/lit/ - Literature

>>23470603
>the black skinned race
Do you mean subsarahans? They are much worse than other blacks or darker skinned people in terms of lack of impulse control, lack of empathy, low IQ, materialism, etc. Do you think that subsaharan Africa was a nice place to live before Europeans showed up? Do you think that White people are the only race that looked/looks down on blacks? (as in, they used to, obviously these days such notions are essentially illegal, and Whites are the least racist by far, to the extent that it is dangerous and doing them harm).
> literally isn't human or something between an animal and a human.
I don't think that this has ever been a common view. They saw them as primitive savages early on, because that's what they were (subsaharans, generally speaking).
>The black skinned people's did have their own ways of life and philosophical/spiritual ideas that held their own sort of depth.
A massive oversimplification. What depth? do you think sacrificing animals and getting possessed by demons so that you can get "gibs" is spirituality? you mentioned Satanism...sorcery, witchcraft and animal or human sacrifice for material gain are extremely "Satanic", and what about cannibalism? or the massive slave trade of blacks still going on today, ran by other blacks. You sound like one of these idiots who think Africa was a nice place before Whites showed up and started catching them with nets to go work in fields (fantasy).
>White supremacy is a real thing
Where? not in any country today, it's actually the opposite. For example, niggers go around killing people innocent in the streets, are caught on camera, and get off completely free. Conversely, an upstanding White man puts a crackhead nigger who is threatening children on public transit in a chokehold and accidently chokes him out (who gives a fuck? it's a junky piece of shit literally asking for it), and he gets his life ruined. Many examples of this, learn how to use the internet, grandpa.
>like the implicit idea that the white race is superior or "more human."
You're arguing that in order to perpetuate this racial egalitarian farce, the system has to push fake history on the populace, so that black people (by all metrics, the most violent and least productive racial collective in every Western nation) don't get their feelings hurt? or what? are you 12 years old?

If not, you are such a monumental fucking retard. I hope for your sake you're just some high school dumbshit who hasn't seriously researched these issues scientifically and read a lot of stuff, otherwise you are a certified dumbass who certainly should not be occupying it's brain with such issues. You'd probably call this trash scientific too hahahaha. Go watch netflix!

>>23470933
I'm sure there must be more intelligent/introspective blacks who think this stuff is cringe and stupid and makes them look like dumbasses to regular people, but I've only met one, a Kenyan chick with a high IQ and a wealthy Christian upbringing.

The apartment, humble as it is, is immaculately clean and organized. Everything has been dusted and cleaned recently. The toilet is wiped down, the bed is made, the laundry is folded and put away, and there's only a little bit of trash and dirty laundry. The trash bins themselves are clean. All of my personal affairs and errands are in order. I have a few to-do items over the next month or so, but it's all been arranged, or I can easily take care of them at my convenience, when I feel like it. My car is clean, my mail box is empty, and my work office is organized. The areas that I think of as my personal space are all squared away.

My dumbphone is effectively blank. Most default apps are disabled, all call and text history is deleted, and the phone is not mapped to any accounts. The wallpaper is a 2 x 1 black rectangle. Only bare-bones functionality is enabled. The "contacts" app itself is disabled. If I want to call someone, I punch in the number manually each time. Rather than keep a list of work contacts saved on my dumbphone, I instead keep three sheets of paper for relevant work contacts: one at work, one in my car, and one in my apartment. That way, I can look up a number without it being on my phone at all. This is convenient. When you search my name on the internet, almost nothing comes up. This is also convenient.

I have organized my life in such a way as to be left alone. I have the good fortune to have a job that is agreeable to myself. I also feel very fortunate that I don't have children, am not married, have no debt, and am generally free to do as I please, on my own terms. I never tire of this freedom and peace, and I never desire "something more". I am an only child, and the parents recently set their own affairs in order. I signed off on their updated wills. When the last parent goes (which I hope will not be for a very long time), the residue of their estate goes straight to me. The secret of my contentment in life is that I had loving parents who never pressured me to form relationship with others. I enjoy my solitude, which I can realize in a socially acceptable way, while at the same time participating in society at the simplest level, in work which I find agreeable and has just enough complexity to have a little value and be slightly interesting. I perform my shift, go home, drink, and read, happy not to participate in the stupidity of society beyond this level of subsistence. I am Nietzsche's Last Man.

>>23400818
I believe any newcomer coming to the series for the first time should read Harry Potter as follows: 4, 5, 6, 3, 1, 2, 7
>read 4 through to 6 first as a trilogy, this is where the story hits its dramatic peaks and the higher page count allows Rowling's prose to really stretch its legs
>read 3 once you've finished 6, as this book gives you more backstory about the original Order of the Phoenix and the Marauders after hearing about them in books 5 and 6
>then go all the way back to 1 to see how the central trio first meet, as well as the introduction of Dumbledore
>2 shows you the ultimate test of Harry's character, which holds major implications for the climax of the series (and means the shortest book in the series now holds greater depth, since the reader already knows who Tom Riddle is, thus adding much appreciated dramatic irony that isn't present in a conventional reading)
>7 as the conclusion to the whole saga

This original approach I came up with should provide a radically different experience, one that's far more exciting, without actually ruining Rowling's original intentions as an author. I call it the Billhook Order.

>>23374407
>Are there any tricks or strategies for writing in iambic pentameter?

Read lots of it. The stricter the better. Twelve examples:


— Sonnet 73, Shakespeare
That time of year thou may'st in me behold
When yellow leaves, or none, or few do hang
Upon the boughs that shake against the cold —
Bare ruined choirs, where late the sweet birds sang.


