What is the Traditionalist opinion on Napoleon? Did Guénon or Evola ever talk about Napoleon from a traditionalist perspective?
What is the Traditionalist opinion on Napoleon?
What is the Traditionalist opinion on Napoleon? Did Guénon or Evola ever talk about Napoleon from a traditionalist perspective?
Proved herding European cats isn't worth the trouble, but underscored the Nietzschean necessity to bury the internecine hatchet or else squander an Atlantean position vis-a-vis the ''late comers'.
That looks a really interesting book thanks anon
>sphinx on the cover
Why does all schizo esoteric (and "esoteric" is basically a synonym for schizo) shit always go back to Egypt
Esotericists and occultists still like to pretend like the hieroglyphs have not been deciphered to ascribe to them spooky, hidden, secret meanings.
Egypt has a lot of mystery behind it (pyramids are probably the best example).
Because many pagan and occult practices throughout the world have roots in the ancient Egyptian empires. I am sure that religious connections are “schizo” in your eyes though…
>ancient Greeks openly admit that their civilization is like a child compared to egypt and learned from them
Gee, I dunno.
Wagner already wrote about him from a Traditionalist perspective. Napoleon was an early activation of the technological and warring forces of modernity. A great individuality, but completely opposed to tradition.
>That which gives to man the superhuman strength to suffer voluntarily, must itself be felt by him already as a profoundly inward happiness, incognisable by any other, a happiness quote incommunicable to the world except through outer suffering: it must be the measurelessly lofty joy of world-overcoming, compared wherewith the empty pleasure of the world-conqueror seems downright null and childish.
>The world’s benefactor outranks the world’s conqueror!
Wagner isn’t a Traditionalist tho
Not in the Guenonian sense
Lol that would be another good thread idea
What did Guénon think of Wagner
What book is this?
Warte Schwabing, Schwabing warte:
Dich holt Jesus Bonaparte!
What’s this in reference to?
Die Proklamationen (1904)
What’s the book about?
I find traditionalism laughable. They say they like all civilized traditions but history shows that China was founded by emigrating Hindu kshattryas who didn't follow the religious laws of Hinduism and in a reaction against the customs of their fatherland created a patriarchal state. So if China was never traditionalist then who has ever followed a real tradition. Isn't the ability to mantain a tradition more important than uselessly abiding to a tradition that has become entirely outdated?
Are you referring to Buddhism here?
>China was founded by emigrating Hindu kshattryas who didn't follow the religious laws of Hinduism
No, this is the foundation of China. This ancient state was founded by kshattryas who passed the Eastern Himalayas from the South to conquer these then completely desert (as in savage) areas.
Now while the conquests of the Kshattryas were always bellic, during the expansionist era of Hinduism, the conquests done by the Brahmins were entirely different and far more successful. These enlightened Aryans would build a hermitage in the middle of the jungle, places full of wild beasts and the most formidable reptiles, read the vedas and dedicate themselves to meditation. When a savage came up, he could beat him, kill him, the Brahmin stood there in his meditative pose without defending himself. Ten brahmins ran up to dispute themselves the hermitage and a new successor continued the completely non-violent conquest. This is how the entire peninsula of India became Hindu.
Now the Kshattryas have always been less attached to Hinduism than the Brahmins, and the Kshattryas who passed the Himalaya from the South to conquer China soon declared independance from the home country and created a patriarchal state of China in a reaction against Hinduism. This is how the first Chinese state happened, and it's organization was inherently feudal. Among Saxons and Dravidians, there is a tribe named the CHINAS who were all expelled from the territory of India for disobeying the sacred hindu religious laws, "WETHER THEY SPEAK THE LANGUAGE OF ARYAS OR THAT OF MLECCHA".
Do you know about the Chinese pyramids that are being hidden?
>No, this is the foundation of China. This ancient state was founded by kshattryas who passed the Eastern Himalayas from the South to conquer these then completely desert (as in savage) areas.
Source or I call bullshit
Pgs. 266
[...] codes, it was the superiority of one caste over all others, and to be logical, the very organization of the castes. Moreover, like the Egyptians, they had left the bulk of the Aryan nations at a time when perhaps Brahmanism itself had not yet fully developed its principles. There is therefore nothing in China that is directly related to the social system of the Hindus; however, while positive relationships are lacking, the negative ones are not on the same report. Some special cases give rise to rather curious approximations.
When, because of theological disagreements, the Zoroastrian nations separated from their parents, they showed them a hatred which manifested itself in the attribution of the venerated names of the Brahmin gods to evil spirits and other similar violent forces. China's khattryas, already [...], seem to have looked at things from a måle rather than a feminine aspect, political rather than a religious one, and from this point of view they have been as strongly opposed to Brahminism as the Zoroastrians. It was by overflowing with the most natural ideas that they manifested their horror against the brahminic hierarchy.
