/lit/ - Literature

>>21697884
>No I think we agree on this as well; but you (your position rather) is to ignore the actual cause in the psyche of the human in the first place that has him leveraged by petty criminals and demagogues (religion, politics, fantasists) whereas these influences, which have surely always existed in every society, would be reduced to beggars and galley oarsmen in a sane and sober society. But my point is that nobody will be able to 'refute' the errors of the current ideology if they shy away to refute the errors in the previous ideology; as to refute one is to refute the other (and all others) whilst you cannot refute one (i.e. understand howt operates) if you refute to ... say, understand the commonality between the fantasy ideology of the priest to the rabble and the fantasy ideology of the leftist to the rabble also (the pulpit, the news desk, etc.).

You did not need to use as much obfuscation in your language as you have here. Your point could of been put across far easier had you not gone over the top. A few words are great , but this is just tiring. Nevertheless I will break it down so others may find it easier.

>Your position is to ignore the cause in the psyche of the human that has him leveraged by religion, politics, fantasists
On the contrary, I am well aware of the damage these groups, and their tools, have inflicted on the world-view of the average man. But the one thing that you fail to mention is that it must be continually applied, the moment the foot is taken off his neck the man will assert himself. Like the Ancient Spartans said of the Helots, they had a wolf by the throat and should their grip weaken for but a moment, the wolf would surely devour him. Which is why in my previous statement about power, not with you, that the passive or assertive support of the population is so critical.

>My point is that nobody will be able to 'refute' the errors of the current ideology if they shy away to refute the errors in the previous ideology; as to refute one is to refute the other (and all others) whilst you cannot refute one (i.e. understand howt operates)
This makes no logical sense, you do not need to refute or solve any errors of the past. You simply cut clean and begin anew, taking the errors of the past. The idea that history is some sort of rubix cube that you must progressively resolve as you build on past experiences as idiotic as it is bizarre. Every system we have is an attempt to resolve the previous systems errors and shortcomings.

>if you refute to ... say, understand the commonality between the fantasy ideology of the priest to the rabble and the fantasy ideology of the leftist to the rabble also (the pulpit, the news desk, etc.).
People in positions of influence lie, this has been proven numerous times, nobody doubts that. Nobody believes it, we are all aware of the Pravda style reporting of the mainstream sources, be they Priests, journos or reporters. We even suspect our own side.

>>18149179
I regret that she did not, but I was thinking about writing a book on her (or at the very least mentioning her extensively in it) when I get done with some of my other projects.

t. Darréanon

>>18104732
This is what a complete and true lack of understanding does to someone's arguments. You ought to try looking beyond the 'Poland Bad' veneer you've constructed and consider the actual geo-political implications of the time period.

>>18102537
As the old masters like to say, "If it was easy, somebody would already have done it."

>>18072573
I'll release the PDF for free, and the paperback and hardcover versions will be on Lulu at cost. I'm not trying to make any money off this venture.

>>18072588
I'm sure, but it's a scarce resource so I figured it'd be nice to re-release it.