Reddit mentions of Time Stands Still: New Light on Megalithic Science

>There is no reason to believe in the existence of said powers, and no hard evidence that they exist.

And what is the criterion of satisfaction? Without that provided, this is a meaningless statement.

>In this respect one can detect a tinge of Nietzschean slave morality in Evola

Slave morality is not synonymous with reservation for the immaterial.

>In Evola's view, the divine power of a deity embodied itself in the material presence of a king. I believe that it is the other way round. It is my belief that when great men, through their intelligence and cunning and wisdom and charisma, seized power, led their peoples to glory and then died, they were posthumously made into gods by their subjects, unwilling to accept that the end of the natural life of a great man meant that he had ceased to exist. Unable to accept the fact of his material non-existence, they invented an otherworld in order to create the pretence that he was still somehow out there, looking out for them.

This view is farcical. First, it ignores that traditional societies did not believe in a "beyond" as in another quasi-physical universe, an abode for the dead made of a different material. It already intimates a transposition of a modern, materialist enterprise onto civilizations which experienced and saw the world in a radically different fashion. Thus it secondly begs the question.

>The gods of ancient civilizations would have been based on real human beings who did heroic deeds and were then posthumously made into deities by the tribe. But the idea that they were embodied in real, living, breathing individuals is absurd. Men were embodied in gods, not the other way round. A god is simply a human hero who was made immortal, but no person or lineage should be regarded as being an embodiment of the sacred by virtue of a non-existent, otherwordly connection

The "gods," in a traditional sense, are different forms of consciousness that can be assumed and developed for integration (we can refer here to the accounts of Pharaohs becoming Set and Baal in war). If we were to take your view, that is, the predominant view of the modern age, of classical deities being the transposition of a "good memory" onto some ontological plane of eternity, it would fail to account for the fact that ancient historians utilized the myths as a form of language of the sacred (Herodotus, Plutarch, etc.) That is, they often used myths to reach a level of commensurability with other respective cultures. How does one explain the identification of various deities across civilizations? Plutarch even affirmed in De Iside et Osiride an essential unity of the Hellenic and Egyptian religion. Thus, under your conviction, we are led to assume the same heroes fought for and generals led both civilizations, which is quite obviously a ludicrous view - one, moreover, not supported by the same modus operandi that, as it were, operates in a narrow way and at a restricted capacity, that you seem to fawn over so well. This is to say, it has not and cannot find any of evidence of these assertions. It amounts to being gratuitous, the assertions themselves being the posterior of a particular way of interpreting history, that is, of only seeing history as the enveloping of continuous material modifications: the Marxian apparatus.

The Neo-fascists are particularly bad for appropriating people like Evola and Guenon. I don't want to discourage your quite obvious capacity for an intellectual dialogue, but it's important to say: you've seemed to pick up the mordant and polemical tone of the 20th-century Traditionalists, referring to civilizations as "degenerate" and whatnot, but it is not this tone that makes their arguments strong; they made the radical claims they did because Evola and Guenon were both somewhat of scholarly loners with a vast understanding of ancient texts and civilizations. It is more difficult than you likely imagine to make sweeping statements about the nature of these past civilizations. Even archaeologists and mathematicians are still uncovering how surprisingly advanced some of them were, I could refer here to Keith Critchlow's work ( https://www.amazon.com/Time-Stands-Still-Megalithic-Science/dp/0863155871 ), who is a part of the modern-day traditionalist strain, and demonstrates even the Neolithic peoples were familiar with the Platonic solids and their construction. Imagine that! So much for "primitivity."

It is best to approach older civilizations and doctrines like a serpent who has sloughed off their skin and can slither through the corridors of a vast and mysterious world, forming an understanding of the structures and premises without being too systematic lest one modernize them.