/lit/ - Literature

>>20875778
Are you aware that F Gardner has written an entire series of horror novels, called the Horror's Call series? Much like Call of the Crocodile, the famous /lit/ meme with the unforgettable twist, they are set in Chicago. As for recommendations, that can be difficult, because they can be read in any order. But I don't think you'll be disappointed.

Ok, so I'm in a situation because I'm a retard and I've decided to dedicate my life to the fictitious universe in my head while also becoming a polymath and aesthete. This might be the last thing I ever do while fully cognizant of myself. Right now I'm currently embroiled in the following:
>Have a part-time job, seeking full-time/multi-part-time employment
>Writing 5 books, planning 2 more
>Writing 3 serializations, planning 2 more
>Writing 2 blogs
>Running 2 YouTube channels, planning 3 more
>Reading a list of 315 books I own or have money set aside for, at least 50-75 pages per day
>List of books include Greek history/philosophy and law, though admittedly most are classical literature or fantasy
>Teaching myself coding, operating DAWs, and how to speak Japanese
>Planning out when to watch the entire film catalog of 3 directors over the rest of the calendar year
>Watching 6 Western television series (soon to be 5 when Better Call Saul airs tonight, soon to be 8 by end of calendar week)
>Watching a Western cartoon (soon to be 2 on Friday)
>Watching 2 anime but have a list of ~40 I'd like to get through by end of year
>Trying to finish 2 single-player video games
>Got addicted to gacha/live service games a while ago but have thankfully cut it down to 4, monkey brain wants me to go back to 17, fighting it off with junk food (not my call, it just works)
>Starting to read a serialization later tonight
This does not encompass the vast array of things I am planning to do, including a current list of 5,894 ideas I have for various books, serializations, blogs, YouTube channels, scripts, games, albums/EPs, innate notebook scribblings, etc. that I plan to create. Nor does it encompass the thousands upon thousands of books, games, television shows, films, and live service experiences I would like to use as inspiration for the ever-expanding chasm of my mind.
As you can probably tell, I have no one to talk to about any of this, as I have holed myself away in order to accomplish the impossible. I had come here a year ago when things were less insane, but now I can't keep up with myself. Any advice for how to stop this would be appreciated, but unfortunately, when the Hand finally takes me, I will not be able to comply. So I'm posting this in the hopes you find it amusing. I'll come back next summer with an update as I continue to wreck my body and mind.
Cheers.

>>20762599
(2/2)
> I know perhaps better than anyone else how to recognize an order of rank even among strong men, according to their virtue, and on the same principle there are certainly hundreds of sorts of very decent and lovable people among the weak—in keeping with the virtues peculiar to the weak. There are some strong "selves" whose selfishness one might call divine (for instance Zarathustra's) but any kind of strength is in itself alone a refreshing and blessed spectacle. Read Shakespeare! He is full of such strong men, raw, hard, and mighty men of granite. Our age is so poor in these men and even in strong men who have enough brains for my thoughts!
This is excerpt is from a letter to his sister

im an engineer, let me give you some stemlord advice:
no textbook is worth doing without its practice book
all english editions, on any topic, also follow up with a problems book which is essential, absolutely fundamental for understanding, there is no other way to 'get' the material unless you are also practicing the chapter problems which follow the book
here in the soviet bloc, we had a tradition of a professor writing the chapter and assistant professor being in charge of the problems/practice chapter and i see that english publications also do this
every stemlord topic worth the paper it is printed also has its practice/problems book (dont know how you call these but they exist)

and in order to solve most chapter problems, you will need to know calculus, analytic algebra, differential equations, etc
and in order to understand those equations you need a perfect mastery of highschool math first

tl;dr you cant just read stemlord textbooks, its not for mass market, its doubtful you will get anywhere without the math, over half of the disciplines vary between being 90% math and 50% math

>>20605421

Thanks again. I've started going to therapy (to be honest the breaking point was that I fucked up with a woman I really liked and with which I had a strong connection - due to my insecurities, anxiousness, seeking reassurance, etc), but I had just 2 meetings so far. I feel that I could speed up the process if I would read some stuff by myself in order to understand myself better, yet I also feel like this could maybe sabotage my therapeutic relationship since I learn the "tricks" (I'm already a pretty perceptive person, getting more familiar with the therapeutic practices might just enhance my ability to detect what my therapist is doing and play around it automatically as a defense mechanism - this is why it might be a risk). I also seek to attach less to women I really like, to stop being impulsive in this sense, anyway.

