/lit/ - Literature

>>18241605
Because people stopped romanticizing war. Why did people stop romanticizing war?

because literature and indeed all of academia has been subverted by Them.

>>18241605
The better question is why do you keep posting this webm?

>>18241605
Generally, men becoming weak minded and losing their inner virility — plus, corrupt politicians starting unnecessary banana wars that ultimately fatigued the minds of men

>>18241605
Dulce bellum inexpertis

>>18241605
war stopped being about gloriously conquering people weaker than you or defending your people from a great threat and became about methodically slaughtering and crippling nations

>>18241610
Because liberalism became popular and with it human rights
>Why did liberalism become popular?
I don't think anyone knows. The big change obviously happened in the 18th century, but there were already cracks the centuries before. I assume it has to do with finding the lost Greek texts, which allowed people to become smart again, and with it they created room for a larger population and a richer middle class that could have higher demands and so on.

You can easily trace back anti-war novels gaining track right after trench warfare appeared, it just took out all the nobility & elegance that was associated with war before then, turns out there's nothing aesthetic about dying from shell shock covered in your own piss and shit.
and modern warfare is mostly a dude eating donuts while bombing civilians with a drone, hardly any heroism to be found anymore

>my friend you would not tell with such high zest
>to children ardent for some desperate glory,
>the old lie: "dulce et decorum est
>pro patria mori"

>>18241605
Technology got too advanced; Nothing really glorious about watching a machine kill 1000s of people per second

It is just not the same as taking a band of 40 people and stabbing them

>>18241605
Women and jews.

>>18241665
this, pretty much every WW1 veteran novelist took an anti-war stance

>>18241605
it didnt you retard. different literature do different things
>>18241610
people didnt, they just romanticised it in the second degree by romanticising the unromantic nature of war. making it i to a tragedy, a drama, still being obsessed with it, but patting themselves on the back for obsessing over it while saying its bad.

its pure antithesis. people still eat war movies and books, but as long as there is a bitter note to it, and say war is bad at the end, it is no longer considered romantic and their consciousness is free and get to feel enlightened.

KEEP FIGHTING!!!

>>18241698
going off this, people simply switched from sucking on a sweet candy to sucking on a sweet and bitter candy, like dark caramel, and calling it medicine.

Once they knew the actual horrors of war after WW2

>>18241605
>>18241610
Because of the first World War.

>>18241605
There is glory in going to war to protect your homeland or to fight for your freedom against tyrants.
There is nothing to romanticize about going to die to enrich your overlords.

>>18241605
There's nothing romantic about modern war. You're sitting in a troop transport truck and a drone missile from out of nowhere obliterates you and all your skill and training was for nothing. At least before at one point there was the possibility of displaying valor and charging into the fray and using your combat skills to overcome the foe in a fatal contest of fortitude and resolve. Now it's all about the war technology, the actual soldiers are secondary to it.

>>18241605
That’s not a picture of a war, it’s a picture of terrorism

>>18241605
I love this picture. It reminds me of the Iliad and Athena vs Ares.

Also nice that jews and muslims are killing each other.

>>18241605
Because modern wars are literally fought against the good of every living people (except for Israel).

>>18241697
that's what made junger so great
all of you could benefit from haag's lecture on storm of steel (and reading junger in general)
https://youtu.be/KgYJz9n5wQ0
>>18241721
war has always had "horrors"
I'm sure getting boiling oil poured on you down the ramparts of a castle is equally as enjoyable as breathing chlorine or getting white phosphorused
>>18241769
filtered
>>18241798
soldiers have always been "technicians" (especially after the first world war, but even the late 19th century too), that doesn't detract from the stimuli, comradery, and mentality
post military id and mos or opinion discarded
>>18241805
fuck off mossad

>>18241605
I just want some stellar Vietnam literary fiction. Only close thing to beautiful writing about Vietnam war is the experiences of a recon marine describing being inserted in the bush 100 miles away from any military unit and staying there for 5 days at a time tracking the Vietcong

>>18241869
Nobody wants to read about losers tho

>>18241872
The only loser was the us government losing on three fronts: American public; GI Dissent; and Vietcong who would outlast any method of attrition.

>>18241605
>Why did literature stop romanticizing war?
around the point of industrialization, it become more about machines than men

>>18241855
>soldiers have always been "technicians"
Tell that to the ones who just got blown up by an IDE.

>>18241886
*IED

>>18241891
Its IDF

I thought the Iliad was going to glorify the Trojan war but actually, despite displaying admiration for the heroic acts of war, it doesn't skip over the horrific tragedy of war. So I don't think war was "glorified" so much in the past if even the oldest significant war story sees the negatives of war.

I guess the biggest difference is people don't view the wars as heroic at all, like they aren't being fought for noble causes... but then again the Iliad doesn't exactly present the cause of the Trojan war as noble, it's just that war itself gave the chance for heroism and the cause didn't really matter.

>>18241886
It was Visual Studio, wasn't it? God damn Microsoft...

>>18241605

it didn't
War itself has stopped being romantic

>>18241886
>Tell that to the ones who just got blown up by an IED
https://youtu.be/6ExbpXnN-mY

>>18241730
wrong answer, it was the enlightenment

>>18241939
you're joking right? the Napoleonic wars were peak war romanticism and the last era of it before WW1 came along

>>18241698
Quality post

>>18241922
Have you read the illiad essay by Simone weil? Check it out if not.

Because other mediums started too, and still do

>>18241605
real answer is the american civil war, it just (typically) took europe a minute to catch up

>>18241948
are you implying that war romanticism ended with WW1? do you seriously think WW2 wasn't popular in america? because it was, every young man wanted to enlist.

