/lit/ - Literature

>>15813306
wrong

>>15813331
Cope

>>15813306
Based. I love seeing people read Nietzsche properly. Read Jung, then Peterson for the whole redpill on dogmatists.
Nietzsche:
>You preachers of equality, the tyrannomania of impotence clamors thus out of you for equality: your most secret ambitions to be tyrants thus shroud themselves in words of virtue. Aggrieved conceit, repressed envy-perhaps the conceit and envy of your fathers-erupt from you as a flame and as the frenzy of revenge.

Carl Jung:
>The communist world, it may be noted, has one big myth (which we call an illusion, in the vain hope that our superior judgment will make it disappear). It is the time-hallowed archetypal dream of Golden Age (or Paradise) where everything is provided in abundance for everyone, and a great, just and wise chief rules over the human kindergarten. This powerful archetype in its infantile form has gripped them, but it will never disappear from the world at the mere sight of our superior points of view. We even support it by our own childishness, for our Western civilization is in the grip of the same mythology. Unconsciously, we cherish the same prejudices, hopes, and expectations. We too believe in the welfare state, in universal peace, in the equality of man, in his eternal human rights, in justice, truth, and (do not say it too loudly) in the Kingdom of God on Earth.

Peterson:
>It has become more or less evident, for example, that pure, abstract rationality,
ungrounded in tradition [archetypal behavior]—the rationality that defined Soviet-style communism from
inception to dissolution—appears absolutely unable to determine and make explicit just
what it is that should guide individual and social behavior. Some systems do not work,
even though they make abstract sense (even more sense than alternative, currently
operative, incomprehensible, haphazardly evolved systems). Some patterns of
interpersonal interaction—which constitute the state, insofar as it exists as a model for
social behavior—do not produce the ends they are supposed to produce, cannot sustain
themselves over time, and may even produce contrary ends, devouring those who profess
their value and enact them. Perhaps this is because planned, logical and intelligible
systems fail to make allowance for the irrational, transcendent, incomprehensible and
often ridiculous aspect of human character

>>15813306
autism is 2nd autism

>>15813306
>>15813404
>Communism is just Christianity but BIG
I hate these retards so fucking much.

Socialism has come and gone. If we follow the current of history, from the all encompassing divine of animism of hunter gatherers, to the layers of divinity of paganism, to the separate divinity of world religions like christianity and buddhism, all the way down to the null divinity of atheism. The next logical step would seem to be something that takes divinity back into the world. Most likely a form of either state or human worship. But socialism has already proven in the past to be a very poor stand in for classic religions when it comes to personal satisfaction. Nigga we going full Heinleinism

>>15813404
>I love seeing people read Nietzsche properly. Read Jung, then Peterson

>>15813601
OP didn't even name communism but ok

>>15813306
> confusing Gnosticism for Christianity
Anon, I don't have enough face and palm for this facepalm.

Christianity
>Yeah, you're poor, just tough it up, you'll be rewarded after death and Jesus loves you

Communism
>EVERYONE NEEDS TO HAVE MATERIAL THINGS, LET'S KILL THE BOURGIES TO GET THEIR THINGS, NOT HAVING THINGS IS A HUGE INJUSTICE

The same thing.

>>15813774
Same difference in what he's doing.

>>15813306
like nietzsche, this looks like more personal animus toward Christianity

>>15813780
Christianity demonizes 'worldliness' and upholds asceticism as a supreme good.

Socialism demonizes the individual's desire to accumulate capital for himself, and distributes resources according to an individual's "needs". In other words, whoever is most suffering and most disavantaged gets moved to the front of the ration queue.

Both demonize the pursuit of material comfort this world. Both glorify suffering. Both calculate the value of each human by how much he rejects life, and the comforts of life.

