/lit/ - Literature

becuz u hav smol pen0r lole

embarrassing post.

>>13964255
embarrassing post

Facile.

>>13964255
Why do people who lean left generally shy away from things that are inherently masculine/require a strong will?

>>13964271
Because if they had regular levels of testosterone they wouldn't lean left. Scientifically speaking, leftism fundamentally comes from a "female" brain, which some men can have depending on their levels of testosterone or estrogen.

>>13964271
I do lift and like aesthetics and some of romanticism. Fasicsm, capitalism, and race shit is brain dead fucking retarded though and is far from being /fitlit/.

>>13964293
Have you dilated today?

>>13964240
How will the minarchic state prevent men to go astray and freely follow the opposite path of the "übermensch"? What prevents the egaliatrian mainstream culture of imposing itself in a free market without oversocialized laws?
If you argue for an authoritarian leadership only on those aspects, what will prevent the people in charge of this system from getting corrupted and start using their power to push the egalitarian mainstream culture anyways?

>>13964331
>How will the minarchic state prevent men to go astray and freely follow the opposite path of the "übermensch"? What prevents the egaliatrian mainstream culture of imposing itself in a free market without oversocialized laws?
In a society untainted by christianity/leftism it is very hard for a group of regular citizens in that minarchic state to do the same subversion that happened in europe, it took the greatest empire known to man to impose slave morality, bribing, forcing, and killing to do so.

When a corrupted force such as this does not exist from the get go, it's impossible for it to happen or for a minarchic state that has little power to become this corrupt force.

There is no incentive to go astray, as there are no incentives or external forces forcing it unto you. Who would want a worse existence than what the state I described would grant you?

It would be like a body, white cells would always be more numerous than those who turn to slave morality, they would always be the few, and despised. But free to be like so if they wish.

>If you argue for an authoritarian leadership only on those aspects, what will prevent the people in charge of this system from getting corrupted and start using their power to push the egalitarian mainstream culture anyways?
See above. It's in everyone's self-interest to preserve that freedom and status quo, that is why you need to care about race and eugenics, as some races have no honor and rejoice in slavery while disregarding freedom.

>>13964380
>In a society untainted by christianity/leftism it is very hard for a group of regular citizens in that minarchic state to do the same subversion that happened in europe

Ok, fair enough, i can agree with you in that, but it's still Utopian. A christian-based society will demand some sort of sacrifice in the long run, that the late-modern hedonistic society does not demand.
The modern world revolves around the most immediate modes of satisfaction possible, it's all about consuming products constantly. A christian society would require you to give up those some (or all) of those pleasures and strive for spirituality and transcendence. Those two worlds are not reconcilable, and unless something catastrophic happens that forces us to give up those pleasures, i think that i'ts impossible to reach a spiritual society, even by force.

Society will come and go to different types of left and right wing politics, both focused on a socio-economic fallacy, believing that the answer to all of our problems will be solved with either the ban or the legalization of something, arguing either for the distribution of all the wealth or the conservation of that wealth in a small group of capitalists, advocating either for the support or the suppression of some collective mob; but it will fail to do anything regarding to the lack of transcendent spirituality. Even fascism, which presented itself as a solution to this problem, is nothing more than a synthesis of capitalism and socialism acting as the thesis and antithesis of itself.

My advice: Give up. Winter is coming. Ride the tiger.

>>13964240
>with a free market in which the individual can freely become the übermensch

lmao fucking pseud hahahaah

Why yes, you're a fag.

>>13964486
>A christian-based society will demand some sort of sacrifice in the long run, that the late-modern hedonistic society does not demand.
Because in the late-modern hedonistic society you are the sacrifice.

When your very religious belief entails struggle and self-improvement there is no room for hedonism as you understand it now, struggle and self-improvement become hedonistic, pleasurable by themselves.

>Even fascism, which presented itself as a solution to this problem, is nothing more than a synthesis of capitalism and socialism acting as the thesis and antithesis of itself.
This is absolutely wrong because fascism and national-socialism required external forces to stop it. It didn't decay, it didn't became corrupt, it stayed true to itself until the end. It IS a solution to the spiritual problem. Its greatness to this day has not been surpased. It really was the final destination of European spirituality.

