/lit/ - Literature

Chesterton was fat lol

>>17493262
Nothing will ever invoke as much pity in me as Chesterton posters, for Chesterton is perhaps the Anglo pseud par excellence. Xenophile, dogmatist and situated comfortably at around the middle of the bell curve, Chesterton's rare existential insights struggle to carry on their shoulders the immensity and unavoidability of his low intellectual capacity, biased mind and cloudy perception. Obsessed with petty virtues and naked force - a combination that many well-read observers will recognise as the perennial formula of all slave-like and "Christian" beliefs - he of course fails to grasp anything at all of the essence of Nietzsche. What use is talk of creative freedom and a will to self-overcoming, of personal autarky and a grasp for the infinite, when you can instead be a blustering, rough and brutish enforcer of Christian morality, handily redeemed by the eternal Saviour who is only all too eager to offer his all too human pity to that zealous and stampeding horde of plebeian dregs that are ever in search of external help? That's the great paradox of the plebe - he wants and craves greatness, but can never tolerate it in other men, only in something distant and impotent, incapable of action - so that he may at once surrender his agency and act as a mere, unthinking tool and instrument for the "Lord", but also at the same time feel superior to every other man.

It is perhaps too harsh of us to criticise Chesterton. After all, a man of that sort, obsessed with rigid, externally bestowed purpose and raw force - or "Kraft" - could never understand the will to self-overcoming, the will to power, to "Macht".

>>17493262
Thats a bong. Opinion discarded

>>17493329
Holy cringe.

>>17493262
Based as always. Love this lad.

>>17493329
beautiful

>>17493329
i always wondered if theres a hotspot intellectual circle where the anti anglo posters come from

>>17493332
Imagine being BTFO by a bong.
Many such cases. SAD!

>>17493329
Sounds like a hard cope

>>17493262
Nietzsche unironically BTFO'd
Literature>Philosophy

>>17493348
There are probably several different ones. Apart from the postcolonial copelords, there's the lovers of Continental thought. Similarly, both reactionaries and socialists hate Anglo progressivism and liberal democracy. Chesterton is a bit of a unique case, since he's actually hated far more by his fellow Anglos than any external peoples - he was known for being close to the Latin nations and lavished much praise upon them. Because of that, he was unpopular with the Anglos. Orwell, for example, despised his acolytes and other contemporary English Catholics, since he conceived of them as old-fashioned, elitist authoritarians. Other Englishmen hated the English Catholics for their frigid attitude towards modernity.

I bet Fatsterton huffed and puffed like the angry little fatty he was. He was constantly out of breath all the time, despite being a notorious windbag

>>17493329
>After all, a man of that sort, obsessed with rigid, externally bestowed purpose and raw force - or "Kraft"
>obsessed with rigid purpose bestowed by God
Best kind of man.

>>17493284
gottem

Why should I trust someone who is both obese and has shitty teeth?
Obesity is a sign of physical laziness and indulgent, hedonistic personality
Poor dental health points to a man who is a slob, lacks regiment and discipline

>>17493378
>Other Englishmen hated the English Catholics for their frigid attitude towards modernity.
Based. Catholics from Protestant countries are always the best Catholics.

>>17493329
*has a breakdown*
oops!

>>17493457
Insofar as plebs go, there are worse, yes.
>>17493473
The best English Catholics lived before the civil war, sadly.
>>17493476
It wasn't a breakdown, anon. He went insane.

>>17493262
>Now, modern people, whether they agree with this or not, always talk of it as a new and unheard-of idea. It is calmly and persistently supposed that the great writers of the past, say Shakespeare for instance, did not hold this view, because they had never imagined it; because it had never come into their heads.
says who? this is retarded

>MUH SHACKSPEER

>>17493476
vgh... The ubermensch reduced to being God's court jester...

>>17493262
I'm really enjoying all these Nietzsche hate threads

>>17493329
Unfathomably cringe

Why does he go to Shakespeare? Doesn't Plato have Thrasymachus take a similar position in The Republic? Does he just think English people invented every idea?
Nietzsche takes old ideas and applies them to the religious and social ideologies of his time. He's not important because he built anything himself, but because he worked to deconstruct garbage ideas. His own ideas are nonsense, but his critiques of commonly accepted dogma are correct

>>17493329
Cope cope cope

>>17493262
Awesome post, thank you.