>>18241962
Not yet but I know of it.

>>18241969
meme answer
Americans never stopped romanticizing war even after WW2, they never faced the chaos and destruction that modern warfare brought to Europe and most of the world.

>>18241988
America =/= the rest of the world, you've never been carpet bombed or nuked before so you wouldn't know

>>18241988
I was speaking from more of a European context, I think in the USA it was more around Vietnam

>>18241998
germany and japan definitely supported the war too

>>18241698
good post, but I think there is something to be said about real war vs imagined war. Analogous to how people like rollercoasters but hate falling to their death.
War is begging to be romanticized in media and art because its so high stakes. I think there are just periods in history where war is seen as a desirable thing to do because of glory and toughness, and we are past that point where war just isn't seen as gentlemanly anymore because people fundamentally disagree with the reasons why we go to war.

>>18242020
>>18241709
>>18241951
stop samefagging you dumb faggot, your post was bad and you said absolutely nothing of substance in it.

>>18241605
>Why did literature stop romanticizing war?

When war became less and less a distant concept to those at home,the realities of the burden became ever more obvious and heavier on society which increasingly favored socialised care and welfare and the age of patriotic nationalism was swept away by globalism which favored trade and commerce. WWI (for Great Britain at least) was the beginning of the end of romantic war with soldiers returned mutilated and with shell-shock, and the sentiment that a whole generation of young men was lost pointlessly.

>>18241948
>By what right do you dare accuse the nation of…want of perseverance in the emperor’s interest? The nation has followed him on the fields of Italy, across the sands of Egypt and the plains of Germany, across the frozen deserts of Russia. … The nation has followed him in fifty battles, in his defeats and his victories, and in doing so we have to mourn the blood of three million Frenchmen

There's nothing beautiful about modern war. An obese technician sitting in an air conditioned office in Omaha, Nebraska coordinates a drone strike on some illiterate goat herders 7000 miles away. The internet has refined global consciousness to such a degree that everyone is quite aware that soldiers are just pawns of big business and it's arguable as to whether or not countries even exist anymore.

The army submits for your consideration animated recruitment ads featuring lesbian and transsexual warrior aspirants. Generals are managerial, bureaucratic. You look at your fellow enlistees and you see fat black woman, fat mexican woman, mexican man, black man - all of them there for the benefits and if they could sell their country for a Popeyes chicken sandwich they would do so.

When the ethnostate died. It's no longer about valour, defending your people, or conquering the enemy with people who are like you, think like you, and share your values. Who in their right mind thinks drones fighting for globohomo is noble?

>>18242113
>ethnostate
you do realize for most of history ethnostates weren't the dominant structure of geopolitics right? multi-ethnic Empires were and they certainly had plenty of war romanticism going on.

>>18242121
No, they had state propaganda romanticizing war. For the people, war was no longer romantic even then.

>>18242121
Ethnostates were the norm up until a few centuries ago. Or do you think minorities were just handed out citizenship and equal footing with the autochthonous people?

>>18242141
depends on the minorities in question and also on the empire we're talking about

>>18242141
HRE, Austria & the Ottomans had a favorable treatment to minorities who would participate in the war effort, with the latter even having an entire system privileging minorities via military achievements.

>>18242169
I don't think that qualifies as "just handing out citizenship". It's a reward for service.

>>18242169
Yet they were always second class people

>>18241605
Fussils
You xannot have the one man army story because a kid with a gun can kill him...
Counter: It never stopped, anon. Read Freezer's Saga. It is a way a romanticizing piece of war. Mecha Genre also has the spirit.

I find it pretty telling that people who've actually been in war seem universally to find it's hell on earth.

There is nothing to romanticize about modern warfare, the only way you could do it is to portray it in a completely unrealistic manner, such as what videogames do.

>>18241605
>Why did literature stop romanticizing war?
They'd get canceled, we live in an inverse generation where we can't be pro-war but want it, where as a few decades ago people were pro-war yet averse to it.
>>18241610
>Why did people stop romanticizing war?
They haven't, we have a whole board dedicated to militaria and warfare. We don't acknowledge it but a lot of people, even newer generations, actively fetishize warfare, myself included. I love guns, military history and surplus.
Junger says that "war's an agreeable experience to those who have never witnessed it", but we live in a weird time where there are agitating philosophical undertones of "peacetime is agreeable to those who have never experienced it". I personally think desires are high enough and there are people, myself included, who'd want to participate if it were wartime. It's simply that we don't romanticize it the same way compared to antiquity and pre-modern history.
>inb4 there's nothing to romanticize about modern warfare
I jerk off to generation kill, anons that say this have never served or are blatantly unaware the sensual pleasures steyr augs can give a man.
t. /k/ anon

>>18241660
Human rights are created for the disenfranchisement of the strong in favor of the weak

>nuclear armed super power backed militarised ultra conservative theocratic ethnostate taking pot shots at a glorified chicken coop filled with muslims
>war

>>18243347
War never changes, unless you allow your enemy 60 years to stop attacking you because they suck so hard you could destroy them accidently.

>>18243296
Who created human rights?

>>18243428
Whoever enforces them

>>18241605
Because now wars are fought for a small group of pedophillic old men that fund both sides instead of for your country or race.

>>18241605
Herodotus wrote that war sucks 2500 year ago

>>18241605
Because people other than aristocrats (ie people who weren’t just giving orders from tents and actually had to suffer) started writing

>>18241605
War changed, there is no honor or dignity in fighting. You'll be killed by a bullet half-a-mile away or indirect artillery or guided munitions by a jet 20 miles away in the sky.