In both ideologies the supreme good person is the 'pure' person. The pure person hates money and hates worldly things. He suffers the most from life and deserves the most pity and love from the Supreme Being (Christian God, or Socialist Uber-State)

>>15813780
Wrong, Christianity teaches the very ephemerality of material things which your critique of Communism is based.

it's almost like religion isn't something separable from human nature. except for Nietzscheanism of course. it's NOTHING like religion

>>15813601
>>15813769
>>15813780
Seethe? Maybe a little cope? The way Nietzsche talks about christianity falls exactly in line with how he also viewed egalitarian and socialist doctrine. Peterson and Jung turn this slightly on its head by saying Christianity's redemptive aspect makes it differ from the materialist creeds of socialists (thus refuting Nietzsche on this exact point), but the core thesis regarding socialism is the same. I'll be happy to address any further cope if you see it fit.

>>15813608
>Most likely a form of either state or human worship
the silicon valley dark enlightenment is calling to you

>>15814005
that's why christianity is based. god is unconscious.

>>15814005
Jung literally says Christianity and Buddhism are the two greatest religions and Nietzsche was a horrible person, though philosophically brilliant.

>>15813951
This is why modern 'liberals', who are in fact the new Puritans of this 2nd reformation, are so infatuated with niggers/muslims and can see no wrongdoing by them even though they are clearly aware that their savage backwards culture is in no way compatible with their cultural sensitivities.

The socialist Puritans see the niggers and muslims the EXACT same way the Christians of the middle ages fawned over hermits and street-shitting 'holy men', regardless of whether they were literal lunatics or not. They see them as untainted, pure, free of the Original Sin of the socialist - greed.

They see the muslims with their bronze-era societies and their interest free banking system, they see the feral African niggers with their hedonistic thought-free lifestyle devoid of any desire to acquire long-term capital, and they go "holy shit, these guys might be primitive animals but they're not GREEDY the way we are! They're the pure ones, free of the Original Sin! They're angels!"

And once you start seeing humans as angels intead of men, it's impossible to pass any sort of rational judgment on them.

>>15814036
Very true, very based. Answer to Job is a great work that deals with this idea if you're interested.

>>15813990
Well you do tend to need beliefs to function, and true objective knowledge doesn't exist, so you must have an ideology, which one may equate with religion if you appeal to the supernatural, which you can do so seamlessly, because the boundary between natural and supernatural is imaginary.

>>15814005
>Peterson and Jung turn this slightly on its head by saying Christianity's redemptive aspect makes it differ from the materialist creeds of socialists (thus refuting Nietzsche on this exact point),
Are you retarded? You haven't read Jung at all, he doesn't just slightly turn Nietzsche on his head by adding a one or two ideas that would make Christianity good, he literally has a completely different conception of religion and Christianity to Nietzsche. Same thing with Wagner, who extrapolated the meaning of Redemption the best out of anyone in the modern world.

>>15814044
>This is why modern 'liberals', who are in fact the new Puritans of this 2nd reformation
Are you 14 and you happened to read Berserk and Jung's wikipedia page and suddenly became aware of cross-cultural/period forces? If so, that's a great thing and you're learning. If not then you need to read more.

>>15813951
>Both demonize the pursuit of material comfort this world

Socialism is literally the pursuit for material comfort in this world. No one is a communist because they believe in no food memes, they are communists because they believe everyone will get plenty under their utopian regime.

>>15814068
Haha epic oneliner anon you ownt that loser lmaoooo

So the only solution is to become othodox

>>15814089
It was just a comment anon, don't get so worked up about it, and don't take yourself too seriously on these matters.

>>15813404
>Some systems do not work,
>even though they make abstract sense
Pure pseudery

>>15813404
> dogmatists
"lmao chill out bruh it's all subjective bro lol everything is possible if believe in it really hard don't act like a dogmatic asshole bruh lol :) :)"
this is NOT what nietzsche wrote, you little mongrel.

>>15814044
I think they see them more as children than as simply pure - purity is just a side effect of being childlike. It's more like an inversion of the White Man's Burden, instead of uplifting the childlike races, Anglos instead declare themselves the cause of all their problems, so that they can remain at the center of the Narrative.