There's work to do and I hope I'll make a lot of progress soon. Have a nice day :D

>>20605424

Not sure what to recommend exactly as a book, but you might try to search on Freud/Jung interpretation of dreams? I know Jung noted down his dreams and sought to interpret them, not sure if Lacan did any of this. Freud has a book called "Interpretation of Dreams", yet he was at a starting point in this... field... if you could call it that so I wouldn't expect very accurate information, thought it might help knowing the fundamentals.

>>20594829
>is he worth checking out?
Yes
>is there a particular order?
You can read the stories in any order. The ones most people start with are The Shadow Over Innsmouth, At The Mountains Of Madness, The Dunwich Horror, The Call of Cthulhu, The Colour Out of Space.
After you read the most popular stories, the Dream Cycle and his prose poems are also worth checking out.

>What do I do with myself from day to day? I write when I can and I don't write when I can't; always in the morning or the early part of the day. You get very gaudy ideas at night but they don't stand up. I found this out long ago . . . I'm always seeing little pieces by writers about how they don't ever wait for inspiration; they just sit down at their little desks every morning at eight, rain or shine, hangover and broken arm and all, and bang out their little stint. However blank their minds or dim their wits, no nonsense about inspiration from them. I offer them my admiration and take care to avoid their books. Me, I wait for inspiration, though I don't necessarily call it by that name. I believe that all writing that has any life in it is done with the solar plexus. It is hard work in the sense that it may leave you tired, even exhausted. In the sense of conscious effort it is not work at all. The important thing is that there should be a space of time, say four hours a day at least, when a professional writer doesn't do anything else but write. He doesn't have to write, and if he doesn't feel like it, he shouldn't try. He can look out of the window or stand on his head or writhe on the floor. But he is not to do any other positive thing, not read, write letters, glance at magazines, or write checks. Write or nothing. It's the same principle as keeping order in a school. If you make the pupils behave, they will learn something just to keep from being bored. I find it works. Two very simple rules, a. you don't have to write. b. you can't do anything else. The rest comes of itself.

t. chandler

>>20492418
>just suffering a brief reprieve rather than a sustainable solution. And, like most revolutionary texts, it expects someone else to execute it. Spontaneously everyone is supposed to over throw the elites... okay? And how do we ensure that not for the first or last time that the power vacuum doesn't mean a new generation of elites doesn't fuck us up too? Perhaps decides to selectively interpret an anti-industrial doctrine that supports their power base?
It's really tiring seeing people continue to simply read the meme manifesto and call it quits. ISAIF is so bare-bones, you really cannot get his ideology from it only. He makes it very clear in Technological Slavery that he doesn't advocate for a political revolution. First of all he makes it very clear that he has no pretentions of a mass-movement, and he is in fact actively opposed to it. The Anti-Tech movement should be composed of a small well-organized of highly motivated and fit individuals who takes down the system by means of mass terrorism. There is taking over of countries, it is a global shutdown of the techno-industrial system.
>Bad analogy, it's more like removing most of the tumor but the tumor itself could come back. He doesn't propose a way of completely removing it. And he should, otherwise he's condemning humanity to a continuous cycle of the same shit. He doesn't solve the problem.
Ignoring the very real potential that the resources required to kick-start a new industrial revolution have already been used up, it really doesn't matter. If you have the opertunity of dying today or living another hundred years, it only makes sense to fight for that hundred. The inevitability of death doesn't render life useless.
>A militaristic overthrowing or revolution against the industrial order would cause incalculable deaths, destruction, and suffering because obviously humans being humans - not everyone would be on board - leading to a ghastly protracted conflict, that at the end of which we just pray that the same fucking thing doesn't happen again even though it almost certainly will.
It has nothing to do with not all humans being on board, the opinions of the masses are completely irrelevant because they will be unable to do anything once society collapses through a targeted global destruction of technological infrastructure. Imagine the electric grid shutting of all across the world all at once. Imagine nukes going off in all the major cities. Their cooperation is unnecessary.
What will, however, lead to mass death in the billions is the total shutdown of agriculture that follow such an event. The carrying capacity of any given area without using industrial farming methods is incredibly smaller than the current living population. In the 1500s, the world population was 500 000 000. This is not taking into consideration what would happen once everyone in the cities start flooding out into the countryside because there is no food there. There won't be enough for even 1%.