Also people are more connected now and there is less of national pride which is required to feel romantic about dying for your nation which sees you as just a tool.

>>18241605
>Why did literature stop romanticizing war?
Nukes ended the age of mass infantry deployment which has mostly deprived modern war of its 'road trip' feel.

>>18243986
??
deployment is still a thing, nukes are just there for deterrence

>>18241948
Yeah, the Napoleonic Wars were one of the last "gentleman wars", with WWI being an inglorious meat grinder

>>18241605
Modern war is about as unromantic as you can get. Featureless blobs firing bullets at other featureless blobs, 2 miles away from each. With the occasional metal box or flying metal box mixed in every now and again.

>>18241610
Technological progress has made sure war has no beauty left. There's no room for glory when all your comrades can be wiped out in a second from a well placed artillery strike.

God I hope giant robots become viable at some point.

>>18244527
mecha is soulless and has no beauty to it

>>18241697
>this, pretty much every WW1 veteran novelist took an anti-war stance
All except one

>>18241605
Probably Vietnam thanks to television. Then war become what it truly is. Hell.

>>18244579
And my Stahlhelm.

>>18243956
>literally no one who ever fought in war found beauty in it, everyone at every point in time in every corner of the earth had the exact same view of the world as me, a modernist bugman

>>18244519
This is the only correct answer in this thread.

>>18244519
>muh technology ruined war
>muh honor
stfu smuggling heroin, electronic warfare, and doing africa addio work with the boys is way cooler than noble savage-tier bull shit ethics
even if the cold war is over, there were still madlads in iraq and kuwait getting to do insano shit
>There's no room for glory when all your comrades can be wiped out in a second from a well placed artillery strike.
Infantry combat will always exist retard, you can't raid stacks, contain urban populations, and quell insurgents with an abrams, and it's not like the variety of military occupations (infantry, armored, or other) don't have comradery and stories either. You're full of shit if you think the average sailor or pilot working day to day doesn't have some fun with demolitions, training, or any other slew of military activities.
The answer to why people don't romanticize war right now is because it's peacetime, technology has nothing to do with it and if anything it's made it more attractive.

>>18241605
Because war is fucking hell dude.

>>18244729
You can have fun and find meaning and purpose in the army as could anywhere else. The comradery is also something worthwhile, but my point still stands. Especially now, to find any kind of glory or beauty in killing sandniggers for Israel and globohomo, you'd have to be insane or willfully ignorant. There's no room for aestheticization outside of the corniness and cringeyness found in videogames.

The second that it became long distance, you no longer meet your enemy.

>>18244729
>funno shit
>madlados

>>18241605
war became secret

>>18241605
what a kino pic

>>18241605
War has always been awful but when it was a gentlemanly thing with codes of conduct and honor you could at least pretend there was something adventurous and romantic about it.
Industrial war however is just full-scale horror.

Its only been romanticized to a certain degree. Even the Iliad had a lot of anti-war sentiment

When the people who wrote literature started having actually dangerous roles in wars

>>18241610
The industrial age brought the horrors of war ever closer. Republicanism/statism dethroned the sovereign, mass literacy and an increase in newspapers made it more and more horrific. Finally the technology of film, at first showing the horrors of slavery then the numerous dead of the civil war. The Great War and great war II made it just a sick farce. There are still war lovers, but they’re insane and should be lobotomized

>>18241610
Turns out sending your kid to die for the interest of Je.....the "Ruling Elite" isn't very appealing to parents.

>>18245576
It was never appealing, poor parents and soldiers were very very rarely given any choice

>>18244729
What an ignoramus.

>>18241605
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.

Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime.—
Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.

>>18245533

I'm halfway through the illiad and it's not an anti-war book.

>>18245556
you're totally fucking wrong butters, again. It's a choice of the cultural elite that pick and choose which images get displayed to the masses. In Vietnam, they chose to show the mangled corpses of young men to the people at home to fuel the anti-war movement. In the 21st century, they show Kurdish women being 'communist rebels fighting the oppressive Syrian government!'. War is still romanticized, just selectively. It's all a matter of propaganda. Mass literacy itself did nothing to deter people from war, they rushed headlong into WW1, and then fully committed themselves to the second one knowing full well the horrors that awaited. There is no mass pacifist movement. You're just projecting.

>>18243428
The >every single time meme is true, I won't even bother checking desu
I've read de Benoist and Strauss tho but I can't remember.

>>18241610
Radio and Television

>>18241605
I have to admit that bleak, cynical portrayals of war are aesthetic as fuck

>>18245533
>>18245768
The Iliad isn't exactly an anti-war book. It showcases both the honour and glory as the brutality and pettiness of it, but I don't see how there is an actual judgement behind the poem.

>>18242113
take your meds and read a book lol

>>18241605
Holy shit all of you faggots who have never been in combat have no idea how awful modern war is. I am not saying that struggle and fighting is bad per se, but modern war, warfare and everything around it fucking sucks. You basement dwelling pseudo-intellectual faggots are absolutely retarded if you think that modern war is something that should be romanticized

>>18245965
blah blah
shut the fuck up retard

>>18244519
This, romanticization of war gets harder the more advanced the technology involved in it is. It's the difference between forming a phalanx with your countrymen and fighting others hand-to-hand and getting blown to bits by radio controlled heavy artillery from dozens of miles away.

>>18241988
>do you seriously think WW2 wasn't popular in america?
Who cares? Not relevant....