— Elegy in a Country Churchyard (Gray)
The curfew tolls the knell of parting day,
The lowing herd wind slowly o'er the lea,
The plowman homeward plods his weary way,
And leaves the world to darkness and to me.


— The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam (tr. Fitzgerald)
The moving finger writes, and having writ
Moves on; nor all thy piety nor wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a line,
Nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.


— To Penshurst (Jonson)
Thou art not, Penshurst, built to envious show,
Of touch or marble; nor canst boast a row
Of polished pillars, or a roof of gold...


— Essay On Man (Pope)
Two principles in human nature reign;
Self-love, to urge, and reason, to restrain;
Nor this a good, nor that a bad we call,
Each works its end, to move or govern all...


— The Deserted Village (Goldsmith)
How often have I paused on every charm,
The sheltered cot, the cultivated farm,
The never-failing brook, the busy mill,
The decent church that topp'd the neighbouring hill,
The hawthorn bush, with seats beneath the shade,
For talking age and whispering lovers made!


— Aubade (Larkin)
I work all day, and get half-drunk at night.


— Lines For A Book (Gunn)
I think of those exclusive by their action,
For whom mere thought could be no satisfaction —
The atheletes lying under tons of dirt,
Or standing gelded so they cannot hurt
The pale curators and the families
By calling up disturbing images.


— Ode to Autumn (Keats)
Then in a wailful choir the small gnats mourn
Among the river sallows, borne aloft
Or sinking as the light wind lives or dies...


— Strange Meeting (Owen)
It seemed that out of battle I escaped
Down some profound dull tunnel, long since scooped
Through granites which titanic wars had groined.


— Lines Composed A Few Miles Above Tintern Abbey (Wordsworth)
And now, with gleams of half-extinguished thought,
With many recognitions dim and faint,
And somewhat of a sad perplexity,
The picture of the mind revives again:
While here I stand, not only with the sense
Of present pleasure, but with pleasing thoughts
That in this moment there is life and food
For future years.


— Ulysses (Tennyson)
The lights begin to twinkle from the rocks:
The long day wanes: the slow moon climbs: the deep
Moans round with many voices. Come, my friends,
'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.


Then do it yourself. Force your interior monologue into blank verse. It's just practice, like anything else.

I’m on chapter/book 19, so almost done…
So far my list in no particular order would be:
• Diomedes - resembles a “traditional main hero” we are accustomed to with modern storytelling
• Menelaus - pretty similar to Diomedes although the whole war is about his wife so it makes sense for him to be fierce and menacing. He leads his men well, and exhibits many characteristics of a great leader
• Ajax the Greater, Ajax the Lesser, Patroclus, Odysseus - Men of great honor and loyalty. Homer really emphasizes aspects, i.e. Ajax is fierce and large, Odysseus is wise, Patroclus is loyal
• Nestor - the original “wise old man” trope. I like that Homer goes out of his way to explain how he was once a young man fierce in warfare, but is now an old king who can only offer his mind
• Glaucus - probably the only one on the Trojan side who I admire. He’s not the “foil” to someone like Diomedes by any means, but he’s certainly the “Ilian Noble Warrior”
• Meriones & Idomeneus - side characters by all accounts, but sprinkled throughout the whole book. Quick to volunteer at any call-to-arms, always at the front lines of fierce battle. These two have a very “Merry and Pippin”-esque side story in book 13 that made me smile.
• Homer - the narrator himself! The similes are interesting and shed light onto the life of a Greek in the 8th century BC. Also his little quips make me audibly lol when I read. For example, when Homer says something like “It was brave to try. But they were foolish!”

I used to like philosophy until gradually, the more I read it, the more I realized that these guys are deeply deeply mentally ill and should not be supported in any way.
Kant wrote a massive 700 page book to essentially just say "Dude, we can't know everything." It's so profoundly midwit, the arrogance and audacity to feel he has the authority to claim what someone can and can't know. By stages, you realize all philosophers have unwarranted God complexes like this and just stop caring about them.

On a deeper level though, you also see the pattern that all philosophers trick you into thinking they are unbiased "searchers of the truth," when in actuality they already figured out what the conclusions actually are but write their book in order to "prove" the thesis they already proved in their own mind. So if Kant says there are things we cannot know, this is not something that is proved organically over the course of the book, but rather he already came to that conclusion, and retroactively wrote the book around that conclusion. It's a very manipulative way of influencing people to get brainwashed with certain ideas, to have it appear that they are infallible or scientific, when in actuality they are anything but. And sadly, people still fall for this scam. At the end of the day, they all just care about social engineering, trying to have their subjective view become the mainstream dogmatic view. And don't be fooled by the philosophers who write about metaphysics or epistemology, they too are secretly at the end of the day just political philosophers.

The only good philosopher is Nietzsche, and the reason why he is the only good philosopher is because he was the first one to call out the philosophy for what it actually is, a scam.

I'm going to read a Rudolf Steiner lecture or chapter every day and post a thread about it on /lit/. I will try to read them in roughly chronological order. Does anyone want to join in? You can even come just to call me a retard every day.

I don't have any particular agenda. I have just been listening to readings of his lectures on Youtube and I want to start learning his ideas more systematically.

>>23084426
>(3) Deleuze did not say that difference and identity were temporally differentiated.
I will admit that I could have been more clear here. But the point that was meant to be made is that arguing over whether identity or difference is primary is moot, because these are ORDINAL, or perhaps even INDETERMINATE distinctions.