They did not want to admit any difference in [...]
Pgs. 267
[...] ranks, nor of pure or impure situations resulting from birth. They replaced the doctrine of their adversaries with absolute equality. However, as they were persecuted, in spite of themselves and by virtue of their [...] origin, by the indestructible idea of inequality annexed to [...], they conceived the peculiar idea of ennobled fathers by their children, instead of remaining faithful to the ancient notion of the illustration of children by the glory of their parents. It is impossible to see in this institution, which, according to the merit of a man, a number of descending generations, a system borrowed from the [...] peoples. It is nowhere in their home, except where Chinese civilization has imported it. Moreover, this oddity is repugnant to any thoughtful idea, and even if one puts oneself to the Chinese point of view, it is still absurd. Nobility is an honorable prerogative for those who possess it. If it is to adhere solely to merit, there is no need to create a separate rank in the state by forcing her to ascend or descend around the person who enjoys it. If, on the contrary, one is concerned with creating a sequel to it, a consequence extended to the family of the favoured man, it is not to his good-bye that it should be applied, since they cannot enjoy it. Another very strong reason: there is no kind of advantage, for the one who
[...]
Pgs. 268
[...] [...] Lets not search then, consequently, in the Chinese idea what it has the air to, but an opposition to the brahminic laws that the immigrating kschattryas wanted to combat. This fact becomes even more uncontestable, that next to this fictitious nobility, the Chinese could not stop the developpment of another aristocracy that was based on descendance. [...]
What book is this from?
this is complete bullshit you won't even post what source this is
> and the Kshattryas who passed the Himalaya from the South to conquer China soon declared independance from the home country and created a patriarchal state of China in a reaction against Hinduism. This is how the first Chinese state happened
all of this is contradicted by archaeological, linguistic and genetic evidence
Evola has made some passing references to Napoleon. Basically, he sees him as an anti-traditional figure, a subversive revolutionary. His authority is rooted in democratic popularity, not in tradition. This is why he was such a lover of plebiscites.
You have never read the Traditionalist School and you've also probably never read a history book either.
It would've been more virile if he had reigned as an Emperor as well, and had actually asserted his divine right to rule. That is, after all, what all other great conquerors in history did. All except for him.
> ou have never read the Traditionalist School and you've also probably never read a history book either
And I don't see any reason to read it either. When tradition is something made to oppress people like me then why shouldn't I reject it? I find traditionalism uselessly moralizing, it pretends that one should follow a tradition simply to follow a tradition. I find it more important to have the ability of independant thought, and the ability of creating and realizing ideas oneself and abiding to them when they are either useful or constructive, or positive, and reject them as soon as they become outdated. Not to follow them simply because they are traditions.
>I find traditionalism laughable
>No I haven't read anything about it
Any opinion you have on it is immediately worthless if you know nothing about it.
You pretend that I have no notion of tradition because I haven't read books about traditionalism. I won't read them because I entirely reject their over-emphasis of tradition. Tradition is supposed to be something humble yet unique to the ones who practice it. The tradition of serving a good whine together on a specific holiday. The tradition of serving a unique dish on this or that holiday. The tradition of visiting a monument on this or that date of the year.
>oppress people like me
u gay bro?
You should learn stop being so bracket minded. Years of news and populist media consumption have rotted your mind.
>I don't know what Traditionalism is
>but it's not worth the time and I hate it
Yeah, I'm guessing you're some kind of illiterate, resentful Indian Shudra? It's unfortunate that the British brought English to that subcontinent.
No. He was a cringe badass.
I'm a Western man, you idiot. But sure, go on with whatever 'tradition' you want to follow and abide to. Oh, I forgot, you guys have long broken with both your theological and feudal traditions, how unfortunate from the view of the Europeans who have always been capitalistic and Republican.
>I'm a Western man
>you guys have long broken with both your theological and feudal traditions
>you guys
Yeah, I mean the Britfarts, the Frenchgays, the Spanshits, the Germcucks and the Skanfaps.
>Yeah I mean
>Names every Western nation
Lol, you stupid illiterate moron, I just named the most moronic and degenerated ones. I'm not even generalizing, but certainly their troon Blackphiliac governmental classes. But if that's your tradition go on.
You gotta be trolling. Anyway, cope and seethe, and may your class (and race!) resentment bring you whatever comfort it can in the absence of the light of tradition. It must be hard being a secularist Shudra chauvinist.
Lol, you absolute moron. Just admit you seethed when the topic of feudalism got brought up. Just keep not talking about it and reject any reasonable discussion about the longest period of Western Europe.
What about feudalism? You've said nothing about it besides "it's over". What an incisive observation! You should write a book about it, I bet no one's ever realised this before! Are you moronic, anon?
