Race - The Evolian Perspective

The Evolian perspective on race is the most crucial one to adopt in the modern world; below is excerpts from Evola's doctrine of race.
Use it to avoid being called a Nazi because you harbour contemptment for other races.

————————
Diverse causes have contributed until now to the fact that racism has become the object of propaganda entrusted to incompetent people, to individuals who are waking up any day now as racists and anti-Semites and whose simple sloganeering has replaced serious principles and information.
Thus, racism invigorates and renders tangible the concept of tradition; it makes the individual get used to observing in our ancestors not just a series of the more or less illustrious “dead,” but rather the expression of something still alive in ourselves and to which we are tied in our interior. We are the carriers of a heritage that has been transmitted to us and that we need to transmit – and in this spirit it is something going beyond time, something indicating, what we called elsewhere, ‘the eternal race.’
In other words race is at a same time a heritage and a collective substrate. Irrespective of the fact that it expresses itself among all people, it is only among few that it attains its perfect realization and it is precisely there that the action and the significance of the individual and the personality can assert themselves.

It is absolutely crucial to grasp the living significance of such a change of perspectives inherent to racist conceptions; the superior does not derive from the inferior. In the mystery of our blood, in the depth of our most abysmal of our being, resides the ineffaceable heredity of our primordial times. This is not heredity of brutality of bestial and savage instincts gone astray, as argued by psychoanalysis, and which, as one may logically conclude, derive from “evolutionism” or Darwinism. This heredity of origins, this heredity which comes from the deepest depth of times is the heredity of the light.

——–
Evola is aware of the dangerous dichotomy between the race of the spirit and the race of the body that may occur within the same race — or, as we call it, within the same ingroup. This tragic phenomenon occurs as a result of selecting the wrong mates, miscegenation, and genetic flaws going back into the White man’s primordial times. Modern social decadence also fosters racial chaos. Evola argues that very often the “race of the body” may be perfectly pure, with the “race of the spirit” being already tainted or destroyed. This results in a cognitive clash between a distorted perception of objective reality vs. subjective reality, and which sooner or later leads to strife or civil war.

Evola harbors no illusions about master race; he advocates racial hygiene, always emphasizing the spiritual aspect of the race first. On a practical level, regarding modern White nationalists, Evola’s words are important insofar as they represent a harsh indictment of the endless bickering, petty sectarianism and petty jealousy seen so often among Whites. A White nationalist may be endowed with a perfect race of the body, but his racial spirit may be dangerously mongrelized.

Other urls found in this thread:

jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/04/15/more-behavioral-genetic-facts/
myredditvideos.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Your race is your blood memory and the archetypes your super-conscience adheres to. It's why whites can only revere a crucified God and a trinity, while the muds respect an abstract omnipotent monolith. It's also why the kikes try to stop us from seeing the black sun and the swastika - they're afraid of us "remembering."

"Race of spirit" is the single worst part of Evola's philosophy. The rest is pretty good, but this piece he invented because he didn't like having to deal with the reality that it's in the blood. I don't blame him - it's a hard pill to swallow.

And yes, of course there are cucks among the whites, but look at how much effort is put into cucking them. They had to build a multi-trillion dollar shilling apparatus in every part of society to install a shaky brainwashing that falls away with just a bit of trolling.

tl;dr

I imagine that was due to the ethnic composition of Italy and its neighbors. It's hard to make a genetic argument for nationhood in many European states without implicitly calling for catastrophic redrawing of borders.

What are you even doing on this board, you fucking degenerate?

It would take a minute or two to read that.

This

Evola is so annoying. Who promotes him so much? He's a bad writer. A faggot. He believes in degenerate Apocalyptic teachings like "cycles" which lead to downfalls in our will to transcend the biological. I'm sick of this butt queen and his overwritten snobbery. We really haven't had a great writer of the Right since Hitler died. Just parasites making excuses.

And that's where people like Red Ice Media and the other shills seem to be going, a process of slower demoralization.

...

Jesus, is this the typical Holla Forums poster now?

The cycles are biological in origin and well documented. Evola tries to transcend the biological himself in his analysis of race. Any attempt to transcend the cyclical nature of nations/empires will have to be cultural and thus rely upon knowledge of those cycles.