The point is that identity and difference stand at an equal level. If you have identity, you will have difference. Likewise, if you have difference, then you will have identity. Why? Because of the inherent presence of negativity, which will ensure that every identity has a difference, and every difference presupposes an identity. In other words, they're two sides of the same coin, something which is linked to a greater principle that the Platonists call "the indeterminate dyad." So, trying to "create" a hierarchy, let alone trying to "reverse" the hierarchy, is not only a fool's errand, it's also a fallacious way of understanding how these natural kinds relate to each other. It's AS IF Deleuze is treating these as having TEMPORALLY emanated from each other.

I hope my point has been made more clear. Here, I humbly apologize for vagueness. That is on me.

>(4) Some more trite misunderstandings of Plato as thinking of the world in terms of ideal versus material, etc.
Plato did not think of "a world of forms." When the forms were posited as a hypothetical, they were located squarely in this world and no other. Plato, especially Late Plato also didn't think of being as "fixed." That would be akin to conflating being with "rest" (which Plato points out in the dialogue as being incorrect, as being contains both rest and motion), and it would also destroy any hope of the possibility of knowledge as the intellect needs "motion" in order to make sense of the intelligible beyond the sensible. These are all elementary mistakes that are not excusable.

It's also wrong to think of Plato's metaphysics as being centered around anything, as we still are not sure if Plato was referring to: the One, the Good, something "beyond being", etc. This is closely tied to what I said earlier about the relationship between identity and difference as part of the "indeterminate dyad." The traditional understanding is that there is a relationship between some kind of "One" and "Indeterminate Dyad", and as you astutely pointed out, it is connected to the problem of universals, the blending of positivity and negativity, and in addition the problem of the one and the many and the polysemy of being.

*That* is where metaphysics left off and where it needed to be continued. Deleuze merely obfuscated his way into stumbling off the path indicated by Plato and trailblazed by Hegel. And even Hegel was more haphazard and often blind than he was capable of navigation. There are no excuses for Deleuze's errors. We have had the dialogues and the commentaries for centuries now. It's time to read and do the hard labor of thinking.

(2/2)

This is the first, and already quite possibly the best, collection of short stories I've read this year. Miyazawa's writings here would comfortably place him with the greats of not only 20th century Japanese literature, but of any writer of short stories, and yet I've never seen his name come up before or any single thing of his discussed. This is beyond criminal.

This is a book of pure poetry. You really wouldn't think that a collection of what are essentially strange and fantasy-filled Japanese bedtime stories would be able to have such beauty contained within, and yet here it is. A collection of moral fables where beauty is the one everlasting principle, probably closer Keats' poetry than Aesop.

Everything is anthropomorphic in Miyazawa's universe, the rat speaks with the rat trap, the hunter with the bears he must kill to sustain himself and his family and a fox teaches astrology to his friend the birch tree. The entirety of creation is connected and One.

Almost all the stories here are permeated with this certain sense of melancholy, I don't think I have the words to explain it, but I feel it intuitively and innately as something that is also in me, as it is in everyone else. The little sad but forgiving smile of the white elephant in 'Ozbel and the Elephants' conveys far more than any outburst of emotion possibly could, the same goes for the dimming and eventual loss of the Fire-Stone in its story. I read a little into the life of Miyazawa after finishing the collection, and its very easy to see that this same feeling is something he perpetually lived with and confronted in order to understand himself and his place in the world.

Would especially recommend this for fans of Japanese literature who want to read something that doesn't come from the usual places like Tokyo or Kyoto, Miyazawa lived in the far less urbanized and Westernized north of Japan, and in some ways his stories feel like they take more from the Chinese tradition rather than Japanese, the heavy Buddhist influence on Miyazawa and his writings being indicative of this.

One thing I'm curious about is Miyazawa's specific interest in the stars and their names. He almost never describes the night sky in generic terms, rather he points out and names the constellations. It seems like a strangely specific and scientific use of language in contrast to everything else which is so whimsical and based in fantasy and imagination. Why does Miyazawa choose to do this? It could very well simply have been a particular passion of his which he wanted to share in his writing.

To put it as simply as I can I'd call this a collection of fantastical Japanese fables and folk tales with the aesthetic sensibilities of the great Romantic poets.

Favourite stories were 'The Eathgod and the Fox', 'General Son Ba-yu', 'The First Deer Dance', 'The Restaurant of Many Orders', 'The Police Chief', 'The Fire Stone', 'The Nighthawk Star' and maybe my favourite of all 'Wildcat and the Acorns'.

4.5/5

>>23030782
>Democracy and plutocracy are equivalent in Spengler's argument, and he said the "tragic comedy of the world-improvers and freedom-teachers" is that they are simply assisting money to be more effective. He believed that the principles of equality, natural rights, universal suffrage, and freedom of the press are all disguises for class war of the bourgeois against the aristocracy. Freedom, to Spengler, is a negative concept, only entailing the repudiation of any tradition. He said that freedom of the press requires money, and entails ownership, meaning that it serves money. Similarly, since suffrage involves electoral campaigns, which involve donations, elections serve money as well. Spengler said that the ideologies espoused by candidates, whether Socialism or Liberalism, are set in motion by, and ultimately serve, only money.

>Spengler said that in his era money has already won, in the form of democracy. However, he said that in destroying the old elements of the Culture, it prepares the way for the rise of a new and overpowering figure, who he calls the Caesar. Before such a leader, money collapses, and in the Imperial Age the politics of money fades away.

