/lit/ - Literature

>>19244495
>>19244634
2/2
Many well respected biologists and anthropologists have made note of this fact including those who are far from sympathetic to moral objecticism
(Richard Dawkins talks quite alot about it in his book "The Selfish Gene")
understnading this functional evolutionary growth in the concept of morality helps to also highligh human existence as a thing which not adequately described through enlightenment era motifs of individual.
Human beings are in reality biological organisms with the inherent function and purpose of all other biological life.
And as such?
Any ideology which derives aspect of their being as
>"Subjective"
is denying, at least to some extent, their existence as materially existing things (or "Is"s) in the natural world.
human action is not an immaterial act
and as such any normative description of the act which considers it to be anything other then objective in nature (IE Material) is positing a fundimentally sophistic and idealistic misunderstanding of existence.

Anyone else here a "Far-Right'/ Traditionalist who ended up with alot more respect for enlightenment era liberals after reading them??
I mean i know this isn't true in all cases and their were PLENTY of fanatical unthinking pieces of shit in the French Revolution but I really do miss people who use to hold themselves to some sort of internal coherence for their views.
Kant, Paine, Nietzsche, say what you like about them,
at least they were TRYING to find objective Truth.
The Post-Modern Left is nothing more then reiteration of the same fanatical brainless moral fundamentalism of the church and state clasical liberalism originally critique (fashioning their own "gods" and "goddesses" in their image as many romantic critics of the enlightenment predicted they ultimately would in fulfillment of their argued luciferian basis)
I find myself as NatSoc in the modrn era far more sympathetic to them i ever thought i would be given our shared persuit of our view of the truth and the progress of humanity against enemies born in brainless cesspits of orgasmic idol worship.

After having finnally sat down and read it (Which was admittedly a slog as the man clearly didnt know how to write for shit) i have to say i dont really understand what is that offensive about the book.
At least from an early 20th century perspective.
All of his thoughts seem generally in line with that of any other working class rightwinger from his time period and an area.
Is the book just considered "evil" because of the events of the holocaust?
Or was there something i missed???