>>15813306
Fundamentally wrong even if your pea brain has only analyzed it a JESUS HELPED POOR.

>>15814039
What about this contradicts what I've said so far? Jung has said he took a lot of inspiration from Nietzsche when fleshing out his analytical psychology, and was well aware that Freud based his theories of the unconscious structure (id ego etc) on Nietzsche.

>>15814058
I was making a general statement to outline the core thesis. Peterson construes religion in a way different to Jung at that, doesn't make a difference with regards to the idea I'm presenting. If you want to discuss detail I'm fine with that, but it's misplaced if you're trying to say that my analysis may be incorrect because what I've said thus far doesn't demonstrate in-depth knowledge.

>>15814199
Bit of a stretch to read this far into it all. What dogmatist hurt you?

>>15814088
It should be considered on an individual's perspective. Socialism claims to seek the maximization of a society's total productivity, but productivity and efficiency in socialism always takes a back seat to forced 'egalitarianism' which glorifies the suffering and unworldly above all. Their talk about maximizing social wealth is nothing but hollow rhetoric to convince people otherwise. Just look at how every socialist nation or commune (not nationalist-Communists like USSR or China) organized their society. Maximum inefficiency in the name of equality, always just barely on the tip of falling apart. That's not a rookie mistake. The inefficiency's intentional.

Productivity, and productives individual are nothing but begrudgingly tolerated nuisances for the Socialist, who keep them around only to barely prevent things from falling apart. The socialist does not give a fuck if his society produces 100 cars or 100,000 cars a year as long as they are distributed 'equally' prioritizing the most virtuous ones. Just like how Christians only care about the "meek inheriting the Earth" over the mighty and proud - beyond that they don't care if the world that the meek inherit is poor and backward or rich and civilized.

>>15813601
>>15813769
>>15814138

>>15813306
>The old days of the west will never return.
Well, not until we terraform another planet's / a moon's surface and start a colony and renew the frontier, which is why all the cultured people desire precisely that.

>>15814231
>Jung has said he took a lot of inspiration from Nietzsche
Obviously, but this doesn't refute what I said which does correct your devaluation of the differences between Nietzsche and Jung. He doesn't go by Nietzsche's structure or definitions of the question at all.

>I was making a general statement to outline the core thesis.
Sure, that's your intention, but you didn't actually pull it off. Because it's fundamentally misleading to suppose it's still operating within Nietzsche's structure of the question as I said above.

Also Peterson though he may have come up with some interesting points or framing of things he's very shallow at the end of the day and people are correct in calling him normie tier. And that includes Maps of Meaning, which pales before Jung's system from its method to its actual content.

>>15814308
I cannot tell if you're agreeing with me or you think I'm a Communist.

>>15814397
All fair critiques. I'll try explain myself better next time I shill.

>>15813990
>human nature
This is a spook.

>>15814036
Is this dude underrated? He seems to pop up a lot in terms of people who were influenced by him but I've never seen him talked about.

>>15814434
Was playing vidya, I'm glad an anon on 4chan actually accepted advice, and I don't say that because I was the one giving advice, but just generally how often have you ever seen an anon take advice so willingly friendly in a debate?

God bless.

>>15814776
Definitely one of those people who used to be extremely influential but fell out of fashion. Jung for example considered -- I believe -- Kant, Schopenhauer, Carus and Hartmann to be the most important thinkers of his earlier thought.

>>15813306
Kernels of information in this post are true and shall be used to paint a clearer picture of the landscape.

>>15813306
>2nd
There’s been dozens.
Satanism is a Protestant sect, but atheism is NOT.
Atheism spells the negation of all religion.
In Friedrich’s day the socialists were often Christian too. Now the two camps aren’t usually mixed. The Pope may have changed that somewhat in recent years

“Marxism”, “M-Lism”, which is just Leninism is a cult of personality and stand-in for a religion.

>BLM
You’ve never read anything, have you?

