Interesting Architecture ancient and modern

Kapis wrote:

in the end he was the last King who felt the sacred duty to be in service of his peoples..and everything he did, good or bad, was for the people, to uplift his people and the country. There is only one justification for a royal house, and that's if they are in service for ALL people under their rule and to protect the prosperity of the country.
Exactly like evolas outlook

Not quite, Evola believed in a spiritual monarchy presiding over an imperial order. Evola stood in contrast to the principle of Absolutism (Fascism), both of whom derived their legitimacy from the people. Friedrich was not only a fan of Luis the SUNKING, he built Sans Souci as a homage. Friedrich derived his power directly from the people just like Hitler did. I hope you are not calling me a fascist now because I was explaining Friedrichs self-conception as the Monarch of Prussia. I would think Friedrich was doing better than Hitler..or was he just as bad...but than, England had it's own Monarchs...you know what I mean.

If you look at politicians and the merchant class today...they are only a selfserving class and they don't give a fuck about the people and their nations, even Royals today act like treasonous scum while these classes pretend to be humanists and oh so charitable.
Exactly like evolas outlook

Believe me, our epoch is much much worse than the Dark Age ever was and it is not the peoples of the past, but the present ones we have to thank for this...and it is only us who can stop total destruction.

Exactly like evolas output, that is why the UR group was formed , the attempt to reverse total destruction by using will to act on the world through expressions

No not quite, I told you already that he was an ardent fan of a united Europe the same way as we got it run today....so he would be quite happy don't you think? I am not a fan of the E.U. at all.

"The conservative revolution must emerge as a predominantly spiritual phenomenon"

"The conservative revolution must emerge as a predominantly spiritual phenomenon"

Despite his criticism of the demagogic and populist aspects of Fascism and National Socialism, Evola believed that under their aegis Italy and Germany had turned away from liberalism and communism and provided the basis for a return to aristocracy, the restoration of the castes and the renewal of a social order based on Tradition and the transcendent. Even after their defeat in World War II, Evola believed that the fight was not over, although he became increasingly discouraged and embittered in the decades after the war. (Pain from a crippling injury suffered in an air raid may have contributed to this feeling.)
Although Evola believed that the transcendent was essential for a true revival, he did not look to the Catholic Church for leadership. Men Among the Ruins was published in 1953, when the official position of the Church was still strongly anti-Communist and Evola had lived through the 1920s and 1930s when the Vatican signed the Concordat with Mussolini. So his analysis of the Church, modified but not changed for the second edition in 1967, is impressive as is his prediction that the Church would move to the left.

After the times of De Maistre, Bonald, Donoso Cortés, and the Syllabus have passed, Catholicism has been characterized by political maneuvering . . . Inevitably, the Church’s sympathies must gravitate toward a democratic-liberal political system. Moreover, Catholicism had for a long time espoused the theory of ‘natural right,’ which hardly agrees with the positive and differentiated right, on which a strong and hierarchical State can be built . . . Militant Catholics like Maritain had revived Bergson’s formula according to which ‘democracy is essentially evangelical’; they tried to demonstrate that the democratic impulse in history appears as a temporal manifestation of the authentic Christian and Catholic spirit . . . By now, the categorical condemnations of modernism and progressivism are a thing of the past . . . When today’s Catholics reject the ‘medieval residues’ of their tradition; when Vatican II and its implementations have pushed for debilitating forms of ‘bringing things up to date’; when popes uphold the United Nations (a ridiculous hybrid and illegitimate organization) practically as the prefiguration of a future Christian ecumene – this leaves no doubt in which direction the Church is being dragged. All things considered, Catholicism’s capability of providing an adequate support for a revolutionary-conservative and traditionalist movement must be resolutely denied.28