Do something like what F Gardner does. He has a horror series titled Horror’s Call. He’s probably the closest thing there is to an HO Lovecraft for this generation. Horror’s Call is a series but you can read the books in basically any order you want. It’s really cool. All the books take place in Chicago and have some reoccurring characters and they have really mind blowing twists in them.

If you're looking for horror novels, I'd say to start with Call of the Crocodile by F. Gardner.
>A dark fantasy horror novel, set during Halloween. After a boy is eaten alive by a crocodile, his family begins a descent into madness and terror in this odyssey of modern horror.
>Part of a series of interconnected horror novels that can be read in any order. Each book serves as a stand alone story, yet builds a greater picture behind a sinister mystery in Chicago.

>>20393235

But seriously, I think you'd enjoy this one:

CALL OF F. GARDNER
A young woman named Isabella is told about The Mandela Effect by her boyfriend. A mysterious phenomenon, where people remember certain events differently. They discover one particular occurrence of this happening, in downtown Chicago. Together, they set off into the city, hoping to uncover the truth behind the enigmatic Mandela Effect.
Part of a series of interconnected horror novels that can be read in any order. Each book serves as a stand-alone story, yet builds a greater picture behind a sinister mystery in Chicago.

Author’s Note: I wrote this book as part of the “National Novel Writing Month” challenge. A 50-thousand-word challenge. I completed it in 8 days.

Wordsworth, one of the masters of 'natural' English verse, was hugely influenced by Milton and so were the other English romantics.

>Wordsworth was early recognized by his admirers as the greatest imaginative genius since Milton, who, on this account, would naturally come to mind as a term of comparison. In the second place, Wordsworth himself not only acknowledged him as his master but invited comparison by frequently referring to the example of Milton in his essays, letters, and conversations; his habit of quoting and talking about him must have been very evident to his friends, if we may judge by the testimony of Crabb, Robinson, and others. It was this, no doubt, as well as the fact of actual imitations, which prompted Charles Lamb to call Wordsworth "the best knower of Milton", and the numerous comments on Milton in the essays and letters of the poet doubtless serve as thebasis of Lane Cooper's assertion that Wordsworth is Milton's best critic.

>My admiration of some of the Sonnets of Milton,
first tempted me to write in that form. The fact
is not mentioned from a notion that it will be deemed
of any importance to the reader, but merely as a
public acknowledgement of one of the innumerable
obligations, which, as a Poet and a Man, I am under
to our great fellow-countryman.

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc130234/m2/1/high_res_d/n_01686.pdf

>Milton is a failure, and can hardly be considered musical in any regard. If you read iambic lines like retard as DUM-dum, the metronome is terse and uninteresting. If you read it as fluidly as prose, you have a harsh dictation and elision that constantly pulls the rug out from the RULES of the english language, which Milton broke (indefensibly) to create verse
>Without having to go into prosody, it simply isn't iambic. It had to be adjusted to fit meter, that's all. I didn't say "this isn't poetry"

Milton is known for freeing up blank verse and this made his genius impossible to escape once people stopped writing mostly heroic couplets. You only reveal you simply have no ear for poetry not by-numbers. To call Shakespeare's virtuosity an extension of natural English is simply arbitrary. There's nothing rule-breaking about mild inversions and mildly free word order. Pound is a kook and not a master of the English language either in the making of poetry or the criticism of it.

>>20159842
>I've always assumed that most Christians only know the parts of the bible that their pastors sermonize about.
This is true and part of why Christians are such easy targets to make fun of. There are millions of Christians, especially in the United States, who have never read a Bible verse their pastor didn't show them directly. So there are millions of people who call themselves Christians who are ignorant golems and don't understand anything about the history they claim. Being ignorant isn't a bad thing in itself but it opens them up to easy criticism and ridicule. This combined with the fact that White American Christians are no longer violent against their opposition (unlike a minority of Muslims who are willing to violently attack people that hurt their feelings) and the fact that White American Christians no longer have cultural hegemony (Jews have sufficiently undermined the cultural background of the USA and use their tremendous institutional and soft power through decades of conditioning and through organizations like the ADL in order to insulate themselves from criticism, and they also hate Christians and Christianity so Jews work hard to make Christians the target of ridicule) mean that Christians I think get disproportionately targeted for appearing to be backwards idiots. They basically are backwards idiots, but they are also being intentionally led astray and they have no way of defending themselves.