"The coming of Caesarism breaks the dictature of money and its political weapon, democracy. After a long triumph of world-city economy and its interests over political creative force, the political side of life manifests itself after all as the stronger of the two. The sword is victorious over the money, the master-will subdues again the plunderer-will. If we call these money-powers 'Capitalism,' then we may designate as Socialism the will to call into life a mighty politico-economic order that transcends all class interests, a system of lofty thoughtfulness and duty-sense that keeps the whole in fine condition for the decisive battle of its history, and this battle is also the battle of money and law. The private powers of the economy want free paths for their acquisition of great resources. No legislation must stand in their way. They want to make the laws themselves, in their interests, and to that end they make use of the tool they have made for themselves, democracy, the subsidized party. Law needs, in order to resist this onslaught, a high tradition and an ambition of strong families that finds its satisfaction not in the heaping-up of riches, but in the tasks of true rulership, above and beyond all money-advantage. A power can be overthrown only by another power, not by a principle, and no power that can confront money is left but this one. Money is overthrown and abolished only by blood."
- Spengler

Read the first chapter of this, on "The Romans," to understand what has happened to modern society because of late/finance capitalism:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/44908/44908-h/44908-h.htm#p_1

>>23026482
Hmmm, OP...I'm not sure whether or not fatherlessness can truly be mitigated by books, but we'll try. I'm a Christian man, so I will recommend Christian works, but I will recommend ones which would benefit anyone from the point of view of what you are seeking. And remember, no man is fatherless who turns to Christ.

I. The Bible--most especially of all; do not skip the Old Testament (Tanakh). Try not to feel overwhelmed. Even if it takes you a year, get through it, and do so thoughtfully with an open mind (preferably prayerfully and thoughtfully).
II. In order of importance: Republic, Meno, and "The Death of Socrates" (Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo); Plato
III. Six Battles Everyman Must Win; Bill Perkins
IV. Wild at Heart & Waking the Dead (Two Volumes); John Eldridge
V. Battlefield of the Mind; Joyce Meyer (Yes. Even though it was written by a woman.)
VI. Growing Up Spiritually; Kenneth G. Hagin
VII. The Golden Sayings; Epictetus
VIII. Rich Dad, Poor Dad; Robert T. Kiyosaki (This book is often maligned, but it really presents an important mentality, and I've not heard any book more frequently cited by self-made wealth holders.)
IX. The Richest Man in Babylon; Robert S. Clayson
X. Rhetoric; Aristotle
XI. The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin; Benjamin Franklin
XII. Understanding Stocks & Understanding Options (Two Volumes); Michael Sincere
XIII. Eros Defiled & Eros Redeemed (Two Volumes); John White

>Further Reading (These works will be varied. Some instructive, some masculine, some which will increase your own powers by digesting them.)
Call of the Wild & White Fang (Two Volumes); Jack London
The Federalist Papers; Hamilton, Madison, & Jay
Letter from a Birmingham City Jail; MLK Jr. (And the relevant letter to which he was responding--signed by five pastors and two rabbis.)
The Gettysburg Address; Abraham Lincoln
Various writings of the Founding Fathers which can be acquired from either Library of America, or Gutenbergorg. I recommend, at least, Washington, Adams Sr., Jefferson, and Lincoln.
Essays of E.B. White; E.B. White
Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans; Plutarch
>If stock and options appealed to you and you want to go deeper...
Trend Following; Michael Covel
Iron Condor; Zerener & Phillips
The Richest Man Who Ever Lived; Steven K. Scott
Get Rich With Options; Lee Lowell
Covered Calls & Leaps; Hooper & Zelewski
You Can Be A Stock Market Genius; Greenblatt (Although I've yet to implement the strategy discussed in this book--which is spinoff trades, it's a really entertaining read, and the knowledge can be kept and utilized when an opportunity shows itself.)

I think reading history is important to masculinity because it adds texture to our perceptions of noteworthy men and affairs from the past, but I've listed a lot already, so I won't list those. I could go on, in general, but I'll stop for now. I had the whole list numbered for your convenience, but the dumb filter thought it was spam. This site, nowadays...

>Democracy and plutocracy are equivalent in Spengler's argument, and he said the "tragic comedy of the world-improvers and freedom-teachers" is that they are simply assisting money to be more effective. He believed that the principles of equality, natural rights, universal suffrage, and freedom of the press are all disguises for class war of the bourgeois against the aristocracy. Freedom, to Spengler, is a negative concept, only entailing the repudiation of any tradition. He said that freedom of the press requires money, and entails ownership, meaning that it serves money. Similarly, since suffrage involves electoral campaigns, which involve donations, elections serve money as well. Spengler said that the ideologies espoused by candidates, whether Socialism or Liberalism, are set in motion by, and ultimately serve, only money.

>Spengler said that in his era money has already won, in the form of democracy. However, he said that in destroying the old elements of the Culture, it prepares the way for the rise of a new and overpowering figure, who he calls the Caesar. Before such a leader, money collapses, and in the Imperial Age the politics of money fades away.