>>18241988
world war 2 was extremely unpopular in america retard, that's why the government entered late, because they had to goad the japanese into attacking before they could whip up any kind of bloodthirst in the population

>>18241605
Having access to HD footage of war showed everyone how horrible it is. Also this >>18241935
there's nothing romantic about killing people with the push of a button from several miles if not hundreds or thousands of miles away

>>18241992
also retarded, the south lost 1/3 of it's men in the civil war

Slave
Morality

>>18241605
Pacifism is the best way to enslave a populace. Teach them to deplore violence and you can do whatever the hell you want to them.

>>18246615
meh

I think war is a mystery and people just unravel it on it's own road.

I'll be writing an essay on this topic. I'll post it tomorrow, maybe.

>>18246570
>there's nothing romantic about killing people with the push of a button from several miles if not hundreds or thousands of miles away
t. man who has never watched a JDAM literally obliterate an entire village from which you're taking fire

>>18246625
this post is fucking annoying

>>18241670
Underrated Wilfred Owen post

Except for the Iliad (aka ancient capeshit) is there any other famous work of literature that has a WAR GOOD message

>>18246761
Blood Meridian, sort of

>>18246761
>aka ancient capeshit
Not replying seriously to retarded bati

>>18242020
i agree with your first part about why its romantissiced. its the ultimate stage with the ultimate stakes, shows peoples most extreme nature both good and bad. its an ultimate test. I think libdybeige actually explianed it quite well. i think a lot of his stuff is kinda stupid, but this point here is what i agree on: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dBI1Hplnghs

on your second point, I actually disagree, I dont think we are “past that point”. we still glorify it. you dont fundementally have to think something is good to glorify it. we are still obsessed with the stage of ultimate stakes. I might agree if there was less war media in general, but action stuff is still very popular. being dubious of its cause dosbt detract from it essentially quala.

>>18242036
ok schitzo, i only wrote >>18241698
and >>18241709

>>18241605
because all the people who had martial virtues got blown away by artillery barrages on ww1, and we are the ones that are left

>>18245143
that's a dude

>>18241660
>I assume it has to do with finding the lost Greek texts, which allowed people to become smart again
>>18241605
Why would you romanticize this period where wars are not fought for even your slightest benefit? Why would modern weak minded, small souled losers want to fight wars?
Do you have a brain to think about your question for even a minute? It's no wonder this world is fucked.

>>18246761
t. someone who has never read the illiad,

It ends with the whole of Troy crying over Hector, and with Achilles sad his boytoy is dead, with a prophecy he will die himself. Sure it has a message that there is heroics in war, but it is not as basic as war good.

>>18245768
There is a ton of tragedy but their reward is being immortalized as great heros

>>18245768
>>18245951
Are you guys retarded? Have you not read the ending?

>>18246761
Junger, Mishima, Tolstoy, Sun Tsu, Tolkien, good soldier svejk, Blood Meridian, Gravity's Rainbow, Great Gatsby, Don Quixote, Catch 22, Slaughterhouse V, Farewell to Arms, Dune. I could go on and on

>>18241610
pussyfication of society

>>18246970
>>18246875
Also every time someone dies, they explain exactly how and who they were. Imagine if you were a soldier and you got a life story of every person you’ve murdered.

>>18246983
most of those don't apply

>>18246970
The Iliad was more pro-war than anti-war, but not in a sabre-rattling way.

>>18241605
Three dozen replies and no answers.

Why was there slavery? Because plantation owners needed labour. Why was slavery abolished? Because machines became cheaper than people for that purpose.

Simlarly. Why was war romanticised? Because TPTB needed to propagandise millions of men willing to fight to the death to support their mercantilist ambitions. Why is war no longer romanticised? Because machines are now cheaper than people for that purpose.

Ever get the feeling you're expendable?

>>18244519
>>18241665
>>18241671
>>18241798
and >>18247071
Amen.

Modern problems require modern solutions, and so instead of romanticizing war itself, in this age intelligence and espionage is what's romanticised. If you body is made useless in the fight for your liberty, then your brain and cunning has to substitute.

I mean, marching with the mandem to defend the block from opps sounds fucking lit, but that is no longer viable in warfare. You can no longer train with your boys and push yourselves to be better and improve physically and mentally, developing bonds stronger than steel over months and months of hardships and struggles, then having all of your efforts culminate in one grandiose and glorious display of flesh and steel.

>>18246187
Sure bro, bet youre a great warrior

>>18247071
Dipshit, there allways has been and still is slavery. Not a metaphore, current is human trafficing and "sex workers" as the pc like to call them is the current slavery meta. Slavery existed long before it did in the American south, but also existed in the American north. Uninformed strawman, or shitlib shill? The world may never know.

>>18246983
Learn to properly read what you're replying to, retard

>>18246761
And the author fought in WWII

>>18247071
>everyone is a bugman like me

>>18247071
That's such a reductive way to view slavery it's baffling, not everything can be explained through a materialist relationship between people and capital you marxist subhuman.

>>18247165
All soldiers in this book jump around

>>18247071
Look at this brainlet

>>18246983
lol

>>18245785
>It's a choice of the cultural elite that pick and choose which images get displayed
Once again you knee jerks get it wrong. The advances I went over briefly brought those images to the masses. Propaganda wars soon became a thing beyond the usual mass delusionary institutions (church, Royal decrees etc.) I never said propaganda didn’t exist as you imply, I said the battle field was brought right to the faces of everyone. It isn’t glorious, it’s traumatizing and pointless.
-and if you think the US media was ever against wars...
Kurds fought with Syrian soldiers btw.
>war is still romanticized
By ghouls, insane ghouls. I mentioned this already.

