/lit/ - Literature

>>12633594
every once in a while Land tweets a picture of the Jolly Roger and i find this very interesting, because i think in a certain sense it represents a true puzzle for his thinking: what's wrong with a fleet of Enlightenment pirates? the real problem he has isn't with capitalism (obviously) but with industrial civilization grafted onto Atlantic/maritime/Sea Peoples sensibilities. there is not a significant and important split - as Schmitt notes - between Germanic land-based (not Land-based, mind you) and Anglo sea-based thinking. with Napoleon everything that was continental was well and truly continental, and the Anglos found themselves on the outside looking in; today it's Land who *really* finds himself on the outside looking in.

but this idea of the Enlightenment as a *genuine problem* for romantic Hegelian-Marxism is a point worth reflecting on, i think. as the Joker himself says: the thing about chaos is, *it's fair.* and there is some part of this that appeals on some deep sub-cocklear level to dear old Uncle Nick, who i think will choose disintegration on the high seas over even his own preferred brand of Social Darwinism, if push came to shove. pirate utopias, i think, would work for him. he's hung up on cybernetic capital and much else that follows from Marx, but i think if i wanted to begin crowbarring what remained of my soul away from his icy clutches i would actually begin by considering What The Enlightenment Meant By This, and asking if there actually is any real conflict of interest between Enlightenment values and pirate utopia. because i think this is why he tweets that stuff out now and again.

>pinker is a quintessential cardinal ex cathedra, and received and presented by the media arm as such. that such a nebbish little queer is the vocal contingent of dogmatic liberalism maybe speaks to each 'true power', and his round denouncement by the more committed, critical, and pragmatically-minded leftist media contingent gives evidence of where the real energy and sentiment is fomenting.
so i'm find with all of this also, and the Cathedral obviously can suck a dick. but the same dick that it sucks must in the end be sucked by those who oppose it in ways guaranteed to reproduce it with perhaps only a redder tint rather than a bluer one.

if Landian Right-Marxism is the correlative to Foucault's Left Nietzsche, we can perhaps posit a new dyad: an Angry Steve and a Cheerful Nick, neither of which exists, but both of which are perhaps briefly interesting enough to shed some more light on his conversation...

>what in the name of Sam Elliott are you even talking about girardfag
>inner self i am just having a grand old time
>but nobody knows what you mean you insufferable horseball
>*gets Enya*
>no. not that. not Enya
>we have to be kind inner self, even to those we hate
>but you are so deserving of hate girardfag. you're my soul mate for hate. i need to hate you. it feels so right. you're so fucking...pathetic
>true

what is the single most based and redpilled of political theory books?
pic related.

>>11881991
>You still didn't explain how it was irrational.
because that's the exactly what the greentext in the original post means. seen from within, or from the perspective of some ideological commissar, it wasn't irrational: it was obedience to the will of the state. seen from without, or historically, it was. this is the paradox of totalitarian modernist leadership: I Am The State.

the State, by virtue of being the State, can exercise a force or power that in being above the law simply supplies its own force of rationality through pure will. it fucks with human beings because we are like that. there's a good parable about this in kafka also. but this is why we continue to reflect on the phenomenon of nazism. it happened, and it didn't happen by accident. it was not short on reasons, purposes, arguments, or answers. and it was fully equipped with infrastructure and engineering from the bottom to the top.

>Being wrong and being irrational are two very different things.
sure. but in circumstances of total irrationalism - for instance, a frenzy of extermination - a totalizing sensibility inhibits better judgment. it becomes as wrong to go against the will when one is part of it and swept up in it as a model citizen as much as it is to not resist it when one is opposed to it, or outside of it, or within historical reflection after the fact.

you should read carl schmitt if you're interested in these things, he's a complex and fascinating philosopher.

>There was definitely a logic to the Holocaust. It's something that could only be conceived and perpetrated by the modern man.
no question. the holocast was in many ways peak modernity. and as a big fan of martin heidegger i've spent a fair bit of time reflecting on the meaning of this. i've come to the not particularly breathtaking conclusion that it was a bad idea, and moreover that heidegger's conflation of the gas chambers with the mechanized food industry was spectacularly silly, even though it makes a kind of philosophical sense. it's wrong, but it doesn't persuade me that heidegger as such should be thrown out completely. he shouldn't; he's an astoundingly important philosopher. and he's not wrong to say that under technology the true levelling-down of all things doesn't preclude the treatment of human beings as if they were any other sort of material stock.

but only a truly insane person would draw this conclusion or implement it statewide in real life. true, judging the relative sanity of other human beings is a complicated process: just ask foucault. but i think we can draw the line at state-subsidized mass extermination in the name of racial supremacy without too much reflection. that one's not a real head-scratcher for me.