/lit/ - Literature

>>20545355
>The US is a void, in many regards, I'd certainly agree. It feels like everything is trying to be the equal of what was conceived and developed elsewhere; culture, ideology, mythology, etc. all seem like childlike attempts at pretending to be the same as the adults. Nothing that supposedly defines us seems to have the weight or depth that it does anywhere else, even in younger Latin nations.
Because most traditions are formed out of necessity. And what isn't formed out of necessity, is formed out of worship of the divine. We have neither in the United States, having conquered necessity and largely thrown away the divine. So now we have this soulless, materialistic landscape in its stead. Which is a damn shame. We have all of this potential to create, to sculpt something magnificent, a reflection of the whole world in its greatest possible glory, and instead we waste it on a superficial bacchanal.

To drive this point home, fashion. Why is trying to copy Napoleon's drip in pic-rel cringe now? Because Napoleon's drip was both functional and beautiful with the times. Now, it's neither functional (why would I wear that sash? I don't have to carry a sword or a pistol) nor is it in accordance with the times. It still looks cool, objectively speaking, but it would be considered a cumbersome LARP to adorn the whole costume, especially in a society like ours that has an increasingly deficient appreciation of the aesthetic sublime. So, what the hell do you wear when you don't need to technically "wear" anything, besides to avoid getting thrown in prison for exposure and to get the approval of other people? I guess anything novel.

>At this point, can "we" make repairs to any of the system?
The system works just fine, specs wise.

>Do you have some recommendations to read there? I'm not familiar with that particular analysis.
I'm afraid not. It's just the conclusion I've come to.

If it helps, I can lay out my thought process. First I went down the race realism rabbit hole, then I read Heidegger, read Rousseau's 1st and 2nd Discourses, and then finally stumbled upon Gentile. I realized that that he has a "nominalist" understanding of nationhood, that chosen boundaries enforced by the state are arbitrary (at least until they're tested by struggle, taking cues from Hegel). And that point, I was satisfied that nobody but God really has the answers I was looking for.

So, yeah. Nations are important. They're built upon underlying essences that "spring" from the Earth, to put it as poetically as my pedestrian brain can. But the boundaries are arbitrary and are meant to be expansionist over time. Even fascist intellectuals had a "globohomo" mindset, if only from the right. And if you read these people and try to understand the implications, you'll understand that intuitively. We're in control of our destiny now, thanks to us being conscious creatures. It would be nice for our leadership to realize this too (and steer us towards virtuous ends).