"The coming of Caesarism breaks the dictature of money and its political weapon, democracy. After a long triumph of world-city economy and its interests over political creative force, the political side of life manifests itself after all as the stronger of the two. The sword is victorious over the money, the master-will subdues again the plunderer-will. If we call these money-powers 'Capitalism,' then we may designate as Socialism the will to call into life a mighty politico-economic order that transcends all class interests, a system of lofty thoughtfulness and duty-sense that keeps the whole in fine condition for the decisive battle of its history, and this battle is also the battle of money and law. The private powers of the economy want free paths for their acquisition of great resources. No legislation must stand in their way. They want to make the laws themselves, in their interests, and to that end they make use of the tool they have made for themselves, democracy, the subsidized party. Law needs, in order to resist this onslaught, a high tradition and an ambition of strong families that finds its satisfaction not in the heaping-up of riches, but in the tasks of true rulership, above and beyond all money-advantage. A power can be overthrown only by another power, not by a principle, and no power that can confront money is left but this one. Money is overthrown and abolished only by blood."
- Oswald Spengler

Read the first chapter of this, on "The Romans," to understand what has happened to modern society because of late/finance capitalism:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/44908/44908-h/44908-h.htm#p_1

>I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

In the Old Testament, God instructs the Israelites to choose life in spite of any other concern. Better to sacrifice everything than to say no to life (the Akedah), better to slay the innocent than to say no to life (Joshua). This is why there is a time to gather and a time to scatter, a time to tear and a time to mend, a time to kill and a time to heal, etc., because different moments call for different actions in order to embrace life.

Does my reading of the OT have any validity? Are there any big thinkers who have a similar read?

>Democracy and plutocracy are equivalent in Spengler's argument, and he said the "tragic comedy of the world-improvers and freedom-teachers" is that they are simply assisting money to be more effective. He believed that the principles of equality, natural rights, universal suffrage, and freedom of the press are all disguises for class war of the bourgeois against the aristocracy. Freedom, to Spengler, is a negative concept, only entailing the repudiation of any tradition. He said that freedom of the press requires money, and entails ownership, meaning that it serves money. Similarly, since suffrage involves electoral campaigns, which involve donations, elections serve money as well. Spengler said that the ideologies espoused by candidates, whether Socialism or Liberalism, are set in motion by, and ultimately serve, only money.

>Spengler said that in his era money has already won, in the form of democracy. However, he said that in destroying the old elements of the Culture, it prepares the way for the rise of a new and overpowering figure, who he calls the Caesar. Before such a leader, money collapses, and in the Imperial Age the politics of money fades away.

"The coming of Caesarism breaks the dictature of money and its political weapon, democracy. After a long triumph of world-city economy and its interests over political creative force, the political side of life manifests itself after all as the stronger of the two. The sword is victorious over the money, the master-will subdues again the plunderer-will. If we call these money-powers 'Capitalism,' then we may designate as Socialism the will to call into life a mighty politico-economic order that transcends all class interests, a system of lofty thoughtfulness and duty-sense that keeps the whole in fine condition for the decisive battle of its history, and this battle is also the battle of money and law. The private powers of the economy want free paths for their acquisition of great resources. No legislation must stand in their way. They want to make the laws themselves, in their interests, and to that end they make use of the tool they have made for themselves, democracy, the subsidized party. Law needs, in order to resist this onslaught, a high tradition and an ambition of strong families that finds its satisfaction not in the heaping-up of riches, but in the tasks of true rulership, above and beyond all money-advantage. A power can be overthrown only by another power, not by a principle, and no power that can confront money is left but this one. Money is overthrown and abolished only by blood."
- Oswald Spengler

Read the first chapter of this, on "The Romans," to understand what has happened to modern society because of late/finance capitalism:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/44908/44908-h/44908-h.htm#p_1

>>22673292
Look it's not hard to read Nietzche. He doesn't hide anything. However his audience is already born low IQ, and then anybody who takes Evola or Nietzche seriously is permanently braindead by atheism...
Nietzche was a nihilist atheist so he tried to turn ''nihilism'' into ''optimistic nihilism'' by doing 2 things
-first by being a deceitful bitch, like any atheist, by redefining nihilism to mean ''christianity''
nihilism according to women, atheists and NPCs like nietzche mean ''thinking long term''. So according to them, when christians think what will happen after death and focus on that, that's ''nihilism''. According to atheists, ''non-nihilism'' is ''living in the present moment like Dionysus''
-second, by saying that since there is no truth and only subjective values, people should fight for their personal values. So for instance, trannies, BLM, feminists are the ubermen according to nietzche because
--they fight for their own values
--they are subversive of the ''old values'', ie the values of the british judean dutch french bourgeois merchant rats who started liberalism 300 years ago, in order to kill kings and priests and make the bureaucrats and merchants the ruling caste in their ''nationalist democratic republics''

there that's all there is nietzche . Optimistic nihilism is retarded and a huge cope by atheists to justify hedonism lol. But bitches like nietzche dont call hedonism ''hedonism'', they call it 'vitalism''.
nietzche is an hedonism, like any atheist, but atheists are desperate to earn atheist karma points, after saying objective morality and truth doesnt exist lol, and they embark on a self-made self-aggrandizing narratives wherein they are cooming like Dionysus and at the same time ''fighting for values''.
The other cope by atheists is ''traditionalism'', ie ''everyday I want a bureaucratic daddy to tell me what do to in his fascist republic while I am pretending to be wicca witch doing magic in my sparetime like Evola''.

>>22618331
Black Sun Rising, Coldfire Trilogy #1 - C.S. Friedman (1991)

Damien Vyrce, a knight of the order of the Golden Flame, is a sorcerer in service to the Church. He has traveled far to the east to Jagganoth under orders to assist their patriarch. Upon his arrival he first visits the Fae Shoppe, which sells both items mundane and Worked (magical). He's immediately smitten with its proprietress, Ciani of Faraday. She's an adept, a person born with an innate connection to the Fae, which makes them natural sorcerers of far greater and exclusive ability. Soon after disaster strikes and Ciani has much of all that she is ripped from her. The only way for her to regain what was lost is to kill the one who did it to her. Damien, Ciani, and her sorcerer assistant Senzei Reese, set off in search of their quarry.

