/lit/ - Literature

>"But raison d'etat alone does not explain why Mussolini, even while cracking down on the anarchists at home, strained his ideological credibility as a Fascist and put his prestige at risk by making personal appeals on behalf of Sacco and Vanzetti. The evidence also suggests that a lingering, if perverse, nostalgia for what he identified as his own youthful anarchist impulses remained imbedded in his psyche. His propensity for violence and direct action, along with his inclination to see himself as a rebel who lived in defiance of bourgeois
morality, led him to feel a spiritual kinship with the anarchists."

>>18947805
>Giovanni Gentile's theory of actual idealism seems to be very similar if you replace his "objects" with Stirner's "spooks"
That’s because it is. Subject and Object are correlatives. The Object is indeed immersed in, or assimilated into the Subject, but the Object nevertheless remains Object.

>>18947805
Stirner wasn't a fascist, stop falsifying his thought you moron

>>18947923
>Falsifying his thought
Lmao - that's not even possible according to himself.

>>18947805
Knowledge is a relation between two terms: Subject and Object. In a knowledge relation, the Object-term exhibits a formal and material character that is relative to the Subject-term. The Object’s formal character is Subject-implying, and its material character is both Subject-implying and Experience-implying.It is absolutely necessary for the Object-term of a knowledge relation to have both a formal and material character. If the Object of knowledge was naked, and clothed in neither form or substance, then the fact of “Objectivity” would be none other than a fact about a void—pure nothingness—absent of quality, aesthetic value, purpose, and meaning.

It would be a fact about nothing, yet such a fact would fail to live up to its name as “fact.” A fact is a fact only insofar as it is significant; and to be significant is to signify; and to signify is to signify an Object; and without an Object to signify, a fact could hardly be called a fact. Rather than having a fact about Objectivity, we would have a nothing about a nothing—and this is absurd. One cannot even conceive of an Object without said Object having a formal and material character. Objectivity, like Subjectivity, is a fact. It is a fact that one cannot dismiss without performative contradiction. To argue against the existence of Objectivity would itself be an act in pursuit of an Object—an intended aim, a meaningful purpose, a qualitative and substantive “what” and “that;” and this Object would itself be the insistence of the non-existence of Objectivity (i.e., the non-existence of the very fact of there being Objects; which solidifies the fact of the performative contradiction taking place).

All discursive Objects selectively attended to in Conscious Experience bear the stamp of a “What” and “That;” a “character” and an “existence.” To enter the realm of Reflective Experience and to subtract the “Whatness” from the “What-That” unity of a particular Object, “X,” and to assert the independence of X’s “Thatness,” or to assert the independence of X’s “Whatness” from X’s “Thatness,” is to commit oneself to the reality of a violent abstraction without any legitimate grounds to justify it. Indeed, it cannot even be accomplished without a demonstrable fallacy. In fact, one cannot even conceive of a “That” without predicting the “That” a “What,” or a “What” a “That.”

>>18947805
>Evola, for example
To the trash it goes.

>>18947944
>Knowledge is a relation between two terms: Subject and Object

>>18947805
I don't consider Evola to be a Fascist, or at the very least the kind of Fascism Mussolini was selling in Italy at the time, and I don't quite understand his Traditionalism but reject it in advance for it's mysticism and the fact that it concerns itself with "Truth". He probably has something of value to say, but I just don't like Mystics.

Now, Sorelian Syndicalism (which considered itself the genuine interpretation of Marxist Communism) considered the bourgeoisie as a decedent class and wanted the creation of a new nobility out of an imperialist working class. Sorel advocated for the moral regeneration of society and civilization rather than only the working-class, considering Socialism a means for revolutionary transformation of society rather than a movement of the proletariat or a movement with a specific social structure.

