/lit/ - Literature

>>22948996
Can you think of no authors or books about this subject?

>>22904374
>Second, it's a genetic fallacy argument writ large. Being motivated by ressentiment, etc. doesn't make an argument wrong.

What did you mean by this?

>>22858559
It is not really worth the effort to respond to you as you provide nothing to attack, you have no position. You are Zizek and behave as a crude iconoclast.

>>22566068
Because there is not one now, does not preclude one happening in the future. Fuck me, this should not needed to be said.

>>22566073
>But your view of aristocracy is quite obviously the Evolian one which is pseudo historical at worst and simply not the full story at best.
It is not, I've read much of Evola, not all. But nowhere does he support the idea of martial leadership being the single defining characteristic of Aristocracy, his mind is that ones mind and character make one an Aristocrat.

The Evolian view is in direct opposition to mine, you fucking idiot. Mine is based entirely on historical evidence, in all early cultures right up to the collapse of the aristocratic class, the position of an aristocrat was dependant on the ability to raise and lead troops in support of a higher station. From a Duke's Duchy to a Knight's fee.

What are some hoe scaring books?