The main draw to me was the character dynamics. I don't remember when I last read such a contentious party who have so many competing emotions about their companions. That's especially the case for the character shown on the cover, who later joins, because at best he's a fallen hero, though it's probably more accurate to call him a villain. In reductive terms, he's an amoral vampire with a complex history. Somehow he's also the one who has the most character development, despite his age and desire to be set in his ways. Damien is extremely conflicted about his presence, though by the end there isn't much that he isn't conflicted about.

I also greatly enjoyed everything about the world. Unlike some other series, this one doesn't obfuscate. Everyone seems to know that humanity came to this planet, Erna, 1,200 years ago after 10s of millennia in cold sleep on a generation ship. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the planet, they had to make the Great Sacrifice and give up almost all of their technology. The animistic force that's omnipresent is called Fae and allows for emotions and beliefs to affect reality. It also allows for what's called magic for simplicity's sake. At the time of their arrival humanity were the only known sapient species. That didn't last long because humanity's intense beliefs caused a rapid evolution in several species and one in particular. If humanity was created in God's image, then this newly sapient species was created in humanity's image. War soon began. Elsewhere it wouldn't have been much of a conflict, but the problem with technology was if it wasn't fully understood and believed in, it often catastrophically failed.

I enjoyed everything about this except the plot, which I found to be too simple and convenient. It also failed to do enough with its setting and the backstories of its world and characters. The set-up for the next book also displeased me, but was more understandable. Simply put, I felt the plot was contrived and the weakest aspect by far. I had to think for a few days how to rate this, but there wasn't any doubt that I'd read the rest of the trilogy.

Rating: 3.5/5 (4)

>>22578042
But remember, there's no judiciary/executive, so there's no actual firm decision on what is and is not correct, it's just Rabbis arguing over it. At the end of the day, all a Rabbi can do is declare someone cherem. This term used to refer to human sacrifice, but today it means "excommunicated". A Jew is forbidden from interacting with someone who is cherem, so it's a form of shunning. This shunning continues after death (there are still Halakhically valid Spinoza Free Zones in the Netherlands). The result is that the Talmud, almost by design, is full of competing opinions so that a Rabbi can argue more or less any position as needed and then call it good (thereby freeing those under him from any problems in the afterlife and putting the decision solely on said Rabbi). A lot of the commentary is also fractally tangential, with quibbles about measurement units, definitions, how one is supposed to sort and order things, etc.

It's also got a mystical content to it that is concerned with obscure numerological bullshit and reading things into it that just flat out aren't there, or picking letters at what seems like random to spell new lines.

>>22568209
No, there's just the Talmud, and it's fucking huge. Having said that, the good parts, like Avodah Zarah, which is the text on how Jews are supposed to interact with gentile religion, aren't labeled well. Also, because of the fractal commentary, very important portions can be attached to something completely unrelated to them except by the question of "how long can a Jew's shoelaces be". Also, most of it isn't translated outside of its given languages (it's originally in a mix of Hebrew and Aramaic).

It's also important to remember that most Jews never read the Talmud, it's just Rabbis. It's a fucking canon, not a single text.

>>22549644
Read this encyclical.
https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19370319_divini-redemptoris.html

>This all too imminent danger, Venerable Brethren, as you have already surmised, is bolshevistic and atheistic Communism, which aims at upsetting the social order and at undermining the very foundations of Christian civilization .
>The Communism of today, more emphatically than similar movements in the past, conceals in itself a false messianic idea. A pseudo-ideal of justice, of equality and fraternity in labor impregnates all its doctrine and activity with a deceptive mysticism, which communicates a zealous and contagious enthusiasm to the multitudes entrapped by delusive promises. This is especially true in an age like ours, when unusual misery has resulted from the unequal distribution of the goods of this world. This pseudo-ideal is even boastfully advanced as if it were responsible for a certain economic progress. As a matter of fact, when such progress is at all real, its true causes are quite different, as for instance the intensification of industrialism in countries which were formerly almost without it, the exploitation of immense natural resources, and the use of the most brutal methods to insure the achievement of gigantic projects with a minimum of expense.
>Communism, moreover, strips man of his liberty, robs human personality of all its dignity, and removes all the moral restraints that check the eruptions of blind impulse. There is no recognition of any right of the individual in his relations to the collectivity; no natural right is accorded to human personality, which is a mere cog-wheel in the Communist system. In man's relations with other individuals, besides, Communists hold the principle of absolute equality, rejecting all hierarchy and divinely-constituted authority, including the authority of parents. What men call authority and subordination is derived from the community as its first and only font. Nor is the individual granted any property rights over material goods or the means of production, for inasmuch as these are the source of further wealth, their possession would give one man power over another. Precisely on this score, all forms of private property must be eradicated, for they are at the origin of all economic enslavement.
>If we would explain the blind acceptance of Communism by so many thousands of workmen, we must remember that the way had been already prepared for it by the religious and moral destitution in which wage-earners had been left by liberal economics.