When your race, your people is your religion, everything else follows, you care about it out of your own free will because you want to improve it, you want greatness for the place you live on, aesthetics, superiority, improvement. You strive to improve yourself, your situation, those who surround you (your people). All three things become your collective work of art in a perfect union of egoists in which anyone can opt out but doesn't, because it makes no sense do to so.

This is neither left or right, it's not "capitalism" nor marxism. It's a different thing.

We don't need to oppress or silence anyone. The übermensch already knows what is good and benefits his will to power, he needs no convincing. Is it utopic? Yes.

>>13964293
>Fasicsm, capitalism, and race shit is brain dead fucking retarded
Spoken like a true libfag.

>>13964290
>proof is two clearly biased headlines from some of the shittiest news sources imaginable

>>13964240
Fuck off libertarian retard. Minarchy is garbage and at least socialists and fascists recognize this.

>>13964596
>libertarian
>minarchist
Hello 20iq.

Can you explain why minarchy is garbage? Do you enjoy a corruptible external power dictating every aspect of your life?

>>13964331
>>13964486
How to summarize those two posts.

LOOOOK AT ME I USE BIG WORDS MY EDUCATION TOTALLY PAID OFFFF..FUCKSSS YEAH.
NOW LET'S DISCUSS SOCIOPOLITICS I HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT IT EXCEPT FOR ONE LECTURE GIVING BY MY FAVORITE PROF.
INSERT SOME BUZZWORDS I CAUGHT FROM READING MY FAVORITE BOOKS LIKE SLAVE MENTALITY, HEDONISM, UTOPIA AND EGALITARIAN. ME IS SMART. LOOKZ AT ME. I HAVE AN OPINON.

I HAVE AN OPINON. I HAVE AN OPINON. I HAVE AN OPINON. I HAVE AN OPINON. I HAVE AN OPINON.
I HAVE AN OPINON. I HAVE AN OPINON. I HAVE AN OPINON. I HAVE AN OPINON. I HAVE AN OPINON.
I HAVE AN OPINON. I HAVE AN OPINON. I HAVE AN OPINON. I HAVE AN OPINON. I HAVE AN OPINON.

A LITERAL WHO HAS AN OPINION. YOU SHALL CARE.

>>13964608
Yes I can explain why it’s garbage, you probably already know why in fact. But it won’t register with your libertarian anti-authority brain. You are so dumb you probably think AnCap works you autistic faggot.

>>13964541
>This is absolutely wrong because fascism and national-socialism required external forces to stop it. It didn't decay, it didn't became corrupt, it stayed true to itself until the end.

First of all, both national-socialism or italian fascism were a disrupted movement that spent half of their lives in a war economy.
Secondly, everything has it's downfall. You can't pretend immutable transcendence for something as mundane as a political movement.
The point that i'm trying to make out of this it's that both fascism and national-socialism would, eventually, had their own downfall as a movement, and we didn't saw how much it lasted because it was interrupted, so any point you try to make in this regard it's useless. You don't know if it would have worked, and everything you say about it it's still an historical conjecture.
The only "fascist" movement (if you can consider it like that) that lived until his end in Europe was, perhaps, Franco's Spain, and you can see how that went. The falange lived until Franco died; without the leader, Spain downfalled into degeneracy once again.

>This is neither left or right, it's not "capitalism" nor marxism. It's a different thing.

And that's where you're wrong. Fascism, as originally defined by José Antonio Primo de Rivera or Gabriele D'Annunzio, considered the socialist claim a right one, but they didn't believed in the concept of "class conflict" because that would go against the nationalistic principles of fascism. You're right in the fact that it's not capitalism or socialism, but it's still a synthesis of those two. It's hegelian dialectics.

>Is it utopic? Yes.

And there's where your modernist kantian framework reveals itself. To strive for something that it's useless just because it may lead you in the right path, that's an idea that appears often in Kant's political work. It sure is a noble idea, but it's idealistic. You're going to grow up depressed eventually when you realize that nothing of what you do works to change anything.
Same advice:accept the reality, become stoic, ride the tiger.

>>13964645
>And there's where your modernist kantian framework reveals itself. To strive for something that it's useless just because it may lead you in the right path, that's an idea that appears often in Kant's political work. It sure is a noble idea, but it's idealistic
You never read Kant, did you?

>>13964656
I actually read a good part of his political work a few years ago. I don't remember where this is tho, i believe that it's in his "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch", but it may also be on "Lectures on Philosophical Theology or the "Metaphysics of Morals". I also remember that Kant specialists use a specific terminology for this claim, but i can't recall this neither.