I think it is very easy to advocate for Socialism through a Nietzschean lens (himself only ever railing against it's liberal-enlightenment era utopian variant) for the simple fact being that Nietzsche did not advocate for the reinstitution of Master Morality, it was preferable to Slave Morality but the championing of Master Morality necessarily creates more slaves which Nietzsche from my understanding of him was not for because he wanted humans to overcome their Slavery.

Now to a Socialist, the Capitalist mode of production necessarily creates more slavery, and it is for the reason you can champion the creation of a new Socialist man, one who is in charge of their labor and enjoys their work- and "work" in the Capitalist sense even becomes unnecessary so there could be more leisure time for all- in which the new Socialist man can also focus on their artistic pursuits.

If you ask me, if there is any economic system that is anti-art it is Capitalism, because the primary mode of economic production under Capitalism deals with exchange, everything made under capitalism is a commodity that must be sold and exchanged. This is the antithesis of what art is supposed to be, as art is made not for exchange but for creation alone.

>>18947923
Stirner wasn't a Fascist because there was no Fascist movement around for him to be a Fascist in. His work along with Nietzsche's was directly influential to Mussolini himself.

>>18947944

>>18947805
>To Stirner, philosophy was a joke because any idiot could create a philosophical system, and use it as an alibi for any course of action. Evola used this to create his own esoteric beliefs.
I'm beginning to think Evola's two books on Magical Idealism to be the skeleton keys to understanding weltanschauung that undergrids his esoteric works, but those have no English translation yet. The closest we have is Introduction to Magical Idealism, which is a commentary from someone who has read those books in the original Italian. Some months ago, an anon posted a translation of the introduction to one of these books. I hope he still plans on translating the whole thing, even though I did get filtered by the intro.

>>18948148
I'm afraid that's a misinterpretation of Nietzsche. He denounces socialism on multiple occasions and does indeed believe in a stratified society (he endorses slavery a few times and sees equal right as a threat to his envisioned society). This quote from The Anti-Christ seems most appropriate here:

'Whom do I hate most heartily among the rabbles of today? The rabble of Socialists, the apostles to the Chandala, who undermine the workingman's instincts, his pleasure, his feeling of contentment with his petty existence—who make him envious and teach him revenge.... Wrong never lies in unequal rights; it lies in the assertion of "equal" rights.... What is bad? But I have already answered: all that proceeds from weakness, from envy, from revenge. — The anarchist and the Christian have the same ancestry....'

>>18947805
There are no academics really studying Fascism outside of denouncing it and saying how to avoid it. Most people who read Stirner are normally what would be considered left-wing and only use his ideas to develop that kind of thought . If there were more philosophers/academics developing fascist or even just right-wing post-liberal and post-conservative thought then I guess the connection would become more obvious but as it stands there aren't.

>>18949096
He denounces utopian socialism. Marx does the same. Scientific socialism is not about "redistribution" , "welfare" , or "equality" , it's about power.
He believes in stratification of the current society, which is just a fact. Would a society of overmen would be stratified? Absolutely not. You would be unable to.

>>18949096
>>18949279
Nietzsche would entertain Marx's writings on account of him being Jewish alone.

>>18949279
>Would a society of overmen would be stratified?
I don't think Nietzsche would believe that a society of overmen would be possible. His position that is that only the exceptional few are capable of rising above and shaping society, and that any attempt of democracy would hamper their efforts and thus produce a negative effect on the species as a whole. Thus any attempt to fuse Nietzsche and Marx is a folly.

>>18949096
>There are no academics really studying Fascism outside of denouncing it and saying how to avoid it.
This isn’t true. Just look at A. James Gregor, Stanley G. Payne, and Zeev Sternhell. Sternhell is a Jewish liberal but his treatment of fascist thought is more or less objective. Not to mention the serious attention paid to Schmitt by Marxists like Balakrishnan and Mouffe.
>>18949322
>any attempt to fuse Nietzsche and Marx is a folly.
Mussolini tried

>>18949322
nietzsche would praise democracy when it's a democracy of the strong, think ancient athens.
>I don't think Nietzsche would believe that a society of overmen would be possible
I do and I will bring it with genetic engineering.
He thought it was a goal, anyway.
>>18949325
so did sorel.
nietzsche would also consider lenin to be a superior individual and I'm positive Lenin read N

>>18947805
>Why isn't the relationship between fascism and ideas of Stirner explored more?
Because the link is obviously tenuous at best and isn't worth writing much about.

