/lit/ - Literature

>>23466827
>How is that unlikely or ridiculous?
Because men like Jung, like Heidegger, Schmidt and more are given over to careful, meticulous articulation of thought. So they do not casually form opinions, nor do they change their entire philosophy/thought just because it is no longer in vogue. Others may try to downplay and render them safe for a modern audience, like they do with Nietzsche, like they do with Carlyle. When one engages with the whole of their written works is to see clearly what was written in the full understanding in what is meant and what is written post defeat and must capitulate to victors justice.

There is nothing you can say to a man like that, he is entirely consumed in his world and can see nothing but status symbols and consumption. Or he is a psyop to further fragment the Right-Wing from discovering ethno-nationalism and authoritarian structures.

>>22502013
Orwell wrote deeply on a handful of things, he was correct on almost all of them. I, a literal Fascist, appreciate him as one of the best authors of his age. And despite disagreements with his worldview find comfort in his more whimsical and light-heated essays.

>>22293079

Surrogate actions only matter to those with the mental faculties to understand them and pursue them. The average man does not care about surrogate actions. The only matter to those with the intelligence to realize their rare abilities are being wasted, the higher up the bell curve one goes the more sensitive one becomes to the negative affects of these. I doubt it even shows until one surpasses the first standard deviation above the average.

>>21517115
Christianity and Islam are just marxism and globo-homo in a theological package. Religious should be exclusive, not inclusive to have any meaning. Jews have an exclusive ethno-creed, which is the correct way to interpret religion.

The sheer volume of negative posts and anti-fitness types here has motivated me to become fitter and better than them. Thank you /lit/ very cool.

>>21197118
>It is subordinate to the city. It is true that without the dike, there would be no city, but without the city, what is the point of the dike?

The protects against accidents, nature can be fickle but it does not sit and plan. I think this is a case of apples to oranges. The Warrior/soldier is always on guard for danger from every quarter and as such should be afforded the highest position in society.

> If the soldier must be sacrificed to save the farmer, that is proper.
Agreed. And it is because of this that they occupy the highest positions of the hierarchy.

>he should be subordinate to the makers of things which he defends
I do not understand this position, to place the defender under that which he defends compromises the ability of the defender. It it tantamount of having a woman, in the family, decide when her husband can defend. By the time it comes for her to say, it is already to late, the threat is too close.

>The farmer should not be sacrificed to save the soldier.
Fully agree, the farmer is the lifeblood of the people/polis and it exactly why the warrior precedes the farmer in the hierarchy. For the farmer may endanger the entire city by his actions.

>anymore than the city should be taken apart to build a higher dike
This implies a finite resources. You do not take apart one to furnish the other, though sometimes the two do overlap the Peasant-Soldier of Central Europe springs to mind.

Pic unrelated, I just like posting images on an imageboard.