Although his 1967 analysis mentions Vatican II, Evola’s position on the Catholic Church went back to the 1920’s, when after his early Dadaism he was developing a philosophy based on the traditions of India, the Far East and ancient Rome under the influence of Arturo Reghini (1878-1946). Reghini introduced Evola to Guénon’s ideas on Tradition and his own thinking on Roman “Pagan Imperialism” as an alternative to the Twentieth Century’s democratic ideals and plutocratic reality.29 Working with a leading Fascist ideologue, Giuseppe Bottai (1895-1959), Evola wrote a series of articles in Bottai’s Critica Fascista in 1926-27, praising the Roman Empire as a synthesis of the sacred and the regal, an aristocratic and hierarchical system under a true leader.30 Evola rejected the Catholic Church as a source of religion and morality independent of the state, because he saw its universalistic claims as compatible with and tending toward liberal egalitarianism and humanitarianism, despite its anti-Communist rhetoric.31
Evola’s articles enjoyed a national succès de scandale and he expanded them into a book, Imperialismo Pagano (1928), which provoked a heated debate involving many Fascist and Catholic intellectuals, including, significantly, Giovanni Battista Montini (1897-1978), who, when Evola published the second edition of Men Among the Ruins in 1967, had become the liberal Pope Paul VI. Meanwhile, Mussolini was negotiating with Pope Pius XI (1857-1939) for a reconciliation in which the Church would give its blessings to his regime in return for protection of its property and official recognition as the religion of Italy. Italy had been united by the Piedmontese conquest of Papal Rome in 1870 and the Popes had never recognized the new regime. So Evola wrote in 1928, “Every Italian and every Fascist should remember that the King of Italy is still considered a usurper by the Vatican.” The signing of the Vatican Accords on February 11, 1929, ended that situation and the debate. Even Reghini and Bottai turned against Evola.
Evola later regretted the tone of his polemic, but he also pointed out that the fact that this debate took place gave the lie direct to extreme assertions about lack of freedom of speech in Fascist Italy. Evola has been vindicated on the main point. The Catholic Church accepts liberal democracy and even defends it as the only legitimate regime. Notre Dame University is not the only Catholic university with a Jacques Maritain Center, but neither Notre Dame nor any other Catholic university in America has a Center named after Joseph de Maistre or Louis de Bonald or Juan Donoso Cortés. Pope Pius IX was beatified for proclaiming the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, not for his Syllabus Errorum, which denounced the idea of coming to terms with liberalism and modern civilization.
Those who want to distance Evola from Fascism emphasize the debate over Pagan Imperialism. For several years afterwards Fascist toughs harassed Evola, until he won the patronage of Roberto Farinacci, the Fascist boss of Cremona. Evola edited the opinion page of Farinacci’s newspaper, Regime Fascista, from 1934 to 1943 in an independent fashion. Although there are anecdotes about Mussolini’s fear of Evola, the documentary evidence points in the opposite direction. Yvon de Begnac’s talks with Mussolini, published in 1990, report Mussolini consistently speaking of Evola with respect. Il Duce had the following comments about the Pagan Imperialism debate:

Despite what is generally thought, I was not at all irritated by Doctor Julius Evola’s pronouncements made a few months before the Conciliation on the modification of relations between the Holy See and Italy. Anyhow, Doctor Evola’s attitude did not directly concern relations between Italy and the Holy See, but what seemed to him the long-term irreconcilability of the Roman tradition and the Catholic tradition. Since he identified Fascism with the Roman tradition, he had no choice but to reckon as its adversary any historical vision of a universalistic order.32

Mussolini’s strongest support for Evola came on the subject of race, which became an issue after Italy’s conquest of Ethiopia in 1936. Influenced by Nazi Germany, Italy passed Racial Laws in 1938. Evola was already writing on the racial views consistent with a Traditional vision of mankind in opposition to what he saw as the biological reductionism and materialism of Nazi racial thought.33 His writings infuriated Guido Landra, editor of the journal, La Difesa della Razza (Defense of the Race). Landra and other scientific racists were especially irritated by Evola’s article, “Scientific Racism’s Mistake.”34 Mussolini, however, praised Evola’s writings as early as 1935 and permitted Evola’s Summary of Racial Doctrine to be translated into German as Compendium of Fascist Racial Doctrine to represent the official Fascist position.35
Evola accepts the Traditional division of man into body, soul and spirit and argues that there are races of all three.

While in a ‘pure blood’ horse or cat the biological element constitutes the central one, and therefore racial considerations can be legitimately restricted to it, this is certainly not the case with man, or at least any man worthy of the name . . . Therefore racial treatment of man can not stop only at a biological level.36