>>15814939
Thanks :^) I have a tendency to get defensive about my intellectual musings no matter the content but in the long run and in the past it's proven to be counter-productive for the standard of content itself. (obviously) Your appreciation of my efforts to actively do otherwise is appreciated.

>>15815150
>Your appreciation of my efforts to actively do otherwise is appreciated.
You are a good person anon, and you have inspired me to do all the more the same.

Again, God bless, and enjoy the thread. Let's just hope the thread doesn't get derailed by the butternigger post.

Ive thought of a way in which communism can work.
step 1. Redistribute the means of production and have them ran democratically.
step 2. Disband the army and replace them with a confederation of militias.
step 3. Have people determine democratically how to redistribute the resources via online voting.
step 4. Which is very important and for some reason the socialist eggheads havent been able to figure out.
Have your coworkers vote on the quality of your work and be reimunerated accordingly.
The biggest flaw on this plan is the disbanding of the army. Other than that id say is logically consistent.

>>15815343
>step 2. Disband the army and replace them with a confederation of militias.

then you have Warlord Raz as your tyrannic leader

>>15815343
>Direct democracy voting
>51% vote to increase bread production
>No more butter
>49% vote to increase butter production
>Majority wins
>Entire population eats unbuttered toast

I'm saying based?

>>15814205
Yeah I agree, it's just a continuation of the the White Man's Burden. More cynically, liberal whites see non-whites as their personal pet project to uplift to their standards; when those standards aren't met they blame themselves and their own society.
We're at the point of such dissonence where the modern left at least awknowledges its failure to uplift non-whites to white standards, but still keeps its guilt of their "failure". This manifests in the belief that white civilization should lower is standard down to the lowest common "pet's" standard and just let them run our society.

So we all have to pay for Left's social experiment failures rather than have them acknowledge the ugly truths about themselves (the Left). Frankly, I harbor no ill will to the non-whites; it's not their fault they are different than us.

>>15813404
Gotta love Peterson

>>15815343
Why go through all this? What is the end goal? Why not just pursue what you want from life, today?

>>15813306
everything foretold

>>15814121

Everyone wants power, i.e. the ability to live as they wilt in the maximum amount of luxury and comfort. But in the game of power there is a fundamental problem where one actor having a lot gets to the point where they are stepping on other's toes, i.e. a zero sum trade-off loss of utility.

Therefore the maximized and universalized good in expression of power is one of personal maximum but balanced and equalized power. Equality. In practical material expression this means egalitarian wealth distribution where trade-off between individuals are power neutral and therefore ideally only done on personal preference. This is not hard. It's not secret Christianity, or a jew plot, or an evil ideology of darkness, or any other romanticized hysteria. It's just common sense.

>>15813306
Imagine being so scared of BLM that they appear equivalent to Ingsoc in your eyes
When did conservatives became such huge pussies

>>15817300
And the end goal of liberalism is?

>>15818542
I’m concerned about their inability to accept criticism from both outside of the organization and inside of it as well. As far as I can tell the movement is built on repression and revenge, which if that’s the foundation of your movement, how long and how effective do you expect it to be?

>>15813306
>Socialism (not the Marxist early access version, the new globalist woke-socialism)

That's literally just neoliberalism but more woke, you fucking retard

Bump

>>15814005
Everything that is not what nietzsche wanted can be called christianity 2.0, its retarded to think that there is much comparison outside the realm of "it's collective dogmatic behaviour", you can put everything into this analysis

>>15813306
Hello Tolstoy

>>15813306
It's a fringe group of Christian fanatics that overlaps with doomsday cultists. Saying it's Christianity 3.0 is a ludicrous exaggeration.

>>15813306
You're right, which means that I will have to convert to Catholicism to remain intellectually honest. Christianity 1.0 was a much better OS than this shit.

>>15819014
That's not what OP said. He said that
>The old days of the west will never return. You are going to live in 'BLM-flavoured 1984' and there will be no going back.
Hence my response.