>>22470587
>You're proof of shitskin inferiority.
Who is the shitskin? The one who can't debate without petty insults that are against the rules or the one who remains within the confine of the rules. I would say a racial slur in response, but I don't want to be banned.
>You have no self-control
I'm not a criminal. In fact, you're more likely to be a criminal given you can't handle any contention of your beloved fag.
>you got brutally filtered by Evola
He's honestly not that hard to understand.
>You're just a low class (in terms of inner character) mutt/jew pooman who doesn't belong in the first world.
Even to Evola's philosophy, the first world is Anti-Traditional since industrialization. Moreover, you're twisting Evola to support your modern political positions. For example, Evola himself was very pro-Islam. He called Islam superior to Christianity and Judaism. I do not agree with that. I dislike all of Abrahamism.
Evola has many fans in the Arab world fyi.
>Your idiot opinions on "spirituality" do not even hold a candle to Evola.
If you want to make a cult out of Evola, feel free, but if you don't want actual critiques then fuck off to your tranny Discord so people can continue to confirm your biases. As I've explained, I agree more with Klages than Evola. Klages himself was far right also, but I disagree with Klages on MINOR points.
>You're actually bragging about your "awakened" "experiences" (lol) to people on 4chan to satiate your vulgar ego.
Nigger, read your fucking post. It is far more snobbish and arrogant than anything I've said thus far.
You're just using Evola to stroke your ego, but due to your poor reading comprehension, you don't even realize Evola wouldn't agree with you. It's ironic. Evola would call the modern West even more vulgar than despotic, backwards Saudi Arabia.
>You do know how pathetic that is, right?
I read more thinkers than just fucking Evola and even Klages. I have my own damn views. It just so happens I don't agree with Evola much. Stop treating him like a prophet, you stupid zoomer shithead.
>You mean like you? You're an incoherently raging, classless, brown midwit pseud.
Arabs tend to like Evola more than me average. Also, fuck off to /pol/, you stupid fucking ingrate. I'm not brown, but even if I were, hypothetically speaking, it wouldn't matter.
>Have the last reply, I see how desperate you are.
Slit your fucking throat, you pathetic snobbish pseud. You have the reading comprehension of a nigger. You just twisted the one thinker you jerk off to in order to agree with you on everything.

FYI, if Evola were alive now, he would probably encourage Europe to become Pisslamic or seriously consider it. He had a very high things to say about Islam. In fact, while reading Revolt, many parts reminded me of the Koran, which I despise.

Klages is the thinker I choose, and what's hilarious is Klages looked more Nordic than Evola.

I am influenced by diverse thinkers from Christof Koch to Deleuze.

>>22460617
>I literally just pointed out that you don't know what the word exception means and you still went and said this stupid shit. I don't know if I should feel more embarrassed for you or more embarrassed for myself for still humouring your stupid crap.
If there are at least 10, 20, or more exceptions, then one can call into question the trend. It has to be viewed proportionally.
Regardless, I do not see evidence that most pre-Aryan civilizations were matriarchal. Yes, it's true that a lot of Southern European Pre-Aryan civilizations like Minoans were matriarchal though. However, that is an exception *more in your favor*. What would be needed, in this regarded, is a statistical analysis.
>they were all wrong
I've only read Revolt, but he was pretty clear in his claims and he was wrong. The original Aryans, prior to contact with other peoples, most likely did not see the sun as a masculine figure or the moon as a feminine figure -- it was the inverse. Furthermore, there were no Hyperboreans. Involution is a nonsensical theory and evolution is an undeniable fact. All of biology rests on evolution, which does not necessarily imply having to accept a Neo-Darwinian approach though.
Also, Evola is pretty clear man > woman. He defended Sati after all, the practice of burning Indian widows. He creates constant dichotomies and decides superiority on this basis: the patriline over the matriline, being over becoming, transcendence over unity, elitism over egalitarianism, masculine over feminine, solar over lunar, North over South, white over black, human over animal, heroism over cowardliness, centeredness over ecstasy, order over chaos, and form over formlessness, among others. At least according to him.
I also do not agree with the Being versus Becoming metaphysical dichotomy as a primordial sociohistorical Traditionalist framework. As I've explained, absolute transcendent Being, on the peak of existence, was not the defining feature of ancient traditions. There were no Hyperboreans or any transcendent force that interacted with this world valuing Absolute Being.
I did like Evola's criticisms of Protestantism as being behind the Anti-Traditional industrialized world order though.

>>22452273
Fukuyama is a right-Hegelion. I think to call him a neo-con is unfair simply because most neo-cons were incredibly unrealistic/idealistic in how they viewed the world, while Fukuyama is a pragmatist realist who just so happens to be best known for his one super idealistic thesis. And even if the "End of History," thesis was flawed, it has some good points. No international movement that is broadly seen to be legitimate has emerged to challenge liberal democracy. Nothing like communism, or the reactionary defense of monarchism exists today; the closest is radical Islam and it's hardly a real competitor. Even states diametrically opposed to the liberal democracies still couch their criticism in liberal democracies own terms. Strongmen still take the title of president and have rubber stamp legislatures, they don't name themselves king, or emperor, or tsar. When they attack the West they do so by pointing out that the West fails to live up to its own standards ("and you lynch negros, you have an implicit ruling class"), tactility acknowledging that the values of liberalism are the yardstick by which to measure success, even as they excuse deviations by claiming those standards are unrealistic. Strongmen claim they are strongmen now only in order to control disorder and fight off foreign oppression, so that, one day, they can accomplish largely the same goals that liberal democracy lays out.

And in any event, the Last Man thesis is spot on in describing the rise of the "Manosphere," authors like Jack Donovan, the huge market for tactical gear, tactical baby carriers, consooming a warrior image, etc. Men who now have their subsistence needs met are lashing out for purpose, meaning— or as Hegel put it, recognition.

Fukuyama's best work is actually his two volume opus on "how do high standard of living states get that way." It's not so much his original theses that are great here, they are decent, but that the work is an encyclopedic view of all theories of state development since antiquity, that carefully compares them against the evidence of history.

