Klassenian

Foid INSTANTLY folds for Clavicular Clav: I had sex with another girl last night, so now I’m moving onto you Foid: oh, I’m not like in the lineup, I’m either ONE or NONE Clav: oh definitely NONE then Foid: I’m jk you can add me to the lineup

This guy is STILL a brown Mexican with a gay lisp, incase you forgot. The audacity of these anonymous nons hiding behind their frog profile pictures is hilarious. 🤣 Ps: he is not even a real doctor.

106-year-old Jack Riddle and his wife, Rosie, both former slaves, seated in front of a group of Klansmen (including one dressed as Santa Claus), flanking a radio the group had reportedly given to the couple as a gift (1948)

The single most insightful person about modernity and enduring truth over the past century is GK Chesterton, a 300+ pound British journalist with bad teeth. He was only right about literally everything.

When people ask where to begin with Julius Evola, I do not indulge the modern habit of easing oneself in gently, as though one were approaching something delicate or accommodating. Evola is neither. He does not admit of gradual entry. He is to be confronted, or not at all. If possible, he should be read in the original Italian. A great deal of nuance is lost otherwise, and with a thinker like Evola, precision matters. From there, I direct them immediately to “The Path of Cinnabar,” his final major work and, in a real sense, his most revealing. It is not an autobiography in the conventional, sentimental sense; it is an intellectual map of his own formation, a retrospective ordering of his thought by a man who had already seen the arc of his life completed. It helps orient the reader before encountering the more demanding works, and it clarifies how his ideas fit together and evolve across time. Only then should one proceed to what may be called the “big three,” the central axis of his work: “Revolt Against the Modern World,” “Men Among the Ruins,” and “Ride the Tiger,” read in that order. This sequence is not arbitrary; it follows the unfolding of his vision from metaphysical foundation, to political diagnosis, to existential strategy in a world he had already judged to be beyond recovery. Some will suggest beginning with more accessible texts, such as “The Mystery of the Grail” or “Metaphysics of War,” on the grounds that they are easier entry points. There is some merit to that approach, but I do not think it is necessary. Evola, like Friedrich Nietzsche or Martin Heidegger, rewards direct engagement; one either understands him, because one has the capacity for what he is saying, or one does not. Once that foundation is in place, the rest of his work can be approached more freely. The exact order becomes less important, because the underlying framework is already understood. At that point, whether one turns to his esoteric writings, his political essays, or his cultural critiques is largely a matter of predilection rather than necessity.