/lit/ - Literature

>>19803081
>>19803085
Is SPQR really that bad? It's not too faggy about how it presents Rome, is it (I don't want to hear any preachy retardation beyond anything reasonable)? I bought it on a whim and it's just sat on my desk. Burn or read?

>Captcha: AHRGG

>>18203079
I'll admit that I chuckled.

>uncontented critters

>>17002721
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04
This is essential viewing if you're interested in the subject.

https://youtu.be/niiF8hCSrYQ

>>15248796
Because the powers that be decide if they want to collapse the system or not.

>>14480862
nice demoralizing there, faggot

>>14321203

>>14066077
>This man has swallowed cum

I read this in the voice of someone emphatically throwing accusations in attempt to start a ruckus at a town hall meeting.

>>13597138
A group of people grabbing the wheels of power and prioritizing their needs over others is practically the same as African politicians constantly getting exposed consolidating resources for their specific tribe. Focusing on the family/community over the nation when you're leading the nation leads to big problems in society.

>>11650538
>>11650697
>tfw i wrote it that way purposefully

>tfw you just realize that Nabokov was part of a commie plot

>bait thread
>John Howard reaction pic
>55 replies
Teach me ausbro.

Accelerationism isn't nihilism. Is it a death cult?

>>10519704
are you kidding? It's the culmination of Frankfurt school academic garbage where the entire culture cannot call out man-boy-love propaganda. It's one thing to have this story in a book, but another to have it on scree, and lauded no less! lol.

>>9665018
No, watch his videos. He asserts that the big postmodern philosophers are marxist and sublimate their ideas by changing their ideology from socioeconomic status as a mode of power to things like language, gender, ect. They try to "investigate" history to dig of snippets of fact to fit their theses, like Karl. They assert that we do not live in reality, but a projected reality, promoting hypernormalisation. It is all the product of KGB subversion. Sartre supported Mao, took pics with Castro. I mean fuck.

>>9532440

>>8219372
No, that's not how it works in real life, is it? (unless you're autistic)
It has to be in response to something they say, or at a ''good time''
There are certain things which need to be analysed i.e. if there is: too few people around, too many people around, current mood, response to previous jokes/conversation, etc.
You essentially have to be good at reading your """mark""" and the environment. This can't be taught, friendo.
There is no ''magic line'' that works every time but there is definitely a chink in the armor of anyone (men included) which you can use to get what you want (or closer to it)
With women, this is much easier when you have already established a ''faint line of intimacy'', in other words: You've let her know that you could potentially be interested, but not openly or overtly. Of course, there are women who respond to the ''loud'' approach also but either way, you have to be mining information that you could use in the future at all times. Once you have broken down this barrier, it's pretty much a matter of logistics...
Source: 21 y/o and fucked enough women to know.

>mfw /r9k/ drops their spaghetti over nothing and most of them don't even realise the massive complexities in the game and the pressure this instils if you do understand

>>8201832
>That isn't what I'm saying at all.
>''The past is dead.''
LMAO YOUR OWN WORDS M8
The rest of your post is just a shit load of implications. I never stated my ''beliefs'' once. I never claimed to be one hundred percent right either, or that I have the answers. I simply stated that YOURS are indeed wrong. As you are, though... You won't listen. As Bezmenov said:

''the people who graduated in the 60's, dropouts or half-baked intellectuals, are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, and educational systems. You are stuck with them. You can't get through to them. They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern [alluding to Pavlov]. You cannot change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still can not change the basic perception and the logic of behavior.

''Exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him, even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents and pictures. ...he will refuse to believe it.... That's the tragedy of the situation of demoralization.''


as you were...