But unlike partisan hacks, Fukuyama can also engage earnestly with the left, particularly because Hegel is a common bridge. Honneth, the surviving hierophant of the Frankfurt School is also a Hegelian, and is Freedom's Right is worth a read. Notably, you'll find no critical theory or SJWism. The shit that gets associated with the Frankfurt school is bizarre given they were "Western Marxist," that is, on the right fringe of the left. Honneth drifts further right with his Hegelianism and is actually probably not that far from later Fukuyama except on policy minutea.

Which is all to say, The Philosophy of Right is the greatest work of conservative political theory in history and probably also the greatest work of liberal political theory in history. It transcends and sublates our current divisions as much as it helped create them.

>Gardner actually pulled off a really good Choose Your Own Adventure book

Kino. I only read this because I like the genre. But are Gardner’s other books this entertaining? I know this is the only one in the CYOA format but I’m thinking of jumping into the rest of Horror’s Call after reading this. Any tips for a reading order for the others in the series?

>>22180827


Next thing I remember we was all of us back on the ground beside our horses and it was early morning and nothing to be seen when I looked around for some clue as to what had happened. It seemed safe to assume that whatever I had gone through the others had likewise but nothing was said and no-one was showing much interest in anything beyond the ground in front of his feet. Even Glanton seemed a little uneasy and let me tell you this was not a man given to that particular emotion. I felt somewhat stiff as I recall. Like I'd been riding six weeks instead of six days. I did notice every man lowered himself very carefully into his saddle. Much as you might set a crate of eggs down and your life depended on not cracking a single one.

He smiled and Westray matched the expression in wry confederacy. The horses were where you'd left them? he asked.

They were. You want to know did they get the same attention as the rest of us? The thought did cross my mind and I dare say some others too but there warn't any way to know.

I guess not.

They was somewhat skittish for a day or two afterward I'll grant you that.

Westray included the bartender in his glance and gestured and the bartender moved forward and replenished their glasses and when he had stepped back the man continued.

There was no sign of the Apache. They could hardly have failed to see what we saw. I imagine they decided it wasn't anything they wanted any part of. Maybe they'd been taken too. Either way we never saw trace of 'em again. Took us another two days hard riding to reach a place with anything growing but finally we struck water and made camp and you could feel the same thought in the mind of every man there. Glanton gave voice to it.

I see no reason why this need be spoken of again, he said. Well the whole company supported that motion almost without acknowledging it existed. Like the words was resting atop something they didn't want waking. I went along with it although I still had no better recollection than before. Then the judge speaks up.

The judge?

Our second-in-command I guess you could call him although I'm not quite certain what he was. He never gave an order nor took one. Glanton asked his advice from time to time. Anyway there was a fellow with us, Chamberlain, used to keep a journal. I'd never read it. Couldn't read nor write except my name when this all took place. I learned some since. The judge asked this Chamberlain how long back did he leave off making entries and Chamberlain said the night before last. So he had three four pages describing the desert and the Apaches. Are you planning to let that stand, says the judge.

Chamberlain says he hadn't even got around to considering the matter.


[3/4]

>>22169928
>a sick mind and fifth grade writing skills
That's mastabatory moralizing in lieu of bringing something to the table when it comes to theme (i.e. being a good reader) and hyperbolic contrarian nonsense standing in for an actual take on McCarthy's writing. Only retards are fooled into thinking Anglin is saying anything here (or anywhere else for that matter).
>gross, saccharine, self-indulgent, and above all repetitive prose
Pro-tip: people hide the fact they don't have a real take by hiding behind a vague idea of "prose." There's nothing gross about McCarthy's prose, I'm pretty sure Anglin doesn't know what "saccharine" means, I don't find his writing to be pretentious or self-indulgent, and I could just as easily make an appeal to rhythm while pointing out he's telling on himself by admitting he's bored ("repetitive"). This is an opinion being asserted without even the slightest bit of substance to back it up.
>Any moron with a thesaurus can write broken sentences without correct punctuation
McCarthy's use of language adds a layer of depth to his work, alongside tone and atmosphere, and his minimalist approach to punctuation effectively brings the reader closer to the story. It creates a clarity that somehow maintains itself even in the presence of dialogue--I've never had to reread in order to figure out who or if someone is speaking.
>Mixing transgressive imagery with an assault on the written language, and underwriting it with themes of nihilism and blasphemy, should have been viewed as an abomination
First, that's just more hyperbolic moralizing. Second, I've given a deeper take on McCarthy's syntax than Anglin managed to do and I don't find any "assault on written language" taking place. Third, I personally wouldn't call McCarthy's work "transgressive" just because it examines historical reality of violence by depicting violence itself (Anglin is once again hiding behind buzzwords of which he doesn't seem to know the meaning). Fourth, calling McCarthy "nihilistic" is to ignore the human relationships that offer meaning to the characters he presents--it's a very reductive read. Fifth, I don't find his work to be a blasphemy and there are elements within it that present the idea that attenuating yourself so as to be open to hearing the voice of God is to find meaning (opposite of nihilistic).

Anglin's entire take is simply pontificating reactionary nonsense. There's nothing of substance or depth in his criticism of McCarthy; he's presenting a contrarian take retards like yourself will mistake for insight. He has nothing to offer--he's a small man who betrays his own ignorance when it comes to the work of a more creative and substantial man.

I will say again that Anglin is a pathetic manlet who isn't even tall enough to have been in the SS. He reminds me of that faggot Rittenhouse shot (i.e the bald ginger manlet)--the only difference is they radicalized in opposite directions.