>>18247322
A woman wouldn't get it.
https://www.nytimes.com/1975/09/28/archives/the-nobility-of-failure.html

>>18247434
I’m not insane like you.

>>18245556
Why war is bad:
>The industrial age
>Republicanism/statism
>technology
These things did not "show war for what it is" they made modern war.

>>18247441
>I'm selfish
Ok?
pic related

>>18247489
I suppose you want some return to trad wars.

>>18247499
Completely schizo reply. This charge makes no sense

>>18241605
Because romanticism died out from the world. There is nothing worth romanticizing in touching a button which will launch a bunch of rockets or a guy killing rebels by playing with a joystick thousands of kilometres away.
We strayed further from life than ever before. War used to mean more than horror. It had negativity but also positivity because it had heroism, glory, sacred death. Bunch of people who had causes and did something coz of it. Now we have professional payed for killers who get depressed by seeing atomized corpses and come home to die as an alcoholic or suicide by cop.
What's left to romanticize?

>>18247526
No, I'd rather there be no wars, however that doesn't mean it's inherently bad when there is a righteous cause. But in the case of wars in the last few hundred years, there really is no good cause. Man is now unhappy because he's thrown away everything that fulfilled him for some empty pleasures and stupid sophistry about all men being equal.

>>18241605
It didn't.

There are basically two genres of "anti-war" literature: psyops, and chumps. Chump stories are common in particularly bloody wars because societies run out of actual soldiers and end up doing stuff like pressing community college assistant literature professors into service (this is where whiny WWI books come from).

The psyops stuff is a bit more complicate but not too much. Basically, if a given war, military organization, or warrior class is disfavored by political elites, narratives about how terrible "war" and "violence" is will suddenly start appearing. A great example of this is Catch-22 not being published until the 60s and not getting popular until...Vietnam.

>>18241610
WWI was pretty unpleasant and made everyone sad.

>>18241610
>people stopped romanticizing war
There's these things called video games, you might want to check them out.

>>18241605
Artillery

>itt: people who don't even know what romanticism is

>>18247734
>thinking Romanticism, the artistic movement, is the same as the act of romanticizing something

>>18247662
And it actually works on the cattle:
>Violence is not the answer, we must seek a political solution!

>>18247539
There are reasons to fight.

>>18247662
>Basically, if a given war, military organization, or warrior class is disfavored by political elites, narratives about how terrible "war" and "violence" is will suddenly start appearing.
Why would the "warrior class" ever fall out of favor with the "elites"? Soldiers do nothing but follow orders without asking questions. Why they ever fall out of favor with the "elites"?

And even if they did, why wouldn't the so called elites simply decide to pull the troops from whatever war they were involved in at the time? If anyone has the power to do that, it's them.

>>18247820
To prevent this from happening.

>>18244519

>>18247071
>Why was slavery abolished? Because machines became cheaper than people for that purpose.
No? Because both New England and the British Empire moralistically stamped out slavery, then allowed basically the same thing as slavery as long as it is not called slavery.

>>18241929
Best post ITT. You're wasted on these people.

>>18241698
>by romanticising the unromantic nature of war. making it i to a tragedy, a drama, still being obsessed with it, but patting themselves on the back for obsessing over it while saying its bad.
This too, I remember being surprised reading direct footage of WW1 veterans: because while half of them said what you hear all the time about how war was awful, the other half couldn't bring themselves to get it over it - they loved it somehow and even they had no idea why since they were in horrid conditions the entire time

>>18247830
So the elites promoted Catch-22 to prevent a communist revolution. Gotcha

>>18247820
>Why would the "warrior class" ever fall out of favor with the "elites"? Soldiers do nothing but follow orders without asking questions. Why they ever fall out of favor with the "elites"?
Not him but this gets into the very definition elites. In the past in many societies the warrior class were the elites, but especially in the last 200ish years a new bureaucratic class has completely supplanted them.

>>18241605
Because literature used to be written for rulers.
Rulers need dupes to go out and kill other ruler's dupes for profit.
With the expansion of literacy and the means of producing literature, and many of these suddenly suddenly literate people finding themselves as cannon-fodder during wars, where heroic combat was increasingly replaced by sitting in trenches or bunkers, waiting to be blown into bits of blood, and shit, most of the people who now produce and consume literature, saw that war was a very shitty deal for everyone actually involved with them.

It's kind of like with Communism and Anti-imperialism. If you want to exploit people, for fucks sake at least have the brains to not teach them how to use the tools of that exploitation

>>18247845
This. Wage slavery is a much better deal for the owner, because the Landowner's Wives Association for Christian Morals can't complain if you just lay off cook, rather than having to sell them. Property implies responsibility.

>>18247879
Why the fuck are you on /lit/ if your thinking is this shallow?

>>18247968
I was mocking your braindead response. But let's not stop there; your whole theory is nonsensical and the hubris with which you defend it makes you out to be something special, aka a big fucking retard. Kill yourself.

>>18247843
A good example of a soulless war machine.

>>18241660
>>Why did liberalism become popular?
>I don't think anyone knows.
retard doesn't know about Dialectical materialism

>>18243428
they are an invention of modernity used to justify nationstate power

>>18245143
>those feet

>>18248031
>mf doesn't know that it was ideology and technology that changes the world, not if some people cared that others had more sheckels than them
ngmi

>>18247820
>Soldiers do nothing but follow orders without asking questions.
I realize this is the literature forum but please, read a history book. Just pick one at random. No, soldiers do not "do nothing but follow orders without asking questions". This is an *ideal* that is not achieved in practice, and it's not even an ideal of military _leadership_.

