The "traditionalist" movement and its philosophers

I agree, retarded christcucks are also an issue.

Churches are a problem, Christians themselves aren't.
>t. Christian

Yeah, sure. Nietzsche is a vitally important philosopher though. Evola is meh-tier for the most part, but a meme, so people tolerate him more than they should. Hegel was brilliant. I haven't read Guenon.

Nietzsche was following the doctrines of Hegel and (((Feuerbach))) before that, as did Marx.
One of my main quarrels with him is that he says to reject "slave morality" and to have us achieve a state of a superman, while acknowledging that man is still but a part of nature via his Darwinism and doesn't have a birthright to be above nature and the duty to protect nature.

>One of my main quarrels with him is that he says to reject "slave morality" and to have us achieve a state of a superman, while acknowledging that man is still but a part of nature via his Darwinism and doesn't have a birthright to be above nature and the duty to protect nature.
Explain.

It's pretty clear that Nietzsche was a Darwinist. He thought that man's greatness was achieved by them being a part of nature and that the Superman/Ubermensch can be achieved by eugenical means, he puts no rights of man above nature, while calling out Christianity for "slave morality".

So what's the problem?

That he's saying Christianity (a belief that affirms man's rights over nature and its duty to protect it) is slave morality compared to believing man is just a part of nature just because of the fact that there's a supreme being above man.

That's not why he says it's slave morality. Christianity is slave morality because it was literally the religion of the slaves, and those who suffered during the Roman Empire.

He said that it promotes a slave morality as a faith.

Yeah, exactly. It promotes the morality of the Roman slave as the ultimate good. It's literally Marxism for the ancient world.

Yes, Roman slaves were Christians. Does it mean that Christianity promotes a slave morality? No it doesn't. It literally spread among even the barbarians and Roman freemen.

Many Roman slaves were Christians, rather.

>Yes, Roman slaves were Christians. Does it mean that Christianity promotes a slave morality? No it doesn't.
That's not why it promotes a slave morality. It promotes a slave morality because it is the religion of the slave. It is basically a huge cope for slaves.

>That's not why it promotes a slave morality
>It promotes slave morality because slaves were Christians
What a joke. Again, not all early Christians were slaves. Not all were Roman, in-fact. Some were Persian, Caucasian, they even evangelised in the barbarian territories near Ukraine.

It's like saying if mostly slaves started to believe in the Nietzschean master morality, that his philosophy is "slave morality" as the slaves want to achieve his vision.

It is the religion of the slave, in order for the slave to cope with his life being harder than the master's, and in order for him to eventually become the master, which he did.

>It's like saying if mostly slaves started to believe in the Nietzschean master morality, that his philosophy is "slave morality" as the slaves want to achieve his vision.
Nietzsche's master morality refers to the morality of the aristocrat. It's literally that simple.

My argument has nothing to do with slaves believing in Christianity. My argument is that Christianity was a religion designed for the slave.

>>NEETzsche was a disciple of Hegel like Marx was
Look at this limp wristed fag, he thinks Nietzsche is Traditional in any sense. You are just throwing out names after reading some wiki article.
>>Evola was an anti-European scum who said Jews can be spiritually Aryan and vice-versa, and criticised the NSDAP and racialism for being "materialist"
Yes - because materialism has a set definition that applies to the NSDAP policies. And materialism is very much anti-Traditional. If you are a materialist yourself, you have no business commenting on these things.

Alt-kike needs to suck jewish dicks, after all.

>in order for the slave to cope with his life being harder than the master's
More-so poor people in general under a ruler (who is the "master" in this case), barely about slaves.
>Nietzsche's master morality refers to the morality of the aristocrat
The morality of the aristocrat is weakness. Aristocracy is faggotry. When I first thought of the "master morality", I thought of one that has actual control and who can project force, which is what the Bible says for man (having control over nature and a duty to protect it).

>Aristocracy is faggotry.
Only someone in the thralls of slave morality would think that.
Hence why a lot of cuckservatives today are BASED libertarian christcucks.

>this limp wristed fag
Says the cheesenigger.
>he thinks Nietzsche is Traditional in any sense
He had a similar view on the classical world that Evola did.
>Yes - because materialism has a set definition that applies to the NSDAP policies
Evola was literally saying the NSDAP was materialist because they cared about fleshly race, while saying that Jews can have Aryan souls and vice-versa.

No, I think that. Aristocracy is faggotry. A true "master" is a strong ruler that can project force.
>Hence why a lot of cuckservatives today are BASED libertarian christcucks.
Christianity and Libertarianism are incompatible.