Just as the state creates the people and the nation, so the spirit forms the races of body and soul. Evola had done considerable research on the history of racial studies and wrote a history of racial thought from Classical Antiquity to the 1930’s, The Blood Myth: The Genesis of Racism.37 Evola knew that in addition to the tradition of scientific racism, represented by Gobineau, Houston Steward Chamberlain, Alfred Rosenberg, and Landra was one that appreciated extra- or super-biological elements and whose adherents included Montaigne, Herder, Fichte, Gustave Le Bon, and Evola’s contemporary and friend, Ludwig Ferdinand Clauss, a German biologist at the University of Berlin.38
Hansen has a thorough discussion of “Evola’s Attitude Toward the Jews.” Evola thought that the negative traits associated with Jews were spiritual, not physical. So a biological Jew might have an Aryan soul or spirit and biological Aryans might – and did – have a Semitic soul or spirit. As Landra saw, this was the end of any politically useful scientific racism. The greatest academic authority on Fascism, Renzo de Felice argued in The Jews in Fascism Italy that Evola’s theories are wrong, but that they have a distinguished intellectual ancestry, and Evola argued for them in an honorable way.39 In recent years, Bill Clinton was proclaimed America’s first black president. This instinctive privileging of style over biology is in line with Evola’s views.
Hansen does not discuss Evola’s views on Negroes, to which Christophe Boutin devotes several pages of Politique et Tradition.40 In his 1968 collection of essays, The Bow and the Club, there is a chapter on “America Negrizzata,” which argues that, while there was relatively little miscegenation in the United States, the Telluric or Negro spirit has had considerable influence on the quality of American culture.41 The 1972 edition of Men Among the Ruins ends with an “Appendix on the Myths of our Time,” of which number IV is “Taboos of our Times.” The two taboos discussed forbid a frank discussion of the “working class,” common in Europe, and of the Negro. Although written thirty years ago, it is up-to-date in its description of this subject and notices that the word “Negro” itself was becoming taboo as “offensive.”42 La vera Destra, a real Right, will oppose this development. This appendix is not translated in the Inner Traditions or the 1991 German editions, confirming its accuracy.43
At the end of Men Among the Ruins, instead of the Appendix of the 1972 edition, stands Evola’s 1951 Autodifesa, the speech he gave in his own defense when he was tried by the Italian democracy for “defending Fascism,” attempting to reconstitute the dissolved Fascist Party” and being the “master” and inspirer” of young Neo-Fascists.44 Like Socrates, he was accused of not worshipping the gods of the democracy and of corrupting youth. When he asked in open court where in his published writings he had defended “ideas proper to Fascism,” the prosecutor, Dr. Sangiorgi, admitted that there were no such passages, but that the general spirit of his works promoted “ideas proper to Fascism,” such as monocracy, hierarchism, aristocracy or elitism. Evola responded.
I should say that if such are the terms of the accusation, I would be honored to see, seated at the same bank of accusation, such people as Aristotle, Plato, the Dante of De Monarchia, and so on up to Metternich and Bismarck. In the same spirit as a Metternich, a Bismarck, or the great Catholic philosophers of the principle of authority, De Maistre and Donoso Cortés, I reject all that which derives, directly or indirectly, from the French Revolution and which, in my opinion, has as its extreme consequence bolshevism; to which I counterpose the ‘world of Tradition.’ . . . My principles are only those that, before the French Revolution, every well-born person considered sane and normal.

Everything has two sides, what is good is to see each epoch in it's context otherwise we can not comprehend their lives and will judge from our perspective.(alone). This is how I know that Friedrich was playing a great part in the liberation of the lower classes and to today "Prussians by heart" like myself can see both sides of this man, he was a "war mongerer" and a social reformer, in the end he was the last King who felt the sacred duty to be in service of his peoples..and everything he did, good or bad, was for the people, to uplift his people and the country. (BELIEVESYSTEM) There is only one justification for a royal house, and that's if they are in service for ALL people under their rule and to protect the prosperity of the country. (CONCEPT FROM ANTIQUITY).

what he said is quite similar to your thinking. I found that kind of incredible and had to post about it.......

Okay when I get time I will get into detail and go word for word comparisons, Evola's and yours, anyone actually........the millions of people on the internet can read both yours and Evolas quotes and will say the same exact things as I said and others.

~In a superior civilization, as, for example, that of the Indo-Aryans~, the being who is without a characteristic form or caste… would emerge as a pariah. In this respect America is a society of pariahs. There is a role for pariahs...blah

Why don't you share your treasure with us, what would that be?

Kapis wrote:They often hide treasure and it is disguised with false trails, i got my treasure, you got your trail

Give me a day or so and i will browse them in a spare moment and pick some cherrys just for you

I am surprised that you can't give a little sumary on what exactly it was that got you interested

Our research meets with special difficulties in a sphere important for our investigation – the states that develop at the height of erotic sexual experience.
Literature offers little help here. Until recently there were the taboos of puritanism, and now in the most daring modern novels, the banal and vulgar predominate over any useful material.
Pornographic literature is also a scanty source . Produced to titillate the reader, it is dreadfully squalid not only in the facts and scenes described, but in its essence.

In the direct collection of material we encounter a twofold problem, both subjective and objective.
The problem is subjective because people are reluctant to speak even to their partners, let alone to strangers , about their experience in the most thrilling moments of sexual intimacy.
It is objective because these moments often co-incide with such reduced states of consciousness that people sometimes forget what they felt, said, or did.
We have indeed been able to ascertain that the ecstatic or maenadic moments of the heights of sexuality often provoke interruptions of consciousness and are phases from which lovers return to themselves as if stunned or confused by paroxysmal feeling and emotion

. …..........................no one has shown any interest in presenting introspective evidence about the innermost experience of sex

…...................................the teachings of freud , therefore were mistaken in his earliest phase when he established the pleasure principle, the lustprinzip, as the basis of not only eros but of the whole human psychic life . In this, the theorys of freud were just the products of his time . In periods of decadence such as the present one, sensuality develops in the dissociated form of simple pleasure.
As a result, sex becomes a kind of drug, and the addiction to it is no less profane than actual drug addiction. Freudianism soon abandoned its initial position , however, and in fact , Beyond the pleasure principle was the title of a successive work of freuds

Evola always harboured an aristocratic contempt for the hoi polloi, whether they wore business suits or donned academic garbs
He also refrained from attempts to influence or persuade others

Mother Meera, one of a new wave of female Hindu gurus and saints, is believed by her devotees to be an embodiment (avatar) of the Devi as Parashakti.

I hoped you could give me a more personal take on why you seem to value his ideas, and also which of his ideas seem to be the precious treasures you spoke of.