Stirner didn't have much impact. Sometimes you just gotta accept that.

>>18949344
>tenuous
musso literally read stirner and gentile is his 1:1

>>18949347
So what? Just because someone read a book doesn't mean it's the secret sauce behind everything they said and did later.

>>18949348
he LIKED stirner, and Nietzsche- and I literally just said Stirner is a 1:1 of Gentile, the latter often accused of solipsism.

If Fascism is not the egoism of the leader, then wtf is it?

>>18947805
>Evola's "traditionalism" is built using Stirner's "creative nothing" - being a willful creator of your philosophy and values by making it your property through your own consumption.
You're retarded.

>>18949390
explain

>>18948951
>Some months ago, an anon posted a translation of the introduction to one of these books. I hope he still plans on translating the whole thing
Yeah, I recall that. Still waiting myself.

>>18949391
Evola's entire dictum is that his philosophy was not created by him, and he is propounding only what has been eternal and always existent throughout eternity. He even came further over to Guenon's side after initially rejecting him. Evola is fundamentally in agreement with a truth beyond the individual life, the "creative nothing" that Stirner speaks about. The only similarity in the two thought systems is the idea of a "union of anarchists", which Evola would consider a union of personalities who are all bound by links of honour and loyalty (which Stirner might well reject the notion of, so it's not even a full similarity).

>>18949414
aha. I asked to explain because I haven't read evola on the ground that he is searching for a metaphysical truth and a priori knowledge.

>>18948951
>Cologero
That's the guy who runs Gornahoor

>>18949279
He had Marx in his library and still denounced socialism wholesale. He was very much in favour of slavery (see his unpublished work titled 'nachlass'). He doesn't want a society of overmen he wants a society run by overmen

>>18949574
there is absolutely no evidence nietzsche has ever read marx

>>18949574
you can be pro socialism and pro slavery

do the nietzschean capitalists in this thread-
how do you deal with the fact that moneysullies art?

>>18949353
absolute retardation

>>18950457
substantiate your claim.

>>18950463
no

>>18950963
because you have no evidence.
gentile only deviates from stirner when he starts to incorporate objects (see: spooks) into his philosophy but none of that is actually essential to gentile's philosophy.

why wouldn't musso like stirner? lol

>>18949603
Of course you can, what is socialism if not slavery?

>>18951809
There's a big difference between being a slave of someone like Saladin, and a slave of someone like Stalin.

>>18951824
which one is worse?

>>18947805
This is the most clueless post I have ever read (figuratively speaking of course, /lit/ is full of equally clueless posts). Evola upholds traditional metaphysics of the grand chain of being, Stirner rejects God, The Good, The Beautiful, and all supernatural hierarchies.

>>18949279
I think you're wrong see this for his rejection of the abolition of slavery
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/nietzsche-ideas-superman-slavery-nihilism-adolf-hitler-nazi-racism-white-supremacy-fascism-a8138396.html

>>18948148
>If you ask me, if there is any economic system that is anti-art it is Capitalism, because the primary mode of economic production under Capitalism deals with exchange, everything made under capitalism is a commodity that must be sold and exchanged. This is the antithesis of what art is supposed to be, as art is made not for exchange but for creation alone.
This is complete nonsense, artists always had to make art for a living. You are using a feature of all known societies to single out Capitalism.