Nietzsche absolutely disposed of. Well done, GK!

>>17493262
>Shakespeare had a character express this opinion, then killed him off
>also the character was crazy and ugly lmao
This is the philosophical equivalent of a chud meme. I like Nietzsche a little more and Chesterton a little less. It seems a lot of "traditionalists" just practice a more aesthetic form of progressivism.

>>17493284

>>17494358
>Why does he go to Shakespeare? Doesn't Plato have Thrasymachus take a similar position in The Republic? Does he just think English people invented every idea?
1. He himself was just better read in Shakespeare.
2. He assumed (correctly) that his readers would also be more familiar with Shakespeare than Plato.

>>17493284
More like 300 lbs and a Big Mac lmao

>>17493329
Who are you to call Chesterton plebeian lol

>>17493329
He is one of the good anglos though, one of the few.
Juan Bautista Fuentes Ortega does a gret synthesis of Chesterton, Bueno and Ortega.

>>17493605
Thinking an idea is revolutionary = thinking it is new

>>17493262
Chesterton was literally retarded on so many things and I'm pretty sure he wrote with the intention of sounding like he is writing with a pretention and rationally and with a "point to make."

I like Chesterton, and he says a lot of good things, never without something in some way interesting, but he's very retarded on a lot of things as well as repetitive.

>>17494956
More like three cheese burgers and a XL coke lmao

>>17493262
Holy hell, Neechee is just getting btfo left and right these days.

>>17493329
destroyed

>>17495062
How did you manage to give and almost precise description of your own post(except the "and he says a lot of good things") while trying to describe Chesterton?

idk, I think Chestnut misses the point here. Nietzsche's point is not to say , in The Genealogy of Morals, "slave morality in indeed a trick, rise up and conquer ye masters" as some kind of moral prescription. I think this is where Chestnut goes wrong. Nietzsche says in the very same book that those who invent ressentiment are more clever than those who are not wise to it. He uses it as an explanation for why Jews and Christians were able to overpower Roman paganism in a struggle for survival. It has nothing to do with who is "right" or "wrong" in the situation, or what you "should do" - his interest is only in giving an account of which force was historically stronger. I don't really detect this kind of insight in Shakespeare.

why the obsession with Nietzsche?
Morality is objective and non referential.
Our ability to understand what is good and bad is imbued within us much like our ability to understand inference or recognize faces.
Yes, some are broken and are unable to do so and many are able but still choose to do what is not moral.
Others are simply misguided by incorrect information about the world or a believe in the otherworldly but if corrected they would easily align themselves with the good.

>>17495152
Have you read his thoughts on Carlyle? Absolutely pointless meandering.

And yes anon, of course a careless and quickly typed 4chan post is not going to read like literature. You're just retarded and want to get a "le gotcha" instead of replying to the point.

>>17495153
Master morality is ascribed as the "right" (yes, that right) because his position is based on the will to power.

>>17495172
Dumbass, read your post again.
You made no point.
You simply said chesterton was wrong on some thing.
what sort of reply did you expect to receive?

>>17495153
>his interest is only in giving an account of which force was historically stronger.
An arbitrary and unsubstantiated account. It's only value is aesthetic and ethical.

>>17493262
Extremely based.

>>17495192
but every living thing has a will to power, especially the slave moralists. That's why they invent slave morality, so as to overpower the master moralist (by supposing a God higher than any master moralist's that will bless them in death for being meek, which empowers them to not submit to the master, think themselves better, and ultimately prevail).

Let me repeat, quoting Nietzsche own words: The world is the will to power, and nothing besides. The will to power is not some moral prescription of "how you should be" - it's operating, silently and unconsciously at every moment.

>>17495204
>An arbitrary and unsubstantiated account.
oh, so Hellenic culture and religion still exists and Christianity was wiped out? Damn, I gotta go bone up on my history.

>>17493465
nietzsche was a literal cuck tho

>>17494562
thats exactly how nietzsche wrote off socrates tho.....

>>17495211
The person who has greater power is more valuable in Nietzsche's philosophy because it is based on the will to power. The slave moralists are not more powerful than the master moralists, the former just overwhelmed the latter based on numbers. Hence why Nietzsche was against herd rule and the weaker coming together to destroy the strong.

