/lit/ - Literature

>>9052874
>>9052890
>>9052994
>>9053015
>>9053032

but what is “inexplicable” about this--especially to the left, who seems to watch it all with mouth agape? it is inexplicable to an academic elite who don’t understand anything about the human anymore, who have divested the human of all his/her animal qualities, who have civilized/abstracted the human to fit into statistical models that depict a self-made phantasmagoria. in short, i think that this election showed nothing new: people hate, and they hate deeply; people are ignorant, they may be duped, and they may reject reality wholesale; people are intransigent, and may refuse change, even in the face of necessity. but what’s the story here? we do not approach the problem, for to approach the problem would be to implicate democracy and populism itself; all we can ever do is flirt with the symptoms. i want to say: the republican/democrat divide today has become the operative existential cleavage around which identities are now negotiated; today, political parties are no longer mere proxies of aggregate interests/ordering instruments, but have become valued interests in themselves, e.g. one no longer pursues political action to further economic interest, but submits economic interest to the development of political action. The difference here might be those who avoid racial violence on account of economic cost, and those who submit all economic costs to the payoff of racial violence. so it is with explaining away the supposed paradox of bannon’s “ethno-national globalism”: one the one hand, we see an economic network emerging that is devoted to the sole cause of furthering the “ethno” element of the equation (the moralization of the economy); on the other hand, bannon does not have to work through his project to its endgame, as 1. the nation state still operates as a particularly effective instrument for organizing these populist movements/ethno-oriented populations, and therefore has yet to exhaust its usefulness; and 2. its resilience can be accounted for without much problem, e.g. bannon can simply commit himself to the project of simply putting more white people sympathetic to his passionate form of racism in positions of global power, and through this network systematically working through the conversion and elimination of populations—a lengthy task that would prorogue the apparent paradox to a distant generation.

i have more to say on the modern political party and its contribution, but that's another topic...

what are your thoughts on trump?

Break this down for me Stirnerists :
We may find the word "morality" taken as synonymous with spontaneity, self-determination. But that is not
involved in it; rather has the Caucasian shown himself spontaneous only in spite of his Mongolian morality. The
Mongolian heaven, or morals, remained the strong castle, and only by storming incessantly at this castle did the Caucasian show himself moral; if he had not had to do with morals at all any longer, if he had not had therein his
indomitable, continual enemy, the relation to morals would cease, and consequently morality would cease. That his spontaneity is still a moral spontaneity, therefore, is just the Mongoloidity of it – is a sign that in it he has not arrived at himself. "Moral spontaneity" corresponds entirely with "religious and orthodox philosophy," "constitutional
monarchy," "the Christian State," "freedom within certain limits," "the limited freedom of the press," or, in a figure, to the hero fettered to a sick-bed.

Obviously I understand the general idea.
What does he mean by "spontaneity" ?

Why does he say that the caucasian has shown himself moral only in spite of (despite) his mongolian morality while later in the text he approves that caucasian morality attacks mongolian morality (So it's still dependend on that morality, still in the moral shell) ?

English is not my native language and sometimes I have to read difficult sentences thrice.