>>13964610
Education is free in my country and, as you can imagine, it's really low quality because of this so i taught philosophy to myself. Also, if you can't tell, i learned to speak English by myself too, so i don't use "big words" because i want to, it's because it's the only way i know to speak this language.

>>13964645
>Secondly, everything has it's downfall. You can't pretend immutable transcendence for something as mundane as a political movement.
Which is why I want to turn it into a religion.
>The only "fascist" movement (if you can consider it like that) that lived until his end in Europe was, perhaps, Franco's Spain, and you can see how that went. The falange lived until Franco died; without the leader, Spain downfalled into degeneracy once again.
And I already explained why that happens. There was an external force big enough to force Spain into that kind of degeneracy. Just like the roman empire forced christianity into europe.
>And that's where you're wrong. Fascism, as originally defined by José Antonio Primo de Rivera or Gabriele D'Annunzio, considered the socialist claim a right one, but they didn't believed in the concept of "class conflict" because that would go against the nationalistic principles of fascism. You're right in the fact that it's not capitalism or socialism, but it's still a synthesis of those two. It's hegelian dialectics.
Socialism isn't marxism, as you could argue even germanic tribes were "socialist" back in their time. And it I still say it's not marxist nor capitalistic. It's thirdposition, or rather, my interpretation and modification of it is also different. I apply it to the individual in a less collectivist approach.

The individual is in charge of being in the right path, not the state.

>To strive for something that it's useless just because it may lead you in the right path, that's an idea that appears often in Kant's political work. It sure is a noble idea, but it's idealistic.
How is it useless just because it's utopic? As far as I know utopic means a paradise, or at least I used it in that sense.

What I describe it's perfectly achievable within the physical constraints of our world unlike the marxist drivel (the state will never dissolve itself at the late stage), the multicultural utopy (one culture absorbs all the others), the post-scarcity economy (magic), etc.
>You're going to grow up depressed eventually when you realize that nothing of what you do works to change anything.
I already am.
>Same advice:accept the reality, become stoic, ride the tiger.
I already do, I'm just talking about my ideal form of government. I know there is no political solution and shtf is at hand. But from the ruins we will be able to form new nations and even religions. My ideas might come true then. Until then, pic related is the short-term future.

>>13964683
My attempt was centered around making you feel discomforted or enraged but apparently this failed.

I personally did not read any of Kant's work except for some excerpts from the critique of pure reason. His other books are supposedly easier to read, whether or not this is true I can't tell. This was done by myself because my university doesn't offer any courses on Kantian philosophy. They also happen to routinely offer no courses on any other philosopher from the 18th and 19th century. Although if you really did read Kant, then good work. Most people just throw around words and cite from books they have never actually read so my suspicion is justified there.

Most of what you wrote has its justification. At least I can see where it's coming from despite not necessarily sharing my point of view. If you want real input, I can give some.

>>13964645
>The falange lived until Franco died; without the leader, Spain downfalled into degeneracy once again.
If the whole political structure depends on a single person because its manifestation necessitates a leader, a Führer, then its collapse is a quite natural process. It in fact not only happened with right-wing dictatorships. It's also common among socialist regimes where the death of Lenin, Mao or Stalin has caused long-lasting and severe changes in the whole system.
>but they didn't believed in the concept of "class conflict" because that would go against the nationalistic principles of fascism
From a psychological point of view, there is hardly to no difference between vilifying a class and an ethnicity. Nationalists have no need for class warfare because they can project fears on those that are outside. Many socialists switched to nationalistic movements. Some of the motivation might come from the realization that this is a somewhat rational decision if the owner class in one's own country is able to suppress socialist movements.

>>13964828
>Nationalists have no need for class warfare because they can project fears on those that are outside.
Do you realize that those fears are based on reality? Why don't you go live among gypsies, blacks, low-caste arabs, then come back and tell us that we are just projecting fears?
Or perhaps you are one of those that think racial differences do not exist biologically and that if you make a negro live the life of nikola tesla he'll create free energy?

We do not need class warfare because:
1. Our society has worker rights and fair labor, and no shortage of it.
2. As long as you are white you are vital to the fatherland and you have no less dignity than a rich man. Because spiritual nobility and aristocracy is not dictated by material possesions but by your blood and spirit.
3. Every white man earns enough to live a normal life, and this doesn't interfere with there being rich people who own means of production, we don't have pathological envy as communists do and we don't need to bring everyone to our level.

