/lit/ - Literature

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.

>>22152235
>Each post of yours has been absent of any anchor to the original matter
The original matter is your inability to think and your hard work to avoid thinking through autistic appeals to concepts like "proof" which you don't understand either.
>you can't provide proof
Every post you make is proof of my original point that you can't consider different perspectives. The idea is still completely baffling you, like you said, you genuinely do not understand the idea.
>It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. – Aristotle
>this is literally all you ever say
To you and I will always call you out retard. Read my first posts before you revealed yourself as the cancer you are. >>22149724
>you begin with the strongest possible kind of verbal abuse
You know this is false. I you're replying to a post pointing out the documented evidence that this is false. I call you the worst braindead cancer on the planet when you consistently behave like the worst braindead cancer on the planet. Not before that.
>you're desiring to provoke others to petty name-calling in order to avoid the subject itself
You avoided the subject for like 10 posts before even the first insult. You can go read the interaction yourself instead of making up fantasies.
>I've patiently always asked you in every response to clarify and explain your case
And I've repeated the claim, clarified it and now experimentally proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt. The claim is you work hard to avoid considering different perspectives. That's all you've done since I made that claim.

>>22072158
You're very welcome, my Brother in Christ; may others find it so, as well.

>>22072426
Offhand, I don't really know of any sort of singular "magic bullet" resource(s) to help with understanding Ye Olde Englishe; tbqh, I don't find the KJV english difficult to understand at all, but I also don't just speed-read through it: I quietly read in silence, deliberately, resonating with each & every single word, savoring its poetic flow. Even the "boring" parts of Leviticus & Numbers, such as when the building of the tabernacle or the complements of each tribe are detailed, I savor, imagining assembly of the temple in my mind according to its instructions -- which I feel is an important, secret means of attaining deeper connection with the divine here, as *imagining* building the temple (in your mind) is actually *building* the temple (*within*/inside your mind)...

...thusly preparing your mind to receive deeper wisdom.

>protip: carefully read every word, savor every sentence, and imagine construction of the temple within your mind in order to prepare your mind to receive deeper wisdom

Back to your question: there are so many resources; although I'm not terribly multilingual, I am aware of a variety of translations of certain words between the languages used over time, and the way phrases turn, and certain allusions.

For example: when God commands us not to "commit adultery," it's not "adultery" in the sense of extramarital sex; it's "adultery" as in when you "adulterate your wine" (by pouring water or juice into it), this making it no longer *PURE* wine.

God hates that. He goes on & on about how you should never wear a garment of two different fabrics, or plant two different species of crops together. This is largely to set the tone on the big one:

"Do not commit adultery" means "DO NOT RACEMIX!"

How many times did someone offend God or his Chosen People by marrying a filthy Canaanite or other alien? God hates that. It may not be very "progressive" in today's distorted popular perspective, but, hey, God's a champion breeder, and doesn't want to ruin these choice bloodlines with muttery. This is *not* my call; these are some of the rules God set forward.

Sad... this totally invalidates Steven Anderson. :/

....HOWEVER, Moses did marry a Midian, which pissed off Aaron's wife, but then God smited her (clearly taking the side of Moses and his niggerwife), so IDK man, OT God seems a bit inconsistent, as discussed already in this thread; maybe she was a special case, genetically, or something.

I had further thoughts; I'll post them if they return soon.

>>22064164
This stems from an inability to contextualise yourself in the world. You need to realise how big the world is and who you really are. I know this sounds like a cliché but it’s important. Try that one Stoic ‘zooming out’ meditation technique. It made me go from constantly angry at God and the world to one of the calmest people when I was in my teens. Also lift, spend time in nature, put your phone down, learn to breathe diaphragmatically, get your testosterone level up. Not for any other reason than the fact that your body needs to be in good shape in order not to cloud your mind and judgement. What you call being upset at God is really just resentment. Truth is you don’t really even know God until you a deep sense of calm and are able to look past your worldly ills. As for literature, start with the Greeks and then read The Enneads. If you’re Christian, Kierkegaard will probably help you.