>>17495220
His explanation of his misrepresented version of history is simplistic and embarrassing. No historian takes him seriously. You might as well believe that Christianity supplanted Hellenism because God willed it.

Interesting thread keep up the good discussion anons

>>17495223
the origin of the salome theory is salome herself, as well as one or two friendly letters being misread. people take it as fact, but salome being neesha's love interest is more likely the self-aggrandizing of an otherwise useless woman than his genuine feelings...

Notice also how nietzsche overemphasizes and feels strongly about everything, but there is very little of this to be found about/towards salome

Not a big fan of Chesterton but he is essentially right here. What's been passed down by the poets is greater than the "poetic philosophers" - really, philosophy truly excels at systematic, logically rigorous work. If you're a romantic or aphorist posing as a Philosopher, then I'll judge the work as a piece of imaginative literature, in which case Nietzsche is completely mogged. There's a ton of right-wing allegory and arguing about the "flattening" effect of equality, whether it's Nietzsche himself, Vonnegut or just some blogger. But, Spenser:

"For take thy ballaunce, if thou be so wise,
And weigh the winde, that vnder heauen doth blow;
Or weigh the light, that in the East doth rise;
Or weigh the thought, that fro[m] mans mind doth flow.
But if the weight of these thou canst not show,
Weigh but one word which from thy lips doth fall.
For how canst thou those greater secrets know,
That doest not know the least thing of them all?
Ill can he rule the great, that cannot reach the small."

>>17495203
You're just illiterate yourself. How many times have I read something by Chesterton with this posturing "le I'm making a rebuttal, a big speech" and he actually says fucking nothing or the most repeatable boring garbage. Literally spends paragraphs saying "Carlyle didn't believe in people enough," and the Op example is just as stupid. He's figured out the very basic way of how to talk with a supposed emotional force, going around the point describing it in a way that will prefigure your then conclusion, but Chesterton doesn't have enough of a point most of the time. He's thoroughly describing too much.

I know he has some good practical wisdom, but his academic ideas can range into the utterly naïve, like this.

>>17493262
>I heard Chesterton went into a restaurant and ate everything in the restaurant and they had to close the restaurant!

>>17495244
Those with more powerful are not more "valuable" - they just win, because that's what power means, to win. How can the slave moralists not be more powerful than the master moralists if they prevail and the master doesn't. Who the fuck cares about the individual? Wars are fought be armies, not by two individuals. Nietzsche is obviously against the herd, if you think he takes himself to be some kind of master moralist, you have missed the point. The master moralist thinks of themselves as right, as just, as good. The master moralist always has an elaborate set of doctrines about how all of their slaves deserve to be there because the gods ordained it, and they are doing their duty as the rightful master, and this is his weakness. The master depends on thinking himself to be good, which is why he can be subverted by the slave. The overman, however, has no concern for whether or not he is morally good as opposed to evil, he simply no longer believes in this sort of thing, because it empowers him to do so.

>>17495251
Of course God willed it. God wills everything that happens, don't be stupid.

Not him, but he isnt "against the herd" in principle. As he states in TWTP, he's interested in ordering the ranks into their due places. What he's really against is the overstepping of its bounds, which is the reality of the herd in history, history being the gradual expansion of Right to the slave classes. This is what makes his philosophy now & until the end of time a tragedy: Nietzscheans are destined losers who define this as "winning poetically" which ironically is transfigured into a quasi-spirituality, because it has no material basis - perfectly encapsulates the people who treat him as Gospel - "spiritual but not religious"

>>17493329
>situated comfortably at around the middle of the bell curve
Incredibly unnecessary and cringe. I'll expect to see your critique of Nietzschean philosophy in the coming years you insufferable pseud.

>>17495332
Right Nietzscheans and crypto-libtard leftists will crucify me for this, but Nietzschean politics of "put people where they belong" and Marx's "from each according to his ability" always seemed strangely compatible to me.

>>17493329
You said nothing in this entire post. Not a single criticism. Not a single fucking repudiation. A bunch of flowery verbiage, zero substance. I especially cringed at the last sentence, I can tell you read a translation.

>>17493329
Terrible post. Nichey would not have been happy to have you defending him.

>>17495359
Yeah lol. All those leftist youtubers smoking opium and becoming trans? Just exercising their effete aristocratic privilege.

>>17493262
Absolutely brutal mogging on Neetz I am in awe of my boy Chesterton.

