Evola on European Decadence !

[Prinz Eugen]

It no longer knows the state, the state as value crystallized in the Empire. Synthesis of the sort of spirituality and majesty that shone brightly in China, Egypt, Persia, and Rome, the imperial ideal has been overwhelmed by the bourgeois misery of a monopoly of slaves and traders.

Europe's formidable "activists" no longer know what war is, war desired in and of itself as a virtue higher than winning or losing, as that heroic and sacred path to spiritual fulfillment exalted by the god Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita. They know not warriors, only soldiers. And a crummy little war was enough to terrorize them and drive them to rehashing the rhetoric of humanitarianism, and pathos or, worse still, of windbag nationalism and Dannunzianism.

Europe has lost its simplicity, its central position, its life. A democratic plague is eating away at its roots, whether in law, science, or speculation. Gone are the leaders, beings who stand out not for their violence, their gold, or for their skills as slave traders but rather for their irreducible qualities of life. Europe is a great irrelevant body, sweating and restless because of an anxiety that no one dares to express. Gold flows in its veins; its flesh is made up of machines, factories, and laborers; its brains are of newsprint. A great irrelevant body tossing and turning, driven by dark and unpredictable forces that mercilessly crush whoever wants to oppose or merely escape the cogwheels.
Such are the achievements of western "civilization". This is the much ballyhooed result of the superstitious faith in "progress", progress beyond Roman imperiousness, beyond radiant Hellas, beyond the ancient Orient - the great Ocean.

And the few who are still capable of great loathing and great rebellion find themselves ever more tightly encircled.

JULIUS EVOLA

Source:http://www.juliusevola.net/pages/1/index.htm

[Susano]

And that all is a bad state of affairs how? Hah, esepcialyl that:

Europe has lost its simplicity,

Nope, we arent simplicistic. And thats a damn good thing, too!

[Susi]

Why does everyone think that there are things wrong with simplicity?

What is the best outfit to wear to a fancy party for a woman? A black dress. Simple and effective.

I don't think it is bad to be simple. I think it's rather relaxing to have a rather simple life with few complications.

[Susano]

Because simpicity leads to rigidity. It is rather easy to see - if you have simple rules (do not do that, do this), then they will not adapt to every circumstance. Which leads, as said, to rigidity and in a way to suupression. People simple are different, and if that is not supressed, it leads to a complicated society. And honestly, just saying "I do not want a complicated society" is not reason enough to opress anything or anybody!

[Susi]

Because I'm totally going to be the dictator of Canada, and I will eradicate anyone I see fit due to the rigidity of my simple dictatorship.

"Help, help, I'm being repressed!"

[Susano]

While I enjoy Monty Python, and enjoy Monty Python references - that is no answer.

[Susi]

Well I don't see why things need to be so complicated. Complicated laws lead to long trials, confusion, and everyone has no idea-- besides, it leads to more "opression" in the long run because there are so many complex laws!

[Susano]

Yetm if it are easy laws, it leads to inequalities, because the laws do not cover every possible aspect.

Well... I see however I might have not cosen such agood formulation myself. I do not necessrily defend the complexity of society for complexity's sake. In itself, wether a society is simple or complex I find rather irrelevant. However, I do believe in individualism, liberty and equality, and that leads as a side effect to a complex society. And well, so be it - as said, I do not see why one necessarily has to keep simplicity.

[Susi]

I think that it is important to do what is best for the population, rather than for the individual-- the individual IS important, but it is MORE important that the population be well off, rather than a few individuals.

And it is difficult, in a complex society, to even have your voice listened to. So how is that conduisive to individuality?

[Strengthandhonour]

"Yetm if it are easy laws, it leads to inequalities, because the laws do not cover every possible aspect."

look at the United States as an example. They have laws for just about EVERYTHING, from how you burn your garbage or leafs in your yard to how many people you can hire of what ethnic group. How many people do you think use this laws to their advantage? When there is too many laws, the system is cheated, when the system is cheated the system has failed.