No. He is right about that point - I've met quite a few very noble and spiritual individuals in "brown" bodies -, but his perspective is so removed from our actual, concrete bio-racial struggle, that he cannot offer much on that specific point. That's excusable, I think: as a Sicilian aristocrat writing during the times of a nearly lily-white Europe, he could not have foreseen the dire fight for survival of today.

fuck of faggot


spirits don't exist faggot


race is the people who share your dna and the people who evolved with that dna faggot

your skin might be white buy your soul is pure nigger

Don't confuse "spirits" in the sense of non-material beings with "spirit" in the sense of quality of soul.


You share a lot of DNA with people who are not of your race. You even share a lot of DNA with life form who aren't even your species.

It's your average election cycle Holla Forums poster.

fuck off faggot. souls don't exist. you know exactly what i meant, but see peppermintfrosted.wordpress.com for more

I'm not interested in your links or blogs or whatever. Bring an actual argument or be silent.

When you state in such a categorical form -


- please define first what you mean by the term "soul".

That blog is retarded, not unlike you.

It makes sense when you see race as something hierarchical, as Evola does.

The 'white' race of Western Europe, as it exists today, was seeded by the wandering groups of largely Germanic, aristocratic warriors. They formed the kingdoms of Visigothic Spain, Francia, Lombardy, and the Saxon realms in England. Back then, there were no "frenchmen"– only Franks, 'the free', a select group who ruled over masses of Gallo-Roman peasants. The entire French nation could fit into a noble assembly. As history progressed, the concept of race gradually became more universalized and less disprivileged, expanding to include townsmen and then the inhabitants of the countryside.

Spengler's view of race matches up quite well with Evola's. In addition to the aristocratic focus, he saw national traditions – the Prussian officer corps, for example– as instilling a sense of race into the masses, thus ensuring that the original spirit would continue to perpetuate. Without these institutions, we revert back to ahistorical, tribal affiliation. The fate of the white race is one and the same as that of our civilization.

It all boils down to this: do you accept Darwinism as a valid theory? If you do, race is purely biological. If you do not, then you are free to believe in Evola's doctrine of race. There is no other factor to consider. Pic only slightly related.

Evola's a better author when he's writing about specific traditions then when he's writing his grand arcs of history. The Doctrine of Awakening is a really good book and helpful for cultivating will.

…and, since evolution is obviously true…

hey guess what, being part of a group matters. but maybe you like jerking off to the hebrew old testament while adopting niglets

I hate evola's writing style.
What is the most important thing when writing philosophy?
PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR LOGIC
A book of philosophy just becomes a religious text when it is full of things you already agree with and is presented as truth.

If anyone reads Evola then asks you, "How do we know this is true?" You just are left with nothing.

His non-invective books are footnoted like crazy.

A theory cannot be true, it can only be useful.

Once again, it is the general, "How do you know this?"
Like when he says there is real honor in evenly matched up close and personal warfare, but while modern war is just industrialised killing. How can you prove one has honor and the other doesn't?

...

Well if you're saying "tradition X says this" and provide a source for that, how is that a problem?

I'd have to read the Metaphysics of War, that's one of the ones I haven't gotten around to, as I'm going a traditionalist/perrenialist binge. Shame most of the authors in that movement turned into Muzzos, though.

By deductive reasoning. Honor has a real definition– we know it can only be possessed by an individual. The SS officer's defense, "I was just doing my job", was found not honorable because it is someone retreating into their role (just using this example for the sake of argument, don't get triggered), and we know sort of cowardice is precluded by the concept of honor.


"Gravity is true" is an incoherent, nonsensical statement. The phenomena of gravity can be explained via theory, and the more useful theory gets used while the less useful one–eg, God is holding everything down– gets discarded. Theories are a means to an end. They can be superseded. For example, Newtonian physics is an extremely useful theory, but was superseded by Einsteinian Relativity once we realized the limits of its utility. I can't believe this needs explanation. Use some fucking common sense.

I'm not going to pretend that made any sense to me at all.

Why not just talk about our heritage and culture and point out the new and alien?


I've never really got that. What are they supposed to do?

He is not a documented saying x says y. He states claims and claims imperatives.

The problem with evola is he does not change minds. You only read him openly accepting what he is going to say before he says it.

Kant also deals with metaphysics too. But he uses logic to prove his points. In order to believe Kant you only need to accept 1 assumption that he provides evidence for on the first page of his book,"grounding of the meta-physics of morals" to believe in his conclusions. While evola, reads.more like religious text, which is why he is picked up by Gnostics,hermetics, and all kinds of new age non-sense.

He certainly is in books like the Doctrine of Awakening, the Mystery of the Grail and all his other books on analyzing specific traditions.

That's because his core works ARE religious texts.

Also, I don't exactly get what you're expecting, the man is an open anti-rationalist, he's obviously not going to predicate his arguments on pure rationality.

They believe it is like real meme magic.

That is evidence but not proof.

It is not non-sensual. There is a real objective morality. Theories can only be true or false, regardless of how much they are believed or used.
Even if Pythagoras' theory was never discovered or applied it would still exist.

The reason Evola is picked up by such people is because he was an occultist himself- which is how I heard of him initially.

Ride the Tiger faggot.

I am sorry, I was assuming we were all approaching him in a rational point of view.

So boiling down to the basics, I guess I am asking why are we discussing him if he does not contribute anything to the advancing of our agenda or inherent goods?

Not non-senseical*

Nature vs nurture. Nurture wins.

It's only very recently with this argument that we are nothing more than animals guided by instinct that somehow the field of biology as shifted to arguing we are nothing but the sum of our genes.

That isn't true. We are each of us more than the sum of our parts and in that lies greatness. Sure the blood is part of it, nature vs nurture never argued that nature had no part. But nurture remains the more important part. Culture remains the more important part.

And culture just like blood can be selected for. Evolution works on cultural aspects as well.

Most of European philosophy and morality is rooted in Greek thought. But we're not all Greeks. We're everything from Celts, to Germans, to Slavs. And yet the Greek thought is widespread. Because it's just hands down the superior philosophy (not just of Europe, of the world in general)

Beep boop anything that is not actively used for proselytizing is useless. Evola is a great scholar of religions, and one of the main providers of the metaphysical undercurrents of our movement.

Not in the slightest.

Well, Kant was fucking destroyed by Nietzsche so that doesn't help your argument.

Inherent in your way of thinking is an analytical point of view. Let's analyze what this means. Analysis means, literally, "to break down" (ana + lysis). Science is 'gaining knowledge through analysis'– it is etymologically related to the words schism.

Our experience of reality is integral, however– Hegel proved that conception cannot be separated from perception. Hence, the analytic project has to 'de-world' the world in order to produce a causational image that is frozen in time, and hence dead, dissected, deconstructed. This process has enervated our civilization, and metabolized the religiousness that it was once based upon. Religious and essentialist thinking becomes a necessary measure to combat absurdity, chaos, and entropy. This makes you uncomfortable because you distrust your own instincts.


You can keep repeating this, but that doesn't make it true.

Mathematics is different from science. Mathematics is the science of science. Darwinism, or Newtonian physics, is applying mathematic to perspective in order to generate scheme. Even then, mathematics points to something outside of itself (as proved, mathematically, by Gödel).

It absolutely does win. People that think genetics are more important than the environmental influences are absolutely wrong, empirically.

All they can do is point to cases where the base start is entirely nature, but every single time, you find that nurture is the most important thing. In intelligence, in adaptation to the environment, in physical capacity.

No it wouldn't. The relationship between the sides would be the same, but theorum itself would not exist. A theory is not what it describes.

Nope. Intelligence is strongly heritable. Temperament is heritable. Biological drives are utterly inherent. All nurture does is direct said drives. A chromosomal retard will never be nutured into equivalency with a healthy mind.

And yet the environment plays a bigger role in how those factors manifest themselves.

Also good job taking the literally most extreme example.

Ignore the fact that there's several cases of high IQ individuals that ultimately manage to accomplish jack shit because they aren't properly taught.

Ignore the fact that physically weak individuals with conditions like asthma can easily attain physical greatness.

Ignore all that, just reduce yourself to your genes like a good Dawkins fanboy.

I disagree
That isn't true. I believe instincts are a tool, like your senses, to be used by your will or discarded until needed again by your will. Of course that is the ideal goal, but most if any will not achieve it

It is true because the very concept of truth is inherent. Either there is a truth, thus the claim is the truth, or there is not a truth, thus making all things be separated from the quality of existing.

If your argument was true, it wouldn't matter which example I picked.

I haven't insulted you yet, despite the fact that you have the reasoning skills of an eight year old.

What else am I to say to someone that ignores the countless empirical evidence that the environment in which we are inserted plays a bigger role than what we are born with

A child raised in a traditional home in the country side and the same child raised in a single mother's apartment in a large city, starting at the same basic genetic make up, will NOT end up the same individual, and one will be objectively superior to the other.

You can not take a situation of flawed start as a way to view the situation. Because guess what, even we did that the chromosomal retard and gave him two different environments in which to develop, the objectively superior environment would produce a better chromosomal retard.

This is basic methodology. You can expect to take two different starting substances and apply to them them the same substances and expect different results. No, you start with the same substance and THEN apply the different substances.

That's how you conduct science, that's how you empirically analyze something.


But in your need to define this entirely in the frame of genetics and race, as if all that makes Europeans (which, given the board we are in, I'm going to assume are the ones you are trying to exalt) better than others is simply genetics and race, you completely ignore basic methodology and empirical thought.

What makes Europeans better isn't just race. God forbid if it was just that we'd long have lost. What makes us better is culture, and what creates our culture, THAT, can be attributed in part to genetics.

But then that's just part. The environment, the land, plays equal parts importance in creating the culture of a peoples.

I agree completely, well said. Biology has it's role, but the materialist-geneticists greatly exaggerate the importance of their paradigm.

I just realized you meant the symbols, and not what OP said. Kind of reminds me of the webm of a swastika for the sun, all shaky, with music, and guys were practically dry humping their keyboards over how great it was.

Maybe like Thor is a powerful image to some people, but to me is just some dude with a hammer while Odin is the one that makes sense.

That isn't even what spirit means you complete faggot. I hate when morons go on about people like Evola because nobody ever knows what the fuck they are talking about in relation to various religions or the things he himself wrote.

Except there is a whole lot of evidence showing that you are wrong. Genetics accounts for about 70-99% of behavior depending on the specific category of behavior.

Talk about projection… it's you who comes across as an uneducated moron, and as always, those who know nothing are the first to fall to insults and infantile name-calling. GTFO.

the only way you fags are going to settle this argument is by posting sources to your claims.

Except they aren't wrong empirically. You just aren't familiar with the research so you are talking out your ass.

jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/04/15/more-behavioral-genetic-facts/

Enviromment is a factor WITHIN race, not outdide of it.

You can raise it however well you wish, bit you cannot teach chemistry to a gorilla. Because it will always be bound to its genetics.
You say environment is the real cause? Explain how a european prison colony is more successful than Africa in ANY circumstance.

Like I said, recent and unfortunately consequences of the materialistic and purely genetic outlook inspired by faggots like Dawkins.

They've discovered many genes that code for many attributes, but environmental influence remains key, at least in empirical observations.

To put it in other terms, Ivory tower faggots thing it's all genetics, common folk know otherwise.

OP here. Evola has meme-magic, and that's why we can believe what he says.

Except they don't in empirical observations. See my last post. You have no idea what you are talking about so are just making shit up. Research definitively shows that the majority of behavior patterns, abilities, and so on are highly heritable.

And lol at this. Common folk don't even know how to wipe their own asses. The average person does not know the first thing about statistics and just buys whatever they are told as long as it "sounds right" based on their limited knowledge.

That might very well be, but where do these encoded behavioral tendencies come from in the first place? If you say "natural selection" you are ipso facto admitting the huge role of the environment in shaping said encodings.

That isn't what spirit means and it isn't what Evola means by it. Again, you faggots don't even know the basics of traditional doctrines but really just like to talk out of your asses. Read up on some basic theology, comparative religion, Hinduism, etc. and stop pretending like you know shit because you read a couple of second hand articles on some tradfag blog.

It's a feedback loop, you dunce.

Men and dogs have grown together for milennia, why haven't they written any great works?
Because environment be damned, THEY ARE STILL DOGS.

This is totally incorrect. Here is a passage from Evola's "The Mystique of Race in Ancient Rome":

The notions of lares, penates, genies, heroes, etc., are in good measure interdependent. In various ways, they all refer to the ancient Roman awareness of the mystical forces of blood and race, to the lineage, considered not only in its corporeal and biological aspects, but also in its “metaphysical” and invisible aspects, but not “transcendent,” in the limited dualist meaning that has come to prevail for such terms. The single, atomic, deracinated individual does not exist. When he presumes to be a being in itself, he is deceived in the most pathetic way, because he cannot even name the last of the organic processes that condition his life and finite consciousness. The individual is part of a group, a folk, a gente. He is part of an organic unity, whose most immediate vehicle is blood, and is extended both in space and time. This unity is not “naturalistic”; it is not determined and called to life solely through natural, biological, and physiological processes. Such processes just constitute his exterior side, the necessary but not sufficient condition. There is a “life” of life, a mystical force of blood and folk. It subsists beyond the forces of the life of the individuals that are dissolved in it at death or that are given by it through new birth: it is therefore a vitae mortisque locus [a place of life and death]—a place that encompasses life and death and that for that very reason stands beyond both.

I never offered a comprehensive definition of the term "spirit" yet, and again, fuck off with your completely unfounded arrogance. Offer a definition instead of going on like a petulant teenager; I'm quite sure I know more about these topics than you.


Exactly - that is precisely the point.


I never professed the contrary.

But you very much did. You state genetics as a minor factor compared to environment, as if raising a dog like a man causes him to become one.

So if you take a sub-saharan african away and raise it in the west, where it adopts European culture, it suddenly stops being a sub-saharan african with less than 70IQ that has all the negative aspects of man?

I don't understand you faggots who think Nurture plays a part in anything, you can take the best out of the wild but you can't take the beast out of the soul, humanoid or not.

Okay. Well, just know Kant is the grandfather of the ideologies of human rights, social justice, and world socialism in general.

Fair enough, but it is still the reason most 'rationalists' flee to pure mechanical thinking. It freezes suppressed impulses that are felt to be threatening. Instincts aren't tools, they are the interface between the tool and your will. A pilot's instinct allows him to know actually how to wield his primary tool, a hand, and by extension the aircraft.

Truth is bound up in illusion. When you grasp the nature of an object, let's say an apple in your hand, the background fades out of existence. You have lost sight of all that is non-apple. Hence, all systems of logical thought are forever imperfect, incomplete, and inconsistent.

Ah, not so fast. This Aristotelian point of view- that claim x can only be true or not true, 1 or 0- was proven wrong in the Brouwer–Hilbert controversy. You cannot formalize axioms like that, it is mathematically impossible.

No. The biological matrix, so to speak, is and has to be of a specific type - a specific species and subspecies (what in the case of man we would call "race"), and right down to the individual level. No doubt about that at all.

It's just that, at the same time, it is obviously of great importance how this specific individual gets reared. If e.g. I take a hypothetical child of Einstein or Hawking and put it in a cellar without any human contact at all, the result will be a babbling retard, not a mathematical genius. Which shouldn't surprise anybody.

But you didnt say 'at the same time', you explicitly stated it to be more important than genetics. And it simply isnt.

If you put the son of a genius in isolation, 999/1000 times he'll be retarded. But there will undoubtedly be one that can function.
Whereas you will NEVER teach astrophysics to a gopher no matter how hard you try.

Enviro-genetical feedback loops based on a hardwired biogenetic matrix… of course the negroes are, in general, inferior, but that does not mean that you can't coax some civilized behaviour out of them. The 50s in the US are a good example (I favor full segregation or even deportation, though), and also Ancient Rome. With a strong, paternal hand even negroes can live good, productive lives on their level.

See now its beginning to sound like you actually have no idra what your on about.
The word is "epigenetic" not "enviro-genetical".

That's too strongly worded. I think we agree on the following:

) the biogenetic matrix is the foundation and sets the rough limits of capabilities

) the developmental course and actualization of said capabilities is partially an environmental function

Where we disagree, or perhaps better, where exists unclarity is the quantification and exact sequence of the developmental feedback loops.


Both are acceptable. They are not exact synonyms, as epigenetics are not necessarily an environmental function (i.e. there are non-DNA/RNA factors that influence gene expression that are not, strictly speaking, coming from the environment, or better said, require an exact definition of what you mean by the term "environment").

Sounds like you've been reading Timothy Leary. You know he's an intelligence operative,and that his 'circuit theory' has no empirical grounding, right?

Read a few things by him in my younger years, but no, mostly stuff I remember from Uni (although I'm not a full-fledged biologist or something, just attended some basic courses on genetics, biochemistry, cytology etc). What strikes you as "leary-esk"?


Why did they lock him up, then?

Leary formulated the circuit theory of the human being, that there are stratified layers that process information in feedback loops and that each serve a purpose. It's just a garbled version of the Hindu yoga, which describes each layer as chakras instead of circuits.

Leary, if I recall correctly, was one of the central figures at Laurel Canyon, a military/intelligence installation responsible for the genesis of the 1960s counterculture.

Yes, I remember that. Given that, at his time, Yoga was still largely unknown in the US, I tend to give him credit, though, for having come up with his own scheme that corresponds to that ancient tradition. Probably an unique blend of his (apparently very good) scientific background and huge doses of LSD.


Interesting Given the LSD connection I would have guessed it was about some MKULTRA stuff, but those two are perhaps related.

You're also right about the LSD connection. Leary was central to the promulgation of psychedelics.

His work is a sloppy synthesis of Yoga and cybernetics. It just didn't work out.

He's overrated as fuck, Serrano is better than Evola on the esoteric part anyway and Serrano even criticised Evola. Needless to say, this stuff isn't for the mainstream and it's not even appliacable to most of Holla Forums because let's face it, most of Holla Forums are plebs too, despite being "redpilled", they do not have it in them to be aristocrats either by will or by genetics.

Even Might is Right is a better explanation for the world and nature as it is than anything Evola has ever written, despite how "edgy" it may be. It puts everything in straight laced concepts and terms without the pretense of Evola's jargon and blather.


Ride the tiger is indeed a book for faggots and intellectualists who will do nothing.

You're right on two things, Holla Forums is pleb tier, and recommending Might is Right.

Unfortunately I do not see Holla Forums ever making the step from National Socialism to traditionalism like the transition the board made from libertarian to NS. Evola and other traditionalist writers will never have their ideas legitimately discussed and put into practice here without rustling people like you.

can we ban the fucking christian shitposters please.

You make a good point. In fact, many writings from that time regarding race need to take this fact into account. If the same writers were alive today, I'd expect they would have more aggressive opinions about racial segregation and related topics.

Their outlook at the time was more optimistic I guess, who could have known Europe would get flooded with muds.

Bullshit, I've been in a lot of threads discussing Traditionalism. Maybe you need to lurk moar, or make a thread yourself.

Was it not stated at an earlier point that Maths is "the science of science"? That even mathematics hints towards something beyond itself? How can mathematics be flawed but still relied upon to verify whether or not a claim can only be either true or untrue?

You can't transition in traditionalism if there is no overarching framework for it.

smh fam

Tradition has been destroyed and needs to be rebuilt first.

Traditionalism requires a tradition by definition, which doesn't exist in the West. If you want to be tradfag, you would be converting to Islam like your guru Rene Guenon. For the rest of us, we will consider you traitors and kill you on the day of the rope.

Not that ant of you faggots have even read Evola's books anyway. You just read tradfag blogs written by other people who haven't read his books and then you all collectively tip your fedoras. In a real traditional civilization, your types would be slaves or outcastes.

You've touched on a very deep question my friend. One that reveals the perhaps Faustian nature of our civilization.

Axioms were originally just assumptions for the sake of argument. The logical positivist school- Wittgenstein, the Vienna Circle, Hilbert, and Bertrand Russell- attempted to create universal principles of logic based on mathematics. One of the supposedly universal axioms was the Law of the Excluded Middle, first proposed by Aristotle, which states that any claim that "x is the case" can be answered with a yes or no. Modern computer science is largely based off the work of this school of thought.

They encountered resistance through figures such as Brouwer, Gödel and the 'Intuitionist' school. To them, the quest for a universal system of axioms created an arbitrary set of rules that defeated the purpose of empiricism. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems were conceived of as an attempt to show that mathematics pointed to something outside of itself: that pure logic alone is insufficient.

The paradoxical nature of systemic thought, that it allows us to 'know' but at the same time forms what Hoffstadter calls 'strangeloops' in his work "Gödel, Escher, Bach". Basically, Gödel uses set theory to show that any statement about a set can only be made within set theories. One cannot find a set theory basis for set theory. It loops back upon itself – a strangeloop. The answer to this? AI. Non-human intelligence. If you create a machine that is able to improve itself, you create a being of potentially infinite intelligence, capable of exiting the loop of time and space, perhaps start the Big Bang, and close the loop of existence. Hence, Faustian.

You gave this:
Which is entirely incorrect. You couldn't give a comprehensive definition if you tried because even your usage of "spirit" here is completely off base.

You obviously don't. You know how to tip your fedora and bullshit about things you don't understand, but you don't know shit about metaphysics or traditional theology, which is quite clear by your bungling above.

Their ideas cannot be put into practice because their viewpoint is that the problems if the modern world will only get worse until we hit judgement day at the end of time. When time is literally swallowed by space, as Guenon says in reign of quantity.

philosophy has no room in the modern world, in our right. Only science does. The only way you get to blabber about more deep things is with advancement of science. neurology destroys philosophy as philosophy is nothing more than random thoughts connected to other random thoughts, not based on reality whatsoever.

Discussions on traditionalism are superficial at best.


And this is why I saw we need to discuss it and develop it ourselves then spread it. We are really one of the few places that can legitimately develop traditionalism.


Then we make our own you assuming faggot.

I thought "Faustian" refers to this idea of borrowed power. That you borrow power from something or someone at the expense of some horrific cost. I think the most conventional example today would be the episode of Futurama where Fry trades his soul for the devil's hands, allowing him to play his instrument of choice to an impressive degree of proficiency or perhaps the Madoka Magica series where teenage girls trade their souls for a wish along with a lifelong obligation to fight witches. In what sense is an AI or non-human intelligence "Faustian"? What power is being borrowed? What's the trade being made?

Even if our life is basically a one-way track as we always create the self-improving machine that then restarts our Universe or creates another whilst ours is shut down by its previous or whatever, where is the "Faustian" nature in any of that? I see no debt here, only fate.

Also, do the Intuitionist school support mysticism? I usually see empiricists reject mysticism so I'm a bit confused here as to how the Intuitionists can reject logical positivism on the grounds of believing that there is something that exists outside of logic but then also claim to be empiricists. Then again, whilst I don't know where I read it, I think Wittgenstein was a fan of Orthodox Christianity and did believe in "the unspeakable" or something to that effect. I think there was a thread on Post-Modernism a week ago or so.

The Faustian pact is not just about borrowing power, it is a contract. You're trading your soul for infinite power. The original legend has it that Faust is made with Mephistopholes, a servant of Satan, who represents practicality, selfish concerns, and the 'man in the suit' so to speak. Please take a took at the embedded video.

The machine is a revolt of the microcosm against the macrocosm. It is an inversion of the traditional order. As Spengler puts it, "Man has felt the machine to be devilish, and rightly. It signifies in the eyes of the believer the deposition of God. It delivers sacred Causality over to man and by him, with a sort of foreseeing omniscience is set in motion, silent and irresistible." Of course mankind cannot truly create life- we only borrow energy form other sources. But the goal, of course, is not to depose God or assume His role, but to create Him, so therefore this temporary state of daemonic usurpation is justified.

It is a gambit. We don't know if it's even possible, we secretly believe that it is not, yet we still choose to because a) it makes a good story and b) the indomitable will of our culture demands it. Please take a took at the embedded video.

Not directly, no. The basic idea of intuitionism is that axioms are arrived at intuitively using the senses. They are true empiricists in the sense that they do not believe pure logic can be divorced from perception, and that there is real relationship between the two.

Evola is suposed to be hard to understand. He openly writes for a selective public, not to be a crowd pleaser.

If you dislike, you're free to be out. But don't blame others for not getting what he says.

I don't give a shit about being called a nazi. That means nothing to me.

tbh fam, avoiding being called nazi is sort of pointless even if you are best goy jew defender matter of time before slander "you are evil nazi" appears.

better not to care about it, since you cannot prevent it.

Serrano is overrated and the only reason why it doesn't get contested is because very few people actually read up. Granted I've only read Avatar, but if I ctrl+f "In my book of NOS" or "In my book The Golden Band" or "My maestro said", I'd get 20 or more hits on each. The liberties he takes with the archetypal stories applying to Hitler are very great as well. He reels you in by saying one needs to have complete faith in him, then goes on to selectively apply ancient religious texts as he sees fit. Or, more probably, where his cult leader saw fit. To me it's clear that Serrano was in a cult for Hitler, run by a guy that would be feeding them what they wanted to hear. It's possibly, but I doubt that Serrano's master astrally projected to Germany and talked to Hitler. However if you drank his kool-aid you would believe everything that this guy would say about Esoteric Hitlerism.

What I don't disagree with is that there was alot of research into ancient history done by Nazi Germany and alot of that research was destroyed. I don't agree the conclusions that Serrano got to using what information available because of how religious, or cultish, it is.

Wait, what? I apparently have no idea what traditionalism is.


A lot of philosophy is crap, but our thoughts aren't just random and divorced from reality.

That is how an esoteric order works.

The Jewish myth is a copy of the crucifixion of Odin on Yggdrasil, substituting the name of the Jewish god.


No, Serrano.

SHUT UP YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT YOU… YOU….

NADZI! YOU FUCKING NADZI! CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE!

I don't understand a single word that has been posted in this entire thread.

It really is all over the place.

Then I'll pass on Serrano's esoteric order. I enjoyed reading him, but that's partly because this topic is so starved of things to read. I'm not going to blindly follow Serrano's master, since that's who really was the guiding factor of his books. My feeling is that this person was at the right place in the right time and capitalized on people who really wanted someone to tell them some hard truths. Like I said, it's possible that this guy was receiving information via astral projection from Germany, but I wasn't there so I can't take what he has to say for granted. So for someone like me, I get more out of Evola than Serrano.

But how could he have know of Yoga before all the gurus came to the US? And even if he'd known an advanced yogi, advanced chakra theory (i.e. more that just the knowledge of the seven centers thmeselves) is and was by no means wide-spread.


Yes, and in Evola's case it's highly ironic, because of his highly pessimistic outlook to begin with. Things have gone so bad that even one of the grandmasters of decadence theory could not foresee that deep a fall!


That's not true. I read "Ruins", "Tiger" and the one about the ars regia. Now if you ask me if I have understood everything, that would be another matter…

No. It's not a comprehensive definition - there is more to the spirit than that - but "quality of soul" ("quality" understood in the, well, qualitative sense, not as in "grade") definitely is an aspect, and Evola and other writers also use the term in that sense. For example in the phrase "the spirit of the race".


I can only repeat: fuck off with your unfounded arrogance. I gave you a direct definition of one aspect of the term "spirit" above as used by esoteric authors, and the only thing preventing me from destroying you completely is my lazyness to look up specific examples including page numbers from my library. Now fuck off, kiddo.


Fuck right off with your Churchlandian bullshit.

I wouldn't mind if your post made it into quints.

Thanks fam.

No, it isn't. You don't understand stand what "soul" or "spirit" mean.

And even the fact that you belive a comprehensive definition of spirit is possible shows you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Git good scrub.

Look, you can drone on and on and on like a petulant child, but before you don't offer an actual argument this will go nowhere. Put out or be silent.

yeah, before christianity even came into contact with nordic pagans

Those who know they are deep strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem deep to the crowd strive for obscurity. For the crowd takes everything whose ground it cannot see to be deep: it is so timid and so reluctant to go into the water.

Already made my argument, scrub. My argument is that you are an ignorant pleb with pretensions of being som intellectual elite because you have read a couple of books that you have not comprehended. My argument is that you write about topics you don't understand and try to maintain an air of depth and quality that is only a cover for shallowness.

Filthy casuals, I tell ya.

Not even that guy but


lol'd

Opinions on Iron Pill?

The reason why Evola and others of his kind will never matter, is that the racial worldview is our present worldview purified of foreign and weak elements.

Nothing more.

Start a thread.


You mean Social Darwinism.

I didn't need to elaborate on it because I wasn't the one full of shit. To be brief, spirit cannot be described as "quality of the soul" because it is superior to the soul.

Pretty good pill, but deserves its own thread. Read a couple of ironpill books, bretty good. You can defend interests of your nation and ethnicity without leaving any opening to "omg such a racist xDD" from liberals

evola is an antifa cuck

No, broader.

So, how many Evolian races are there in Europe?

Body; Mediterranean, Nordic, Baltic, Slavic.
Spirit; Nordic, Mediterranean, Baltic, Slavic
Soul; (just) Olympian

Lets talk about soul some more.
What's the deal with British? They're very different from continental Europeans. Germans are a distinct group from general "nordic" classification, too. Are French Mediterranean?

Evola can't be 100% racial because he is openly anti-materialistic. Since race is determined 100% materialistically, going that way he would cancel his own views.

Therefore there needs to be a non materialistic part determining behaviour of an individual asides from material part (body and its race)

It's not that hard

You mean more vague.

He was also Sicilian.

British are Aryan in body but Jewish in soul.

yeah ii'll give this a bump

There is a Celtic spiritual race as well I'd say.

>>>/reddit/

this

The body and the soul are actually connected. You cannot "transcend" race. All races can improve their current condition but there is no substitute for pure Aryan bloodlines when it comes to reflecting the divine.

By the way, physical health matters a lot too.