>And even if they did, why wouldn't the so called elites simply decide to pull the troops from whatever war they were involved in at the time? If anyone has the power to do that, it's them.
Ah yes, because "elites" are always a) non-martial and b) omnipotent.

All the retards itt saying shit like "muh artillery and technology" are braindead and literally refuted by the picture OP posted, how can you look at that and not think it's a beautiful sight regardless of the context of the war/victims, war is still romanticized by many people, modern weaponry does not take away the glory or whatever meme cope you think it does, missiles and nukes simply introduced a new aesthetic to warfare.
Literature does not promote war because of cultural reasons, not technical ones.

>>18247997
I'm a different guy entirely.
Your theory is actually retarded. The warrior class constantly threatens the established order, China's government has been overthrown a zillion times. Middle Eastern ruling class is constantly changing. African government are constantly changing too. It's only in western countries where the populous is cucked beyond comprehension that they tolerate being pounded into mud and like it.
Cuck.

>>18247762
Anarchism is a disease.

>>18248319
>The warrior class constantly threatens the established order.
Dead wrong. They are the ones who enforce it. Coups do happen but they are the exception that proves the rule.

>China's government has been overthrown a zillion times. Middle Eastern ruling class is constantly changing. African government are constantly changing too.
Irrelevant to the point.

>It's only in western countries where the populous is cucked beyond comprehension that they tolerate being pounded into mud and like it.
Grow up.

>>18248148
>soldiers do not "do nothing but follow orders without asking questions". This is an *ideal* that is not achieved in practice
You're the one who should read a book. I'd recommend some children's stories since they're the only thing suited to your comprehension capabilities.
I never said every single soldier obeys every single order every single time across every single era. I just meant that generally, soldiers tend to obey orders of superiors without asking questions. If you deny this you're just flat out retarded.

>Ah yes, because "elites" are always a) non-martial and b) omnipotent.
Enlighten me then, who else but the "elites" would be in a position to, say, pull the U. S. troops from Vietnam?

>>18241605
Do you know how popular shit like american sniper is? it's as romantacised as ever people just down where ridiculous costumes anymore.

>>18248447
It is maturation. It is civility. It is a dream.
It is entirely possible to achieve.

>>18242049
alexis was a faggot

>>18248447
anarchism is a helpless, powerless observation. greed and fear are the diseases.

>>18248461
pointless post.
>>18248528
Do you interact with people outside? That simply won't happen. I want it too, but only way I see to grasp it is genocide and radical autism (fanaticism)

>>18248258
Kys

>>18248528
It is the only way this Hellish world will go. I hope it ends before you damned faggots win.

>>18248461
>I just meant that generally, soldiers tend to obey orders of superiors without asking questions. If you deny this you're just flat out retarded.
You are aware that from time to time the leadership of military organizations seize power from existing governments in contravention of that government's ~orders~, right?

>Enlighten me then, who else but the "elites" would be in a position to, say, pull the U. S. troops from Vietnam?
"Elites rule" is a tautology. The question is the composition of the elite, and the answer is usually some sort of coalition. Nor is it a given that whoever says they're in charge always has their orders to obey. For instance, Andrew Jackson ignored orders not to invade Florida and did it anyway.

In answer to your specific question, some faction of the American elite -- especially its military side -- were in favor of the Vietnam War, and others were not. The proliferation of "peace" and "anti-war" literature during this time was an attempt by the one group of elites to undermine the other.

>>18241605
maybe because it's been taken over by a bunch of faggot nerds firing rockets at each other from hundreds to thousands miles away?

>>18248921
>The proliferation of "peace" and "anti-war" literature during this time was an attempt by the one group of elites to undermine the other.
Prove it.

>>18241610
Because the humanity is removed from modern warfare.

Ancient warfare was basically an extended camping trip. And once in a while you'd brawl with men directly in front of you. You can see them coming. You can see them swinging at you. You can struggle in real-time with a real human in front of you. You can look into his eyes as you triumph over him.

Modern warfare is anti-human. This is why the nobility doesn't fight anymore. Because modern warfare isn't noble. It's fucking hell. Patrolling around a jungle for weeks anxiously anticipating a fucking rocket dropping out of the sky or getting sprayed with lead from people you can't even see. Some fucking untrained cringe scrawny weak rice farming fuck ending your life from the safety of his fucking treehouse. Yeah, how fucking noble.

>>18241605
>Why did literature stop romanticizing war?
For everyone else? World War One. For us Yanks? 'Nam.

>>18244519
>>18245611
>>18246295
War was no more glorious when it war fought with men wielding giant razor blades than it is now. The only technology that has had a real effect of war's image is communications technology: now the average person can see the bloodbath while it's happening as well as the after effects.

>>18248592
In times of plenty (under state-capitalism) it’s unlikely to impossible. In crisis, it becomes much more plausible.

>>18248645
>faggots
I want to save all the heterosexuals too, dear. Your misanthropic wish is pointless and sad. You don’t belong on /lit/ at any rate. We love culture and would like to preserve it.

>>18249030
seething

>>18241869
Are you referring to the Bill Peters book? Google is showing a lot of books that sound similar to that.

>>18249075
I feel sorry for you.

>>18249075
Culture is self-preserving.

>>18249076
Why is your response so...dumb? I thought people were supposed to be more intelligent here on /lit/.

>>18249170
Not in instances of extinction.

>>18249153
I do alright. My perspective keeps me going. How’re you doing?

>>18248952
There isn't anything to prove though?
That's just reality.