>>13964796
>Which is why I want to turn it into a religion
Just that religion also has his downfall because it's also institutional and mundane. The teachings of a religion may be true, but the institution will eventually perish. You can't break this cycle, it's the concept of eternal return that traditional societies well absolutely aware of (think of the Ouroboros of the greek and egyptian societies or the Jörmundgander of the norse people) and sometimes it reappeared in our modern world (Nietzsche and Spengler both talked about this concept).
Politics, besides aesthetics, it's probably the most mundane aspect of philosophy, you can't have the transcendent here besides as some sort of vague reflection (that's why i thought you were talking about a christian-society).

>There was an external force big enough to force Spain into that kind of degeneracy. Just like the roman empire forced christianity into europe.
Ok, sure, but then again, what forced the downfall of the Roman empire itself? you could just say "barbarians" and call it a day too, but that would be just lazy. The cause of the downfall of a society it's usually because of a set of complex events that can be summed up, as Spengler did, with the fact that every era has his spring, his summer, his fall and his winter. Fall happens when a society outlives his usefulness, when it runs out of "themes to talk about", so to speak. We right now are at fall too, and all we see it's just a romantic imitation of the innovations of the early modernity.

>Socialism isn't marxism
Yes.
>And it I still say it's not marxist nor capitalistic. It's thirdposition, or rather, my interpretation and modification of it is also different.
No. This is probably a problem of semantics, but by definition socialism argues about the redistribution of the wealth. I don't know how can you conciliate that with a free market economic system and fascism. Then again, it's probably just semantics, but this speaks also in favor of the fact that the modern society ran out of ideas and we are just copying earlier concepts without any real innovation.

>How is it useless just because it's utopic?
I think you should aim to something you can reach, and i mean, as close as possible to the utopic ideal you have.

>I already am (depressed).
Well, if you set more realistic goals you will not find happiness, i tell you that, but you're going to be actually doing something, so that's an improvement if you ask me.

>>13964828
> His other books are supposedly easier to read, whether or not this is true I can't tell
Some of them are, others are not. The political essays i mentioned are really short though, and shows another side of Kant that more people are not familiarized with, so i would encourage you to give them a try if you want.

> Most people just throw around words and cite from books they have never actually read so my suspicion is justified there.
Yeah, fair enough.

>If the whole political structure depends on a single person because its manifestation necessitates a leader, a Führer, then its collapse is a quite natural process. It in fact not only happened with right-wing dictatorships. It's also common among socialist regimes where the death of Lenin, Mao or Stalin has caused long-lasting and severe changes in the whole system.

I agree with this. The totalitarian system depends on the good will of the leader, and it can became corrupt very easily.

>From a psychological point of view, there is hardly to no difference between vilifying a class and an ethnicity. Nationalists have no need for class warfare because they can project fears on those that are outside. Many socialists switched to nationalistic movements. Some of the motivation might come from the realization that this is a somewhat rational decision if the owner class in one's own country is able to suppress socialist movements

That can be true in some cases, like national socialism, but i don't think that Mosley's "pacifist" brand of fascism, or even Mussolini's one can be defined on those terms (at least, until he began to commune with some of Hitler's ideas. i guess).

Beards are the biggest cope ever

>>13965010
Cope for what exactly? I've had a beard for a couple years now. What am I coping with?

>>13965031
Oof

>>13964874
Damn, that Schweitzer quote is brutal.

>>13964240
>Spirituality
>Capitalism, a society that inherently rewards and is led by actors that reinforce materialism
There's good reason why spirituality and religion have been on the decline ever since Capitalism started in the late 18th-early 19th century.

>>13964874
what did God mean by creating this state of affairs

>>13964610
Gotta use that free education the taxpayer paid for for something, anon. Why not shitpost?

>>13964240
Sounds like a good dad

>>13964290
True! Edw. Dutton points out the fact that they also tend to be Spiteful Mutants. Carrying a large mutational burden means mental deformities go along with physical ones, just look at Greta.

>>13965010
Says the woman or child who cannot grow one.

>>13965010
So then, as a trans "man" who cannot grow a truly heroic and patriarchal beard, or even a convincing goatee and burns, you feel threatened by the beards grown by actual men?