>>22057231
>I can recall today no instance of my admiring some or another work of self-referential fiction, much less of my trying to write such a work. (I will explain briefly in the following paragraph why this present work of fiction is not self-referential, although it may have seemed so already to a certain sort of undiscerning reader.) The more extreme examples of their kind repelled me. The narrators of these works would sometimes pause in their reporting and would affect to be unable to decide which of several possible courses of events should follow from that point or, as an undiscerning reader might say, what should happen to the chief characters. And yet, I myself was not discerning enough at that time to be able to explain to myself why I turned away instinctively from such writing.

>The narrators who postured in front of their readers and who wondered aloud, as it were, what fates to assign to various characters, were deriving enjoyment, so I now believe, from what they supposed was the dispelling of an illusion held by most, if not all, of their readers. The illusion is that the characters described in fiction are, if not actual persons of the same order as the readers themselves, ideal persons, so to call them, who live out their lives in the same sorts of place as are depicted in films while their authors are required merely to report on them in the way that the makers of films observe their characters. It is not for me to guess how many readers of fiction might be under the illusion mentioned or how many of the deluded, so to call them, might have revised their beliefs after having read that the subject-matter of fiction depended on the mere whim of some or another belittler of the long-held trust between reader and narrator. All that I can do is to state here what seems to me self-evident: while the writer and the reader, together with the words that they write or read, may be seen to exist in this, the visible world, what they are pleased or driven to write about or to read about – their subject-matter – is nowhere to be seen: those seeming persons and seeming events and the seeming scenery behind them are present to one writer alone or one reader alone in the cramped foreground of somewhere vast and vague; and while I would never presume to understand the laws or principles operating in either of the two places – the visible or the invisible – I could never doubt that those in the one differ greatly from those in the other and could never consider any writer claiming otherwise to be anything but a fool.

Pernicious nonsense wrapped in twiddle twaddle ramblings while easily being one of the most influential books published in the 20th century. This is the most different of all of Nietzsche’s books while simultaneously epitomizing all of his other writings even to the point of making this book seem unoriginal, something that I’ve never felt with any of his other books. It’s clear that a lot of this book were notes from his other books, and the rest were notes for what would become this book. There is one thing that struck me about this book, overall it was the most unoriginal of all of Nietzsche’s writings because he had for the most part said it elsewhere in his writings but says it here in such a way that it will appeal to the proto-fascist and soon-to-be Nazis who will lap this stuff up.

Ayn Rand loved Nietzsche and was going to use his quotations as chapter headings for ‘The Fountainhead’ until she realized that she misunderstood him; she obviously agreed with his fascism but wasn’t able to understand his philosophy beyond the superficial and I suspect it was this book that originally hooked her. Heidegger wrote an incredibly influential book explaining this book that influenced Derrida, Foucault and Rorty, but, most importantly, Oswald Spengler explicitly cites Nietzsche and Goethe as his major influences for volume I of Decline of the West (by all means read that God awful book if only to understand why one can call Trump a fascist), and lastly in Hitler’s autobiography, Nietzsche with Goethe, Luther and Fredrich the Great were Hitler’s acknowledged greatest influences. BTW, within this book I would say that Goethe was equally praised by Nietzsche as Hitler and Spengler praised him.

Make no mistake. This book is vile. The ‘always conniving Jew uses their knowledge against the ignorance of the other’ or whatever nonsense Nietzsche wrote, hysterical women never can learn or write good literature, the German is superior, Machiavelli was a great thinker, and so on and so on. But, that’s not my real problem with this book since it’s easy to dismiss that has nothing but prejudices.

All of the perniciousness of fascism lurks within this book. All of Donald Trump and what he is trying to do against humanity is within this book. Equality is anathema for them. Humanism is irrelevant and dangerous to them. A great leader, according to Nietzsche is required in order to save us. Spengler made Julius Caesar his great leader while in this book Nietzsche did too, but also Napoleon would do, or until a Hitler comes along or a Trump. Trump has anointed himself as the self-appointed uber-mensch for our time. Nietzsche is really saying ‘stop thinking and follow me and let your feelings be your guide’. There is no being, there is only becoming and a great thinker will be needed to rise above the herd.