[Beornulf]

Originally Posted by Susano

Because simpicity leads to rigidity. It is rather easy to see - if you have simple rules (do not do that, do this), then they will not adapt to every circumstance. Which leads, as said, to rigidity and in a way to suupression. People simple are different, and if that is not supressed, it leads to a complicated society. And honestly, just saying "I do not want a complicated society" is not reason enough to opress anything or anybody!

Simplicity leads to order. Bureaucracy leads to confusion, deceit and eventual degeneration. People lose the ability to take initiative because whilst being reliant on being thought for they are also confused on what their rights are all together.

Adding complexity to anything does not make it better, which is simply an illusion the world has fooled itself into believing. Rigidity in your sense is made to be some tyrannical injustice, when really all it represents is Order and the way things truly should be and have been for years.

[Taurin]

Originally Posted by Susano

Yetm if it are easy laws, it leads to inequalities, because the laws do not cover every possible aspect.

The fact that laws do not cover every possible aspect goes not against simplicity. At most, it goes against laws.

Do they lead to inequalities? The problem with universal positive law is that it treats different beings in the same manner, instead of taking into account differences and rank.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Susano

Because simpicity leads to rigidity. It is rather easy to see - if you have simple rules (do not do that, do this), then they will not adapt to every circumstance. Which leads, as said, to rigidity and in a way to suupression. People simple are different, and if that is not supressed, it leads to a complicated society. And honestly, just saying "I do not want a complicated society" is not reason enough to opress anything or anybody!

The all too complex society of today is founded upon such a heap of lies and hypocrisy, that it is almost unbearable for anyone cherishing truth. And it is precisely it that leads to rigidity. Because it is founded upon the inviolability of law and a paragraph written in some law-book is the most rigid thing imaginable. It is more merciless than the most merciless tyrant, because any tyrant, no matter how inhumane he may be, is a human being and there exists a possibility that you can negotiate and come to terms with him, persuade him or at least beg him for mercy, whilst a paragraph is there, cold, unmovable.

Originally Posted by Susano

Yet if it are easy laws, it leads to inequalities, because the laws do not cover every possible aspect.

Are there laws that cover every possible aspect? There aren't and there will never be. It has been one of the modern superstious utopian beliefs that laws, coupled with an efficient bureaucracy to implement them, will solve all problems, all grievances. Well, they won't. No matter how perfect a law is, it can never predict all possible situations that may arise.

There is one more thing deeply troubling about it: the law has become the supreme god of the modern middle-class petit bourgeois class. There is a tendency to be noted that many poeple started to identify good and evil with the legal and the illegal. If a law prescribes something then it must be good and vice versa. I hear people talking in such manner and it is a sign of a true spiritual decay.

Needless to say that it can lead to a worst possible totalitarianism.

Originally Posted by Susano

I do believe in individualism, liberty and equality, and that leads as a side effect to a complex society.

There is no equality in modern society, only the mindless egalitarianism, which makes the worst and the most vulgar ones (those that in more traditional communities were relegated to margins) to come to positions of power and influence. They are in turn manipulated by clever (but rotten) elites. The equality is not even possible, except the basic metaphysical equality of all of us as human beings.

As for individualism and liberty, it boils down only to unimportant things, as that in the "complex society" of today you can, for example, choose whether to dye your hair red or blue or not dye it at all, or whether you will go to vacations to Italy or Mauritius, etc, but you have no say in important matters, you may never question the basic premises of the system. As Susi said, your voice isn't going to be heard at all. So the current society is in this sense the most unfree ever in the human history.

Originally Posted by Beornulf

Simplicity leads to order. Bureaucracy leads to confusion, deceit and eventual degeneration. People lose the ability to take initiative because whilst being reliant on being thought for they are also confused on what their rights are all together.

Making eternal helpless children out of people is one of the goals of the beaurocratized society.

Originally Posted by Beornulf

Adding complexity to anything does not make it better, which is simply an illusion the world has fooled itself into believing. Rigidity in your sense is made to be some tyrannical injustice, when really all it represents is Order and the way things truly should be and have been for years.

The "complexity" we are talking about here is truly evil.