NEET getting fucking DESTROYED lately.

>>17493262
Chesterton is the perfect representation of Nietzsche's Christian. A spiteful, power-hungry victim, with none of the redeeming qualities of master morality. There is no honesty, there is no honor, there is no truth in the eyes of Chesterton, only Jesus, the jew.

Seriously, the bullying against Nietzschean members of this community is getting way out of hand, especially since Nietzscheans are some of the biggest contributors, have the greatest will to power, and are the most involved in this board. Its not just "memes" or "banter", its vicious attacking, and regardless of intentions it does demean people and hurt feelings. I can't say I'm the only Nietzschean who finds it hard to take pride in his own Ubermensch after having years of constant and needless attacks defaming my power from insecure losers here. Why not bully Christians or Platonists? Do they not have much more to be ashamed of than our philosophy zur Macht? Kantians and analytics get bullied less than us and yet we are the most powerful philosophers in the world.

Like when its not just banter, when a meme is repeated over and over again, repeated systematically, it eventually becomes a truth irregardless of the intentions in repeating it. And that isn't just jokes any more then, then its harmful!

Would you call a Nietzschean a "postmodernist" (not true at all) to his face? Would you say to a kind, peaceful and dionysian gay scientist that they are "weaker" than German men? Would you say those words to your fellow nihilist brethren? Are you starting to feel ashamed now? You fucking LAST MEN?

Your destroying philosophy, your dividing power against itself, your doing the opposite of what you claim to support when you engage in this incredibly abhorrent behaviour. So I encourage you to stop now.

>>17495479
>Chesterton is the perfect representation of Nietzsche's Christian. A spiteful, power-hungry victim, with none of the redeeming qualities of master morality.

>>17493329
>plebe

it's the little things.

>>17493329
COPE

>>17495715
that guy looks dope

>>17495710
this is 4chan dude. the whole point is to frustrate and make people angry. kinda sucks that thats the current state but it is what it is.

>>17495715
>noooo, you can't admire other cultures that worship strength, you need to worship Jesus, the wretched jew

>>17495710
I haven't been on /lit/ in months, just happened to come across this quote and thought it'd net (you)s. I had no idea anti-kneechan posting had become a trend.

>>17495747
nooooposting is more ressentimental than katana memes

Is there some kind of organized revolt against Nietzsche on this board right now or something? Like 3 or 4 anti-Nietzsche threads on the go right now. I don't mind it just seems weird to me

>>17495747
Nietzsche was extremely philosemitic and admired Jesus, you don't know what you're talking about

>>17495756
Why is resentment a bad thing? Not a very Christian thing to say.

>>17495756
Since when is resentment a bad thing? It's all will to power, and I have just BTFO him with nooooposting. I have subverted the Christian subverter.

>>17493262
"be baseder" would make for a pretty based doctrine if someone could do it.

"to be based or not to be based..." attempts only to extend hesitation long enough for religious effeminates to devour you. the based don't have time for the kind of perpetual permission seeking misery shakespeare needs to contrast himself against.

>>17495741
>>17495748
It needs to stop and it needs to stop now. The anti-Nietzsche posting on this board crossed the line between legitimate criticism and organized harassment/bullying a long time ago.

>>17495784
Resentment and ressentiment are two totally different concepts and you'd know that if you'd actually read Nietzsche

>>17493452
At least call him Chubberton or something like it. Put some effort into your insults!

>>17495793
I've read him a decade ago. I don't remember the difference.

>>17495797
It's one of his most basic concepts. Spouting off opinions about Nietzsche without knowing the difference between resentment and ressentiment is like talking about Hegel without knowing what the master/slave dialectic is

>>17495810
I doubt it. It was mostly a sidenote in his work, otherwise I would've remembered it vividly. I've read pretty much everything he wrote except zarathustra, which seemed too larpy for me.

>>17493284
And Nietzsche was a clinically insane shut-in

>>17494358
>Does he just think English people invented every idea?
SEETHING

>>17495814
It's the fundamental driving force behind the revolt against master morality and the creation of Christianity and modernity. It's indispensable to his philosophy, especially On the Genealogy of Morality, which is probably his most important ethical work.

>>17495710
kek

>>17495788
you spend too much time on the internet

>>17495823
based anglochad

>>17495747
>To friend Overbeck and wife.

>Although you have so far demonstrated little faith in my ability to pay, I yet hope to demonstrate that I am somebody who pays his debts—for example, to you. I am just having all anti-Semites shot.

>Dionysus

>>17495841
I literally don't remember it.
>In philosophy and psychology, ressentiment (French pronunciation: [rəsɑ̃timɑ̃]) is one of the forms of resentment or hostility. The concept was of particular interest to some 19th century thinkers, most notably Friedrich Nietzsche. According to their use, ressentiment is a sense of hostility directed toward an object that one identifies as the cause of one's frustration, that is, an assignment of blame for one's frustration.[1] The sense of weakness or inferiority complex and perhaps even jealousy in the face of the "cause" generates a rejecting/justifying value system, or morality, which attacks or denies the perceived source of one's frustration. This value system is then used as a means of justifying one's own weaknesses by identifying the source of envy as objectively inferior, serving as a defense mechanism that prevents the resentful individual from addressing and overcoming their insecurities and flaws. The ego creates an enemy in order to insulate itself from culpability.[citation needed]
That's how I define resentment.

>>17495844
It's a joke, this >>17495710 is a newly-minted copypasta. I probably do spend a bit too much time on the internet to be fair though

>>17495796
This, "Chestertub" would also work.

>>17493262
>How to get a top post on /lit/.
>Have Nietzsche as one of your first five words so as to be able to view it in the catalog easily.
>Post quote by another obscure or well known individual(it honestly does not matter who) that critiques him in some way
>use green text and just wait for the philofags, wikitards, /pol/tards, psueds, and autistic people that actually read said individuals above but are too stupid to know everyone else has not

>>17495852
It's more than resentment. Resentment is (roughly speaking) the hostility that the weak/ruled feel toward the strong/rulers, while ressentiment is a moral system that attributes a negative value (evil) to the power/advantages the strong/rulers have over the weak/ruled. The fact that ressentiment is related to and develops out of resentment doesn't mean it's the same thing as resentment. A person can resent their ruler without attributing a negative value to the power of the ruler.

>>17495889
ok, but you can see how it's a distinction without a difference. it's one of those ebin literary devices that neetch uses

>>17495896
I just explained the distinction. A person who has resentment but not ressentiment will want to place himself in the position of the master and gain his power for himself, while a person with ressentiment says that that power and the master who wields it is evil.

>>17495909
Yeah, but you understand how it is kind of a tongue-in-cheek device from neetch as well?

>>17495916
maybe, I don't know Nietzsche extremely well either, I just know it's not the same thing as resentment.

>>17493262
Chesterton is a good example of the midwit, who cant understand Nietzsche because he think good is synonimous with being nice and acting safe.

A man like Nietzsche would have no problem with charity, if it filled a genuine desire in the person giving it

Shakespeare worked to get an applause from an audience of Christian plebs. Those lines made him a lot of money I'm sure. Nietzsche wrote to get respect from fellow philologists.

>>17495924
to me it seems like a wink-wink joke that he usually does. ressentiment literally means resentment in french

>>17495928
retarded post

>>17493465
Obesity in those days when people where not eating so much sugar and vegetable oils, but healthier animal fats and salts most likely points to a porn adiction.

>>17495934
Maybe but the meaning of ressentiment as Nietzsche uses it is different from the English definition of resentment

>>17495757
Our enemies know Nietzsche is our salvation.

>>17495236
Then I now like Nietzsche a little less and Chesterton a little less.

>>17495940
Truth hurts don't it?

>>17495959
that's the joke

>>17495986
I wasn't commenting on its comedic value

>>17495986
>>17496004
They refer to two different things, that's the point I was trying to make.

>>17495815
He'd be namefagging on /lit/ if he were alive today.

>>17493329
K I N O

>>17493329
Chesterton died a happy man. Nietzsche died in a mental asylum. That should tell you enough about who’s right.

>>17496053
i'm incredibly retarded so that makes perfect sense to me.

>>17496053
I don't subscribe to Nietzsche's ethics but there's more to life than being happy when you die. Rage against the dying of the light.

>>17496053
Chesterton died like a cringe boomer from heart failure because he was obese and retarded
Nietzsche's Chad death is mythologized, literally going insane from your own intellect and collapsing is peak art

>>17496105
>going insane from your own intellect
Not really the case though, isn't it Anon? He had multiple strokes because of a syphilis infection. Each stroke him less stable than the last, both physiologically and psychologically, until he died of a last stroke in 1900.

Nietzsche was revolutionary in saying, "Is he really wrong though? I mean *really*?" This was no seriously considered, it was to be taken as a given which Chesterton notes

>>17496426
not the anon you're responding to but a lot of scholars and commentators ascribe the frantic and megalomaniacal character of his later works (Antichrist, Ecce Homo) to his mind beginning to break down, so while he didn't exactly die of his own madness you could say that what drove him to madness also in part inspired his philosophy

>>17496426
>>17496457
Assuming the extremely painful headaches he suffered for most of his adult life were also somehow related to his later illness you could draw the same connection between his insanity and all of his works

>>17496426
>because of a syphilis infection.
Friedrich Nietzsche, the philosopher thought to have died of syphilis caught from prostitutes, was in fact the victim of a posthumous smear campaign by anti-Nazis, according to new research.

>>17496485
REALITY ISN'T REAL
IT'S ALL ABOUT POWER
WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>>17495236
Nietzsche's whole obsession with physical attractiveness as merit is probably the most repulsive part of his whole philosophy. And not just because it also self-refutes him, but because Socrates was pretty much written by Plato, who doesn't seem to have any association with unattractiveness (and the same goes for Aristotle).

>>17494358
Artists are natural born philosophers.

>>17495192
no, you retard. nietzsche believed an ubermensch needed to TRANSCEND slave and master morality.

>>17495940
he's not wrong. shakespeare was a barbarian with a divine talent. very dangerously manipulative.

>>17496514
What major philosophers were good-looking? Schelling's the only one that comes to mind off the top of my head

>>17496053
Yeah happiness, the supreme value of every lower person.

>>17496531
Wittgenstein wasn't bad either

>>17496497
Nietzsche sure seperates the gold from the trash.

>>17496531
>>17496539
Kierkegaard

>>17493284
FPBP

>>17495203
Reply to me you fucking faggot. You think you can just insult people and then not reply when responded to? Coward!

>>17496529
Shakespeare wrote characters from their own points of view. Regardless of his own amorality, Richard is a pretty realistic personality and presents a realistic perspective, not a caricature

>>17496531
>>17496539
>>17496545
Hegel, maybe

>>17496531
>>17496539
>>17496545
>>17496568
Plato who the hell knows but he was a wrestler so he must have been in good shape at least

>>17496531
>>17496539
>>17496545
>>17496568
>>17496574
I can't think of any others. Not a field that attracts good-looking people. The women are even worse (Hannah Arendt, Ayn Rand, Judith Butler)

>>17496531

>>17496599
yeah in a subtle french kind of way, I can see it. He always looks like he's planning some sinister plot though

>>17496590
There's something fetching about Ayn Rand, like she would know her way around a goy's cock.

>>17496612
Horrifying
Although she wasn't overly bad-looking when she was young

>>17496610
Well, he was a "responsible guardian of the heritage of transcendental idealism". You can't get much more sinister than that as a philosopher.

>>17496599
>>17496612
William James

>>17493329
Okay Christianity is done

>>17496630
We have a winner I think

>>17496628
why is that sinister, kant was a nice guy

>>17496621
Her husband, Frank O'Connor.

>>17496646
It is a pet peeve of mine
He is the main reason subsequent Continental philosophy after him went balls deep into subjectivism

>>17496652
She Weinsteined him

>>17496658
Kant proved objectivism

>>17493262
Nietzsche lived in this nigga's head rent free.

https://twitter.com/haaretzcom/status/1359084431236091906
Unrelated but seems pretty significant, just came out

>>17496021
he would be doing what icycalm does, which is charging for access to his own site and definitely not namefagging on this shithole site

>>17496514
>but because Socrates was pretty much written by Plato,

>>17496426
The syphilis diagnosis was done by an overworked doctor who threw one look at him and fit him into a neat box, popular at the time, so he could move on with his workday. Modern medical knowledge suggest neet-chan had some kind of brain tumor near the eyes

>>17496514
>but because Socrates was pretty much written by Plato

>>17495405
Transsexuality is the post-post-modern will to power, lol

>>17497129
Icy definitely googles his own name on /lit/