Atheists, generally speaking, are not any smarter or more informed than their Christian counterparts but they are not seen as socially acceptable targets the way that White Christians in the USA are seen as acceptable targets.

I'm not a Christian or an atheist btw.

>>20156020
>to rephrase that
no you missed the point. this is not just ONE instance of unwieldy sentences peppered with unnecessary and ugly particles holding together "good enough" sentences with duct tape. you should take that approach, that one little nugget of advice, and go through your entire work to make it less shit. hell, spend the next hour trying to make that one passage linked above not-shit and see what you learn from it. just work at it until you can't look at it anymore, and then go back and line edit every single sentence.

embrace the mindset where you are learning to write well rather than working towards a finite goal of Finishing The Thing because if you don't, even if you do Finish Thing it won't be Good Thing because you never took the time to become not-shit. this is what i try to tell you every time i see you posting the same unedited thing over and over again with the tiniest changes. even GRRM says he line edits word by word, and that's to get his prose to the very low level he's at.

all this patreon shit and royalroad ass faggotry has been such a universal negative. this person i'm replying to will get offended and pretend that i have some personal vendetta against him, which i don't, but i will call you a fucking tranny, "Luci Ember". the problem is that a generation of zoomers writing cum rags on their phone screens have never read anything more advanced than Afro Vore 4: Tentacle Boogaloo. do they think it's some kind of great revolution to write literature as if it's a text message to the uncle that touched you when you were 10? it's not. it's just shit writing.

i'm not saying your tranny cum-fic is shit because i can tell you've been working on making it less shit, but it's still fucking shit and you need to work harder or maybe just at all on WRITING instead of getting distracted by the three ring circus of MUH PLOT MUH CHARACTERS MUH WHATEVER because unless you're writing for genuine mouth-breathing retards who have to stop breathing in order to read any sequence of three or more letters, nobody is going to care about any of that.

also, i fucking hate niggers and myself

Philosophy at this point is just pandering to the peasants looking for some comfort from the cold facts of reality that remind them that little bags of meat and water are as trivial as ants. It's just fantasy and delusion, no different than transgenderism.

Philosophy attempted to replace religion as a means to indoctrinate people to pursue self-betterment and labor, but it ultimately just created a bunch of entitled fucks who demand fee shit because of imaginary "rights" spoonfed to them by the philosophers who learned that pandering to idiots makes them way more friends and way more money than telling people the truth.

As a "philosopher", let me tell you, 99% of people can't read. The 1% of people who read anything generally refuse to read phlosophy because it is empirically and pragmatically worthless. The 0.01% of people who read philosophy do so in order to find which ball-fondling philosopher will pander to their basal delusions of grandeur and entitlement the most, then they will attack you and condemn you if you tell them the truth.

Don't think too much. Thinking is a disease, and it's why the species is sick. No other animals think. If you're the odd man out, you're probably in the wrong. Most people are expected to "think" but have no real capacity to do this, it's like trying to run some basic calculation program on a computer that can't calculate 3 digit addition, let alone relate any legitimate measurements of reality to the processes which produces these results.

I've got anger issues, and I get upset when other people talk, so I become verbally abusive. This makes me unpopular. The only way to be successful as a writer is to put the balls of the peasant in your mouth and suck them until their scrotum bleeds, then you subsist of the small amount of sustenance offered to you by that pittance of blood coming from the peasants balls.

I enjoy writing, but it seems pointless without any audience. I'm just too violent and abusive for the audience, and they become upset, angered, or upset that somebody would dare do anything beyond coddle them. If you're good at coddling and pandering, then you can try philosophy, otherwise pick STEM, since the ignorance and delusions of the peasants aren't capable of contesting science the way they are capable of contesting the baseless and subjective competitions of subjectivity that define philosophy. When you can't actually defeat peasants with philosophy, it's worthless. At least science can cripple and maim peasants.