>A true "master" is a strong ruler that can project force.
That's what an aristocrat is.
>Christianity and Libertarianism are incompatible.
why?

>That's what an aristocrat is.
No, aristocracies aren't that. An example of an aristocracy is the Roman republic, which didn't have any such "master" unless they were at war.
>why?
Christianity is inherently collectivist. We're all sinners because of Adam, a patriarch, and we have no involvement in that. A man can be cursed and his entire bloodline/tribe would inherit that curse.
Libertarians believe inherently in individualism and that all men are created equal, which is all wrong and incompatible from a Christian standpoint.

ok, whatever.
I don't think we're even talking about the same thing anymore. There are a lot of Nietzschean christcucks, and in it's most beautiful form, Christcuckery is Nietzscheanism. Unfortunately, that's due to biology and not the actual ideas of Christianity.

How so? Are you implying that I'm a "Nietzschean Christian"?

Jew-worshiper from Georgia rushing to the defense of his Jew religion.
How does the Jew-worshiper deal with these statistics?

Attached: 1550431300057.jpg (972x1024, 115K)

you don't seem like a christcuck, I'll give you that at least

>advertising your own thread
Fuck off. I've already talked to you about this yesterday, and you literally responded with answers as asinine as "w-well those forms of Christianity are just pagan like Arianism".

I am sorry but I see no problem with this idea. A quick trip to America will prove it so. Many people who may have the right genetics but have the soul/spirit of the Jew. Life is nothing to them but a game of who can horde the most material wealth. Its disgusting

They may "act like Jews" by their obsession with merchantry (something common most among Anglo people), but they're not of a Jewish spirit. Neither can a Jew have an Aryan spirit.

Well, it's simply a fact that Libertarianism as an individualist philosophy is simply incompatible. American Boomers are misguided in that they view the American revolution and the Constitution as pro-Christian in the first place, let alone their Zionism and rabid neoconservatism.

>live as a jew
>work as a jew
>worship as a jew
but no seriously guys they have the soul of an Aryan
Poppycock. Evola is correct that during the Kali Yuga when things have become mixed you can have a mismatch between the blood and the geist.
That was why he found fault with the 3rd Reich and their insistence on blood over spirit. One should always move toward the transcendent. Although from what I remember he did see great potential in the SS to form a new order of elite knights. Shame it never came to pass

Yes, I'm familiar with your argument tactic of not actually having any rebuttals and just getting mad.

I also remember you nuking yourself by linking a book on Yahweh and Asherah which I was already familiar with that proved the cult of Yahweh was invented millennia after your supposed Moses/Exodus event that never happened. You actually tried using that information as "proof" that Exodus actually occurred (LOL!). You then you flipped the panic switch because you realized you had accidentally proven yourself wrong and parted the curtain on Judaism/Christianity being total LARP based upon Mesopotamian paganism.

For interested lurkers:
books.google.com/books?id=F-nUGHehMPEC&lpg=PP1&dq=The cult of Asherah in ancient Israel and Judah: evidence for a Hebrew goddess&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false
amazon.com/Gods-Goddesses-Images-Ancient-Israel/dp/080062789X
penn.museum/documents/publications/expedition/pdfs/20-4/meshel.pdf

It turns out "Yahweh" was a cult invented by a tribe called the Midians living in modern day Saudi Arabia that was imported into ancient Israel via the copper trade. Ancient Hebrews were both polytheistic and Canaanite in origin. Yahweh literally had a wife named Asherah that was worshiped by ancient Jews until as late as 200 BCE. Rabbi Yeshua bar Yosef never commented on any of this, implying he didn't know, which also implies lack of divinity.

Attached: The wife of Yahweh, Asherah.jpg (384x696, 25K)

The real interest in Christianity, at least for me, has been the metaphysics of the trinity. It provides a method of how you have God and a world of being interact with this world.
Naturally all of this was developed in Europe by people who already had some concept of a trinity. You can find it with Wotan and you can also find it in Hindu texts. People will say they are not the same but it seems clear, at least to me, that the idea of a trinity was already circulating in the indo-european world and was finally flushed out after the conversion of Christianity.
Without the infusion of Hellenic philosophy the cult of Yahweh would have gone nowhere.