You said you are a traditionalist. So, as a, I assume, French/British/German/Skandinavian European, why don't you praise the greatness of feudalism? If not, what tradition do you want to return to exactly?
See, if you had actually read and understood the Traditionalist School, you would know that Primordial Tradition is a spiritual reality that can take many forms. So I do not want to "return" to any "tradition". I want to live by Tradition, the universal centre. If the issue was returning to a simple historical form, I don't need to "return". I am already there, since I am a Neoplatonist. If you don't know what that is, it's kind of like the Advaita Vedanta of your Brahmin overlords.
Feudalism was great, by the way. It was a time made by and for men of character, unafraid of death, sacrifice and heroism. Values that are utterly languishing today, which world society tries to replace with simple consumer products.
Well than we might be philosophically closer to each other than I previously thought. I abide not to the Primordial Tradition but to something I do still not have a name for. Liberty, independance, autonomy, spirituality, but the refinement and adjustment of a philosophy is a daily task and abiding to what the ancestors said does not suffice.
Traditionalism isn't just about what some guy said, anon. It's about a transmission of wisdom. People spend their whole lives labouring and trying to understand the spiritual element. This is not something that everyone can do, and it is no creative writing exercise.
Well, as a student of Rousseau, I'm more in favour of the idea of letting the half-growns develop themselves without teaching them much until they are like 16. Not trying to brainwash them with some tradition. As you can see, I'm not quite the Traditionalist.
You seem fundamentally incapable of understanding what traditionalism is. Oh well, a fundamental part of traditionalism is that some people are literally incapable of understanding it and shouldn't be taught about it.
Fine, if we go by the basic premise of traditionalism it must be either accepted or rejected.
> the theory that all moral and religious truth comes from divine revelation passed on by tradition, human reason being incapable of attaining it.
Precisely I believe there's a God attained through reason, Dewas, and the God attained in trance and compassionate drunkenness, Al'. As a European my religion is that of Dewas, the God attained through reason.
> I do not want to "return" to any "tradition". I want to live by Tradition, the universal centre. If the issue was returning to a simple historical form, I don't need to "return". I am already there, since I am a Neoplatonist.
You're supposed to be initiated tho
feudalism is not over
refer to monarchies world over
btw anon I subscribe to your Liberty qualia of your philosophy, good shout, something which I forget as a schizo, slag as you will, I'm audi
You have zero idea what "Traditionalist" even entails, seemingly thinking that it really has no difference with lowercase t traditions in the vaguest sense, or for some reason viewing it from a purely materialistic and political angle. Why are you even posting, if not solely to disrupt what would be an otherwise productive thread?
>Did Guénon or Evola ever talk about Napoleon from a traditionalist perspective?
Yes, Evola talks about him a bunch.
Long story short, because he was a product of the French Revolution, despite being based, he was bound to carry those lower elements with him.
Thus, Evola shills Metternich as the superior alternative.
I think there's a chapter in the latter part of Revolt Against the Modern World on this.
There's a chapter in Men Among the Ruins on Bonapartism.
Cope and seethe
>Cope and seethe
that's literally his position
have a nice day pseud
Lol Napoleon was le heckin based
Ne has constructed modern Europe while at the same time restaurating conservative values
A true social and political master genius
The French Revolution was not 100% wrong. The fact that it went overboard and quickly became cancer doesn’t mean the aristocracy wasn’t a debt-ridden tumor which was staffing officers based on connections rather than merit. The reason Napoleon pummeled his opponent in Europe is in part because they had the very model of a modern major general method of selecting their officers, whereas Napoleon preferred elevating actual talent. Napoleon in essence stood for the salient points of the revolution while also curbstomping its cancer
History knows no wrong or right, good or bad. Only the victor and the vanquished. Everything without exception is downstream from the fundamental relation between the two.
You haven’t read Guénon
Based. Pro-nobility simps eternally seething at the French Revolution are hilarious and cringe
The crimes of the 18th Century will not be forgotten
The French revolution was possible only because the richest noble in France backed it. The aristocracy started it all in the first place.
And what’s even funnier is the hereditary titles and “good families” originated from wartime merit and aiding a certain king in battle. Napoleon represented a return to this ancient form of meritocracy.
there's a chapter on bonapartism in men among the ruins
Was Evola essentially mimicking Spengler’s Caesarism concept here?
Traditionalism is stupid and a waste of time. I wish I could make my younger self realize this as well as all of you.
What makes you say that?
Obviously, due to his background in the revolution a lot of them have an ultimately negative opinion of the man. It's probably my main breaking point with them actually, a Man taking advantage of the times to declare himself emperor and reorient change around himself is as far as I am concerned the most virile thing to happen in Monarchism since Charlemange built his Empire.
but was he based?
Not trad enough for trads and not revolutionary enough for marxists.
That’s actually a good point
https://
discord
gg/yNnD5n7y
Read Leon Bloy