Call me an edgelord, a 14-year-old, and I'll remind you that I don't give a fuck. If I was the type of person to prostrate myself before the criticisms of other people, I would be a spineless subhuman like the fucking cuddle-puddle of subhumanism that defines Western Idealism. I enjoy the hatred, because it means I'm not one of you.

Sadly, 3k says "this ends here".. Hate, hate, hate.

>"certainty brings insanity"

Reality is certainty, thus I am insane

How mentally off base do you have to be in order to feel an intense irrational urge to outdo other people, especially artists, and attempt to ''get it right'' whenever you encounter their work? I never really had a traditionally competitive nature throughout my life, mainly because i was more of a slacker who preferred to make jokes rather than work, but whenever i saw somebody from my community/country that's in my age range try to do something, even if its as seemingly innocuous as putting together a retarded meme (to take an event that ive been through), my mind always raced with thoughts that went along the lines of : ''you fucked it up, now its all dry and limited. i can do it better.'' despite my skills not being up to par most of the time.
Now here's the catch. I don't treat those people with contempt, the way a clichéd outwardly arrogant and prideful sumbitch would (not saying that i may not fit this description). An internal dialogue tends to happen before interacting with those folks, where i rationalize the situation to myself and go through with the most respectful and cordial approach possible without it being forced either. Maybe try to ignite a friendly competitive spirit if i know them well enough. And i actually like people, most are just decent dudes trying their best, so i dont want to be hurtful to anyone, but god damn do i feel a burning rage when i'm on my own. I suppose it's what you'd call having a chip on your shoulder, but i don't know. I want to do right by the people who have offered love and a place where i can belong by giving them quality work instead of always settling for half assed mediocre attempts to pass ourselves as something that we're not, having a little dignity, and that's where i get this feeling. Perhaps psychotics such as friedkin or herzog or (to remain /lit/erary) céline felt this exact way regarding their contemporaries as well. I just can't read any book from my country without feeling this way. It could be that i hold my vision of the world to be rightful with it pointing towards a severe case of narcissism, but again, i don't have a concrete answer.
Are these unhealthy psychopathic tendencies? Genuine question.

>>19977815
Wrong, race is included but it is not the only thing. Critical theory, as I have posted, is an entire intellectual school of thought. It stems from Western marxism, and the Frankfurt school. Read here to learn about what critical theory actually is >>19977979
then, it is this theory applied to race.

>>19977988
Just to restate what you are saying:
Again, it seems as though critical theory stems from the school of thought that is Western Marxism, which is distinctly seperate from Eastern Marxsim (which is what we will call it). It focuses on culture, rather then economics. Thus, we cannot call it Marxist in the traditional sense, since it rejects historical materialism, and instead focuses on culture and idealogy.

>>19977992
Uneblievably wrong.
Critical theory:
"A critical theory is any approach to social philosophy that focuses on reflective assessment and critique of society and culture in order to reveal and challenge power structures. With roots in sociology and literary criticism, it argues that social problems stem more from social structures and cultural assumptions than from individuals. It argues that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation."

How is this anti equality, anti liberalism? How does it create racial heirarchy? Show me a source.

>>19978028
Wrong. Marxist critical theory is not a thing. Marxism, is an idea. Thus, academics took the humanistic theories of Marx, and created Western Marxism, which rejected historical materialism, and put the focus on culture and ideas. These thinkers then became the Frankfurt school, which attempted to explain why the west didn't become Marxist. Their conclusion? Education, culture, ideas. Only then, did this heavily influence critical theory. Critical theory examines power structures in culture and society. This critical theory, is then applied to an analysis of race. It is not Marxist in the traditional sense, because Marxists, believe in base-superstructure. This cannot be overlooked. They are fundamentally opposed to traditional marxist theory.

>>19978048
Well if you do not read it, then I literally cannot argue with you. The definitions of these thoeries that /lit/ is using are objectively wrong. I don't care where they got it from exactly, but what they are saying is not correct. They can say whatever they want, but if they are not willing to at least read the definition off wikipedia, then they will forever get it wrong. Everything I am saying is just rephrasing what I have already posted.