>>18951893
Peak psued. Stirner's "egoism" is not normative. It makes descriptive claims, not prescriptive ones. Its merely a method of creating ideas through the willful destruction of others through Socratic irony. Evola's perennialism and sufi outlook is just he fills into void. Much like Stirner, Evola is a Malāmatiyya who scorns fundamental beliefs of his day to point out their hypocrisy. Yet, at the same time, that doesn't separate him from his own virtues. I suggest you stop being a retard, and stop thinking so mechanically. It leads to the errors you're making now.

>>18949780
most famous classic and romantic composers were paid to produce music for aristocrats, that's like being signed to a label.

>>18951954
>Peak psued. Stirner's "egoism" is not normative. It makes descriptive claims, not prescriptive ones.
He makes both descriptive and prescriptive claims actually. But sticking to the descriptive side, he is very clear that there is no God, no Good and Evil, and no Immortal Soul or afterlife. Evola believes in all of thse things. DO you see the difference in the beliefs between these two men, dumbfuck?

>>18952021
except that isn't the case today. music is specifically made to appeal to the masses, the lowest common denominator- to make money.

pop music is shit

>>18952306
>pop music is shit
Not really, you just don't like it

>>18951930
oh please, art has never been commodified to the extent it is today

>>18952425
>you just don't like it
therefore it's shit.

>>18952466
If everything is shit here it's your ability to draw valid inferences.

>>18952482
no pop music is shit

>>18952460
If the "commodification" of art simply means the state where art is a commodity, what does it mean to say that art is more or less commodified at different times? Art was always something that was sold by the artist for profit, I don't see what quality has been increased.

>>18952506
>Art was always something that was sold by the artist for profit,
this is untrue

>>18952151
>He makes both descriptive and prescriptive claims actually.
No, he does not. He makes it very clear his book is a ridicule of the Hegelian dialectic - he calls Hegel, and all philosophers, "sophists." He explicitly says, In The Philosophical Reactionaries, that can any idea can be twisted to support any purpose. The conscious egoist acknowledges this, and sues philosophy for their own ends.Again, you are a dogmatist, and an idiot, who misses the point of Saint Sancho completely - that philosophy is to produce alibis. If the "egoist" wanted to - they could create their own gods, their own morals, their own metaphysics, and their own "afterlife." - because the individual is the creator of everything to these men. Stirner calls god an "egoist" after all.

Max, like Evola, were no stranger to mysticism - with it being explicitly clear that both their works were influenced by Chinese mysticism. There are no limits , no holy "ought" as your claiming, you moron. If you think of Stirner as a purely linguistic "philosopher" - you are never going understand the hidden implications of his work.

>"No, I write because I want to give my thoughts and existence in the world; and even if I foresaw that these thoughts would take away your rest and peace, even if I saw the bloodiest wars and the destruction of many generations sprouting from this seed of thought:-still I would scatter it. Do with it what you will and can, that's your affair, and I don't care."

>>18952545
>If the "egoist" wanted to - they could create their own gods, their own morals, their own metaphysics, and their own "afterlife." - because the individual is the creator of everything to these men. Stirner calls god an "egoist" after all.
Notice how you had to put quotation marks around "afterlife" while describing Stirner's position. This is actually the perfect way to illustrate the difference in their views. Evola actually believes in afterlife, he thinks the soul is immortal and survives bodily death. He actually believes in God, not in made up bullshit gods. He legitimately thinks that the problem with the modern world is that it has lost sight of the transcendental, that's the whole fucking point with him. Stirner position is pretty much the exact opposite. He thinks the Perennial tradition is all fairy tales. Do you really not see the difference between the two views, your mental gymnastics are completely ridiculous.

>>18952771
You're so stupid don't understand that Stirner's concepts are nominally linguistic - they don't have a categorical imperative. You also keep missing the point - Evola's religious development was a project of his rejection of Catholicism. When he was young, he read Stirner to set the foundations of his critique of modernism. You, an idiot, miss the point completely here. