There will come a point in time where, having delved into Traditionalist circles, reading the works of the leading and influential thinkers, that an user will be confronted with the Islamic question. Anyone on Zig Forums who is sincere is right-wing enough to realize the deep conflict this would cause in any modern Western man. It's a question they'll have to answer for themselves but I've seen many people go down the Islamic path and lose all conception of what/who they were simply in the name of combating modernity. It's why I implore anons interested in this train of thought to stay with Julius Evola who is a heterodox thinker within Traditionalist but provides us a means of viewing the world through this lens while maintaining our identity.
Or… you could also start reading everything from the Greeks to modern political philosophers and novelist, you know how genuine right wing people view their history.
In other words, the traditionalist man is a madman, who rejects reality so he can inject his own fantasy world into it.
Look, this isn't India 300 AD when old Hinduism is slowly coming back and replacing Buddhism, this is the West 2019 AD and we are going to be stuck with the same culture we were stuck with since the middle of the 17th century, so you beter get used to it.
We're discussing a specific school of intellectual thought, why would you recommend subjects outside of that school to someone interested in what those school's teachings are? Ideally, user is already familiar with these things. You're also not going to get very far in this if you don't already have a foundational understanding of history, religion, and philosophy.