>Yes, I'm familiar with your argument tactic of not actually having any rebuttals and just getting mad.
I literally linked scholarly sources.
>I also remember you nuking yourself by linking a book on Yahweh and Asherah which I was already familiar with that proved the cult of Yahweh was invented millennia after your supposed Moses/Exodus event that never happened.
>You then you flipped the panic switch because you realized you had accidentally proven yourself wrong and parted the curtain on Judaism/Christianity being total LARP based upon Mesopotamian paganism.
No I didn't. Yes, Asherah WAS worshipped in post-split Israel, and it LITERALLY SAYS SO IN THE BIBLE, but it wasn't always worshipped. Why do you think Elijah tried to stop Jezebel? Because she promoted the worship of Asherah and Baal, while Elijah taught to worship God alone.
openbible.info/topics/asherah
All mentions of Asherah date to the same time it's dated to according to your sources, that would be after the split of the United Monarchy. It all implies an apostasy from prior monotheism however, not that they always worshipped Asherah.
>You actually tried using that information as "proof" that Exodus actually occurred (LOL!).
I showed archaeological evidence of the Israelite activity in Midian/Saudi Arabia completely separate from the books I linked.
>It turns out "Yahweh" was a cult invented by a tribe called the Midians living in modern day Saudi Arabia that was imported into ancient Israel via the copper trade
It's almost like that's where Exodus took place.
>Yahweh literally had a wife named Asherah that was worshiped by ancient Jews until as late as 200 BCE. Rabbi Yeshua bar Yosef never commented on any of this, implying he didn't know, which also implies lack of divinity.
Again, Asherah worship was an apostasy mentioned in Kings and before that, Judges. It wasn't the standard.

Agreed, all of it reads like Jewish, and masonic propaganda.

>>Rene Guenon was a freemason
Source?

>Exceptions do not alter the rule
>the biological element must be used as the first criterion of discrimination
>a difficulty [in calling a Jew spiritually Aryan] would only arise if it could be demonstrated that, in the ancestors of the type in question, down to the most remote generations, no racial mixing occurred
>since this can't be demonstrated the Aryan soul of a Jew could still be considered as a reappearance of exogenous ancestral characteristics
Did you even read this? Because if you did you clearly didn't understand it.
And besides, there were decorated Jewish war veterans in WW1 and Jews serving the Third Reich in various roles, wasn't one a field marshal? Look up the Nuremburg Laws, the Nazis were far less strict on what constituted a Jew than we're led to believe, and some functioned well even in important roles.

>Evola was even more right-wing than the NatSocs
>therefore Evola wasn't pro-European
More retardation

>Without the infusion of Hellenic philosophy the cult of Yahweh would have gone nowhere.
If you want to see something of what this might have looked like visit the Southern Israelite YouTube channel. He rejects Christianity as neo-Platonism and holds to a materialistic and literalist reading of the Bible. He's fairly unique.

>Source?
freemasoncollection.com/3-PORTRAITS-OF-FAMOUS-MASONS/rene-guenon-dessin-portraits-of-famous-masons.php
>Did you even read this? Because if you did you clearly didn't understand it.
He just said that it could be a biological element, but that a Jew could have an Aryan soul.
>Nuremberg laws
Even quarter Jews weren't considered Aryan.
>>Evola was even more right-wing than the NatSocs
He literally called out the NSDAP for being too materialist for being fixated on race.

>can be spiritually aryan
>jews

Nazis allowed people who were 1/4 Jewish 3/4 german to be considered german so the hollywoo meme about the puritanistic germans is overblown

>Evola said Jews could be Aryan
He also said that this sort of thing is so absurdly rare in "Revolt" that for all intents and purposes that race of the spirit and soul almost always match up, so frequently so that one should think of the two as hand-in-hand

>Evola hated the Reich
Are you even trying anymore, user? He clearly hated the Reich, which is why he was friends with Himmler and tried joining the SS, right?

Have you got anything that actually proves he was an initiated member of Masonry? All that says is
> Very influential figure in the domain
of metaphysics, sacred science, traditional studies, symbolism and initiation.
Which is all true, Masons read his books, this doesn't prove he himself was a Mason. So far as I knew as with Evola he was very critical of them.
>He just said that it could be a biological element, but that a Jew could have an Aryan soul.
Thanks to Aryan admixture in their bloodline reappearing and re-manifesting in them.
>He literally called out the NSDAP for being too materialist for being fixated on race.
What do you expect? He wasn't a materialist, he believed in the importance of race and blood as per the world of Tradition but placed a total emphasis on that which was higher and transcended the material world, he believed the state was ordained from above whereas the Nazis believed it rose up from below. If you're a materialist then I understand that you think that's all nonsense but it's hardly a criticism of whether he was "pro-European" enough, it's a genuine difference in worldview, and if anything Evola's view is the more aristocratic and the more in line with the Traditional view.

Did he try to join? I thought he just gave some speeches and had some conflicts regarding the primacy of Nazi's biological reductionism.

but guénon explicitly said free masonry degenerated into a non-traditionalist cult so there was no point in being a freemason

>Have you got anything that actually proves he was an initiated member of Masonry?
It wouldn't be on the list of famous freemasons then.
> Rene Guénon had a lifelong preoccupation with Freemasonry. In his search for an operative initiatic path in the Western world, he explored many groups-occult, neo-Gnostic, Theosophical-claiming to be initiatory, ultimately rejecting them all, with the single exception of the Craft.
Rejected all initiatory societies except freemasonry according to this source.
>Thanks to Aryan admixture in their bloodline reappearing and re-manifesting in them.
So, the more mixed a Jew is with whites the better? The more mongrelised they are (even though they already are mongrelised) the better?
>He wasn't a materialist, he believed in the importance of race and blood as per the world of Tradition but placed a total emphasis on that which was higher and transcended the material world
I wouldn't consider myself a full-on materialist, but I'm not an militant anti-materialist like Evola was, and neither is racialism itself like the NSDAP ordained materialistic. If so, believing heredity is in the blood at all is materialistic, then I am materialistic. I'm checking out this channel: right now, seems good.

>Have you got anything that actually proves he was an initiated member of Masonry?
Jean-Claude Frere: Une Vie en Esprit, in Le Nouveau Planete, Rene Guenon: l'Homme et son Message 15 April 1970 p 12
Thebah Lodge, under the GLdF. So not a proper lodge under the GLNF, but pretty close.

>It wouldn't be on the list of famous freemasons then.
That's not really a criterion for membership.

I don't know anything about these people and I don't care. The concept of reading entire books written by someone philosophizing about random stuff is boring. Especially when I can do all the philosophizing I want myself in my own head. I don't need or want somebody to tell me how to live my life.

Going on about over-rated pop philosophers as Richard Spencer does is pretentious and self indulgent. It's also a waste of time. We have a war to fight.

>Rejected all initiatory societies except freemasonry according to this source.
>pic
It sounds complicated, I can't claim to know much about Freemasonry, but unless you've done a lot of research yourself and have read these books and studied his views you're doing little to actually discredit him. He does seem to have had a long relationship with them, but obviously was extremely critical and was primarily interested in what they were before degeneration. This is exactly what you'd expect from one of these Traditionalists.
>The more mongrelised they are (even though they already are mongrelised) the better?
Insofar as they want to manifest European features I suppose, I wouldn't recommend it though, certainly not for us. I think the point is that there can be Jewish men of a heroic character, IIRC Ernst Junger believed so and I'll happily take him as an authority.
>If so, believing heredity is in the blood at all is materialistic, then I am materialistic.
I think the main issue between Evola and the NSDAP was the belief that the Reich was founded on the volk, where for Evola the state must be founded on that which is above, as the volkish way is too much a 'mass' movement and therefore too populistic and chaotic, too easily reduced down to the material, and ultimately not founded on that which is eternal and true. It is founded on that which is contingent and in flux, and so is a movement of Becoming instead of Being and not truly Traditional.
I mean to read his book criticising them at some point, he seems to have had legitimate criticisms even if you disagree.
>I'm checking out this channel
He's well researched if nothing else, pretty funny and a bit of a prick, I'm not that interested in it as I'm not Christian. Would love to see him debate Jay Dyer, but Jay has ducked him for years.

forgot pic

Talk about wasting time, your entire comment.

Attached: Untitled.jpg (695x629, 364K)

He apparently believed that freemasonry was originally good, but was corrupted (something I consider untrue as all the way back to the Rosicrucians they were always sneaky occultists). And he was initiated into a lodge: >Insofar as they want to manifest European features I suppose, I wouldn't recommend it though, certainly not for us. I think the point is that there can be Jewish men of a heroic character, IIRC Ernst Junger believed so and I'll happily take him as an authority.
Even the Jews that were accepted into the Wehrmacht like Werner Goldberg (the "ideal German soldier") were still considered Jewish-like in the end.
>I think the main issue between Evola and the NSDAP was the belief that the Reich was founded on the volk, where for Evola the state must be founded on that which is above, as the volkish way is too much a 'mass' movement and therefore too populistic and chaotic, too easily reduced down to the material, and ultimately not founded on that which is eternal and true. It is founded on that which is contingent and in flux, and so is a movement of Becoming instead of Being and not truly Traditional.
So, essentially Evola was looking for the spiritual/metaphysical, while the NSDAP were looking into the blood.
>He's well researched if nothing else, pretty funny and a bit of a prick, I'm not that interested in it as I'm not Christian. Would love to see him debate Jay Dyer, but Jay has ducked him for years.
Alright, I've seen some of the Florien Geyer debate already right now, and he's doing pretty well. It seems well informed.