/lit/ - Literature

Julius Evola

>Now, the law in question also allows us to identify those cases in which homosexuality is understandable and ‘natural’: these are the cases in which the sex of two individuals is not very differentiated. Let us take, for example, a man who is only 55% ‘man’ and for the remainder ‘woman’. His natural counterpart will be a being who is 55% ‘woman’ and for the remainder ‘man’; but a being of this sort will hardly differ from a man, and since one must consider not just the external, physical sex but also (or even especially) the interior one, this being may well be physiologically male—and the same applies to a woman in a similar case. Such poorly differentiated ‘sexuations’ may be associated with the concept of a ‘third sex’, although these are clearly only extreme cases. This would explain the origin and foundation of the relations between homosexual men or between lesbians as ‘natural’ phenomena, deriving from a peculiar, congenital conformation and from the very same law that, when applied to a different conformation, leads to normal sexual relations. In these cases alone, there is little point in stigmatising homosexuality as a ‘corruption’ (since for beings such as those mentioned here so-called ‘natural’ relations would not be natural at all, but contrary to their nature). Likewise, it would be pointless to trust the efficacy of prophylactic measures or therapies, if one—quite reasonably—does not believe that such measures are capable of altering what in biology is referred to as the constitutional type, the individual’s congenital psycho-physical constitution.
The Bow and the Club, Chapter 3 'The Third Sex'

Interesting thread from 2018:
>>/lit/thread/S10911950

>>22996103
>get memed by /pol/ into reading Ride The Tiger
>An entire chapter is dedicated to his hatred of nationalism

>>22860660
Stop reposting this thread, monkey.

>>22813832
. . .

>Ok so life is one big test and when we die, 99.9% of us will be spiritually recycled, none of our conscious being will survive, it's oblivion for basically every being to have existed.
>except for 0.01% of people who manage to be deified
>but you need to be initiated, and nobody actually has any idea *when* exactly one has done enough to make it to the next life

What basis does Evola have for this belief?
Was it just to be excessively Elitist and to dunk on the idea of normal people having "immortal souls"?
Does it come from gnosticism? Or some kind of esoteric buddhist belief?
Why is the idea of deification/apotheosis mutually exclusive with metempsychosis?
What actually is the point of existence if it's all a big test practically nobody can pass, whilst only being provided with one chance?
Ironically, even though he wants to repudiate nihilism, no other thinker has made me feel as nihilistic as him, regarding this specific topic.

>>22760673
why is no one mentioning him?

>>22761825
>tries to refute picrel
lol ok

What should i know about this guy befire i start reading his works. Tell me the message he wants to convey..
Ride the Tiger
Men Among the Ruins
Revolt Against the Modern World
I want to know what i'm getting into, what is traditionalism exactly, etc...
Note : i'm an avid Stirner reader

Guenon admits in 'Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power' that in the case of Rome, the Roman Emperor, a Kshatriya, is also the Pontifex and above all Brahmins.
What we see in the West is the opposite historical development of India - the Brahmins have usurped the Kshatriyas' right to be the apex caste.

Tradcaths cope and seethe all you want but the Holy Roman Emperor is the real traditional apex of Western Civilization and the Pope and the Church ought to perish.

There is only Ghibelline Supremacy

>>22682373
All I know about this guy is that (iirc) Evola mentions some of his writings in Ride the Tiger.

>>22681888
He already wrote the theory... for some...

Does he have a pro-christian counterpart?

>>22588303
>>22589339
Freud is just very low-level occult knowledge.

What the fuck was he talking about?

Let's put together a comprehensive /lit/ list on what is required reading to become an Aryo-Roman.

I'll start:
>Complete works of Julius Evola
>Nietzsche
>Dante
>Virgil

>>22530950
This is just your slanderous view of the matter, actually. Allow me to try to maximally dumb down my original statement: if we take "natural" to mean primitive, as Sontag quite clearly implies and as many people affirm, then it is also truly natural for some people to be a different way, since to them it is natural to be eloquent, rational, ethical, moral, spiritual etc, in contrast to the animal nature and to pure bios. I don't think it's an exceptionally challenging concept to wrap your head around the idea of personal nature vs the biologistic-primitivistic view of nature ("mere nature") which, I should note, is very commonly known, especially on this board.
I suppose an even simpler way to explain it would be to say "do not reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator". Some people do not follow the path of inertia, but instead carry in them the drive to go beyond it. And those people will strive to excel in all things, including in speech, because it is in their nature to do so - quite contrary to the claim that it is "natural" for everyone to "have few verbal means".

>'It is most interesting to recognize the solidarity of this orientation with others which are perceptible in properly cultural spheres. Are not the so-called “neorealism” and other similar tendencies characterized precisely by their abusively presenting as “real” only those meanest, most miserable, equivocal, and often filthiest and vulgarest aspects of existence? While the remainder supposedly has nothing to do with what is authentic, sincere, and “real”?'
Recognitions, p.20

>>22528960
>'It is most interesting to recognize the solidarity of this orientation with others
which are perceptible in properly cultural spheres. Are not the so-called “neorealism”
27 and other similar tendencies characterized precisely by their abusively
presenting as “real” only those meanest, most miserable, equivocal, and often
filthiest and vulgarest aspects of existence? While the remainder supposedly has
nothing to do with what is authentic, sincere, and “real”?'
Recognitions, p.20

Would he and Guenon consider Taliban and Saudi Arabia to be traditional?

>>22481263
wrong.
there is only I M P E R I V M

What are your thoughts on him ?

What Evola books should I read if I’m only interested in hermeticism and alchemy, and not his retarded political opinions?