>>18249189
>I thought people were supposed to be more intelligent here on /lit/.
lol
>Why is your response so...dumb?
Because your argument is dumb. Men went to war for struggle and for the achievement of a higher purpose. There is no better example for this than the Vikings.

>>18247820
Soldiers aren't warriors. You don't know what the warrior class is.

the level of larp wafting off this thread is so thick you can taste it on the air

>>18241690
And that's a good thing.

>>18244519
This. War over time has become less focused on an individual's skill, pitted against another individual's skill, and shifted instead to the impersonal. Impersonal and gruesome, since modern weaponry can reduce a person to a pile of meat in an instant. The age of single combat where battle was romanticized and considered glorious and honorable, where two individuals with only armor and some close combat weapon could metaphorically represent the struggle of kingdoms/empires/civilizations, was good bait for literature centering on virtue. If you want to incorporate modern warfare into literature, for it to truly be about modern warfare you'd have to 1) Write the gruesome realities of a bomb going off in one's immediate vicinity and 2) Write a whole lot more about bombs and drones controlled from some fatass in an air-conditioned building in some random place than about men actually fighting each other. Literature's human, war in the modern age has distanced itself from humans. Hence it's no longer romanticized.

>>18249262
>Vikings
>higher purpose
Well yeah if you consider pussy, gold and burning shit out a higher purpose, Eazy-E. Good lord, read a book. Any book at this point. If I were you I'd start with A Cat In The Hat.

>>18243082
>Junger says that "war's an agreeable experience to those who have never witnessed it", but we live in a weird time where there are agitating philosophical undertones of "peacetime is agreeable to those who have never experienced it"
This. It's no wonder so many people now are claiming to be anarchist, nazi, tankie, ancap or any other extremist political ideology. When humans don't have problems, they simply invent their own.
Both pain and comfort eventually lead to suffering, but at least the earlier makes for a good story and a interesting life.

>>18249262
>Men went to war for struggle and for the achievement of a higher purpose. There is no better example for this than the Vikings.
Except maybe the Crusades, the Reconquista, the conquest of Mexico and South America...

>>18249262
>Men went to war for struggle and for the achievement of a higher purpose. There is no better example for this than the Vikings.
AHEM

>>18250277
>or any other extremist political ideology.
As if what is currently "normal" was any more common than "extreme" ideologies throughout human history.

>>18241730
exactly

>>18246295
>>18249951
This is such an unfathomably gay take. War has gotten more technologically advanced, and thus more complex and efficient. This is a good thing- an improvement, not some degeneration. A fighter pilot for example is the supreme techno-warrior; the world has never seen such absolute destructive power wielded by one individual soldier.

The fact that you're lamenting not being able to be some man at arms that fights in hand to hand combat (which you wouldn't have been even if you were born 800 years ago) instead of seeing the potential of the era you actually live in shows you're a gay LARPer with no martial aptitude.

>>18250782
>A fighter pilot for example is the supreme techno-warrior; the world has never seen such absolute destructive power wielded by one individual soldier.
That's the one exception that everyone from anime to fucking Evola has already mentioned though. Why do you think it is we simultaneously characterize WWI as being a soulless meat grinder in the trenches AND paint heroic pictures about the fighter pilots from the exact same war?

>>18241605
Because the horrors are far more preservable and stark thanks to modern use of easily portable video recording and picture taking.

Can't lie about it using flowery pose anymore. Everyone has a front row seat to what it actually looks and sounds like now, in intimate detail if you know where to look.

Basically, you can thank every sociopath with a helmet can.

>>18241605
Why do you want war to be romanticized?

Is it because you're a fucking psychopath? Because I think it's because you're a fucking psychopath.

It is far easier to romanticize something that you do not witness, as in the case of ancient wars. Plus, modern warfare is not a very poetic subject, and I doubt anyone could write an epic on it, meaning that it is not a romantic thing. There is not even a code of honor or gentlemanliness, just the desire to win, even underhandedly; even the sensation of "subjugating an inferior people" is diminished by the fact that you are doing so with significantly superior technology, and not as trailblazers, but as peacekeepers. There is no mystery any more, no "our gods and their foreign gods," or nobles/heroes fighting before their respective armies. In short, modern war is about efficiency, not art. In truth, all war is some parts art and efficiency, but it's taken a turn towards the efficient, as with all things. Growth, where to?

Just my two cents.

>>18250782
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvEMQalsHWs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAJM5L9hhBs

I can only see a Tribes-like future being romantic. But once again, you need to pad your warrior with poeticisms rather than letting him appear as such on his own. A man in a machine becomes a "devastatingly power demi-god technowarrior." In truth, war is being fought more and more by machines and relies less on human prowess and more on human intellect (both soon to be replaced by a superior machine).

There might be some beauty through the cracks of this tread, but it's still stamping down on our heads. Why use meatbags when you can fight war with AI-controlled robots, drones, ordnance, and rockets? Or use bio-weapons, satellites, and mind control? War no longer seems to have noble pursuits in mind; we won't be fighting against mutants, cyborgs, or ComStar. We'll be fighting against our would-be brothers, and first, our conscience.

>>18250782
You wouldn't be a gundam pilot in your ideal future either, senpai.

>>18250920
>There is not even a code of honor or gentlemanliness
The wide variety of conventions on warfare are vastly more honorable and thorough than any past constructs of chivalry or other. War is far more gentlemanly now than it has ever been. The level of protection given to individuals hors de combat, civilians and even combatants themselves has never been matched in history.
>both soon to be replaced by a superior machine
A superior machine AND a human will always be superior to a machine on its own. Technology and other systems will always complement the soldier, but not replace him. Only when the presence of infantry is a genuine detriment, will there be reason and purpose to be rid of humans in combat. Until that occurs, combined arms will chug on forward.

>>18244471
Mass deployment is a world of difference from the "surgical" interventionist approach that defines modern warfare.

>>18250920
>A man in a machine becomes a "devastatingly power demi-god technowarrior."
There's a reason why, despite vast differences in setting, "realism" and focus, giant robot fiction universally and without exception has a focus on the heroic aspect of the pilots, even Tribes with Starsiege. Sure it's not the same as some Conan type ripping a dude in half with nothing but his bare strength and a certain amount of demi-godhood, but it's still SOME form of heroism that doesn't exist in modern war.it's also why people who like these forms of fiction tend to be on a certain side of the political spectrum

War changed. It went from incredibly romantic in your face combat, to trench lines that were far less personal but still romantic in a certain way, to guerrilla jungle and urban warfare that felt incredibly cowardly from both the overpowered aggressor and the dishonest defender, to what we have now, which is robots fighting wars for us.

None of this is intended as an observation on morals, just the romantic value of war.

>>18247105
>I mean, marching with the mandem to defend the block from opps sounds fucking lit, but that is no longer viable in warfare. You can no longer train with your boys and push yourselves to be better and improve physically and mentally, developing bonds stronger than steel over months and months of hardships and struggles, then having all of your efforts culminate in one grandiose and glorious display of flesh and steel.
This makes me long to die in an ultimately pointless battle, well said

>>18250986
>but it's still SOME form of heroism that doesn't exist in modern war
That heroism is entirely in the eye of the beholder. The small, realistic actions of real men is to me far more heroic than whatever superhuman feats are portrayed in media. It's far more gripping and inspiring to see or read of something simple and human that you understand than it is to perceive some superhuman feat of "heroism."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Audie_Murphy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oKMjTqdTYo
https://www.militarytimes.com/2013/03/27/self-sacrificing-courage-when-a-grenade-hit-specialist-saved-four-others-instead-of-himself/

>>18251016
>which is robots fighting wars for us.
Entirely untrue. What fight wars is still men, despite the ubiquitous prevalence of drone footage from third-world conflicts. There just aren't cameras to be found in those numbers elsewhere and the incompetence of subpar militaries causes confirmation bias in reference to the usefulness of drones. Likewise does the use of the footage in propaganda.
The flavor of modern warfare is the vast availability of information available combined with the blurring of lines between combatant and civilian. War is now fought on every possible aspect of society, from imageboards like 4chan to mechanized brigades on the battlefield. News from the front reach the entire world in minutes of things occurring and so everyone maintains the tightest possible information hygiene, using media networks and social media to construct their preferred narratives and frameworks for the people still stupid enough to watch MSM.
Guerilla tactics and un-uniformed combatants are now a staple of warfare; locals and irregulars are likely to handle frontline fighting while professional forces maintain presence in reserve, providing indirect fires and only fighting in crucial, decisive battles. Ukraine and Turkey's actions in Syria and Azerbaijan-Armenia, US in Iraq vs ISIS, are good examples of this.

>>18241605
Because our overlords wanted us to abdicate whatever little power we have and place our trust in "democracy".

Because war didn't have room for the nobility and wealthy with the best arms and armour wanking each other off anymore.

>>18251207
What do they write about now then, when they all just dodge?

>>18251207
The majority of the Kshatriya didn't even get paid in vedic india and regularly fought just because they believed conflict to be holy and transcendental. And they did all this despite being in the same caste that kings were part of.

>>18241605
Modernist literature concerning warfare is usually about either World War or a more recent civil war where total war was employed to some degree. Post-modern literature continued the same themes rather directly while being stylized differently.

>>18246983
>Gravity's rainbow
>catch 22
Way to miss the point
>Blood meridian
It's more for 'WAR IS'

>>18241988
Retard.

>>18244519
correct answer.

>>18250823
What's psychopathic about romanticizing putting one's own life on the line for something greater than yourself? Because that's what all war romanticism boils down to.

>>18241610
The correct reason is nationalism. Nationalism replaced aristocracy so now everyone was invested in war instead of just the soldiers who did it for fun, money, glory, etc. Once you get the majority of cowards involved in something they always ruin it. That's why they don't want war to be romantic otherwise people will know how big a fucking coward they are.

t. merc

>>18241605
Because men have become domesticated, estrogenated, pathetic, shallow weaklings. There isnt single great piece of literature dealing with war that doesnt praise it

>>18252191
>There isnt single great piece of literature dealing with war that doesnt praise it
name a few

>>18251110
Yes, waging warfare on an anime imageboard is quite romantic and heroic, I agree

>>18252191
Go on anon, drop a few "great pieces of literature" that praise war.

>>18241605
What so you know about the war to end all wars?

>>18245533
From my vague memory I found the odyssey to have more of an overt and stronger anti war stance, especially when Odd is in the underworld

The International Jewry do not want the white races of The World to revolt against them, they want to keep them weak.

>>18247071
Slavery existed before and after Americans discovery and outlawing of Slavery

>>18249262

>>18252213
>>18252254
>Iliad
>Thus spoke Zarathustra
>Blood Meridian
>Storm of Steel
>Starship Troopers

>>18250388
It's more that if any other ideology actively generated a similar peace, similar societal issues would arise. Which seems likely in all fairness.

>>18241605
>>18241610
Because of the death of the Nation in the West. There is no unifying ideal to unite a nation in pursuit of a common goal, given the death of religion, the rise of multiculturalism etc. Patriotism is dead.