>>19945695
>Is he really irrefutable?
Kinda, it's just common sense. Read Chesterton:
>Against all this the philosophy of St. Thomas stands founded on the universal common conviction that eggs are eggs. The Hegelian may say that an egg is really a hen, because it is a part of an endless process of Becoming; the Berkeleian may hold that poached eggs only exist as a dream exists; since it is quite as easy to call the dream the cause of the eggs as the eggs the cause of the dream; the Pragmatist may believe that we get the best out of scrambled egos by forgetting that they ever were eggs, and only remembering the scramble. But no pupil of St. Thomas needs to addle his brains in order adequately to addle his eggs; to put his head at any peculiar angle in looking at eggs, or squinting at eggs, or winking the other eye in order to see a new simplification of eggs. The Thomist stands in the broad daylight of the brotherhood of men, in their common consciousness that eggs are not hens or dreams or mere practical assumptions; but things attested by the Authority of the Senses, which is from God.
>Thus, even those who appreciate the metaphysical depth of Thomism in other matters have expressed surprise that he does not deal with what many now think the main metaphysical question; whether we can prove that the primary act of recognition of any reality is real. The answer is that St. Thomas recognised instantly, what so many modern sceptics have begun to suspect rather laboriously; that a man must either answer that question in the affirmative, or else never answer any question, never ask any question, never even exist intellectually, to answer or to ask. I suppose it is true in a sense that a man can be a fundamental sceptic, but he cannot be anything else; certainly not even a defender of fundamental scepticism. If a man feels that all the movements of his own mind are meaningless, then his mind is meaningless, and he is meaningless; and it does not mean anything to attempt to discover his meaning.

>Are the arguments presented in the Summa really impossible to refute?
You need a genius to refute them, that these arguments have passed through the hands of almost all modern and contemporary philosophers and scientists and none has been able to refute them in more than 800 years says a lot. That Hume and Russell have been foolish in the attempt also says a lot. You have to see how many Jews, Muslims and atheists convert to Christianity after reading him, its unreal.

>Now, despite strongly disliking Christianity and everything it stands for
Christianity built Western Civilization, what you don't like about Christianity?.

>>19892060
1. The majority opinion by far is that Canonization is dogmatic. There are only a few notable theologians who have seriously postulated that it is not dogmatic, relegating the question of canonization's magisterial weight to a highly restricted theological discussion.
2. Even if canonization admitted of some small possibility of error, this would not give the lay person the freedom to doubt all canonizations.
3. St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, and St. Ignatius are not like some saints who have been raised recently with an abbreviated review of their life, nor are they like some saints of old of whom we have received few monuments. Rather, they are Saints of the highest order--honored in the old liturgical calendar, read and taught throughout the Catholic world, the founders and reformers of venerated and austere orders which have in turn produced countless saints.
3. While you claim a concern for the uncertainties did the Renaissance due to the confusion and calamity of the Protestant revolt, these three saints in particular have been held as some of the great lights of the Church in that time.
4. St. Phillip Neri himself was strongly influenced by his relationship with St. Ignatius, and many of the priests if his order were first made priests in the Society of Jesus. Your use of the word "unorthodox," is calumnious, though probably unintentionally so; that some practice is unconventional does not make it unorthodox. St. Francis was unconventional in his practices of poverty and Eucharistic adoration--could we dare call him unorthodox?
7.You admit to never having read the works of these spiritual masters. Clearly, you have not read any of the praise thrown on them or their works by so many eminent theologians and spiritual teachers. These commendations, of course, are so effusive and so universal, however, that you could hardly be ignorant of them, unless you were ignorant of almost the whole of mystical theology.
8. If almost the whole of the Church could read the works of St. Ignatius, St. John of the Cross, and St. Theresa of Avila until now and find no error, but rather have expressed nothing but admiration, how could you or any of us suppose to find such error or fault? Are you or I greater in our faith and theological understanding than St. Pius X or St. Alphonsus Liguori?
9. Neither St. Theresa of Avila or St. John of the Cross were themselves conversos, but the descendents of conversos, whose faith was tried by the Inquisition. For what reason, then, do you bring these saints under suspicion?

>>19778864
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.

>>19776820
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.

>>19778814
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.

>>19778727
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.

>>19750895
Done.

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.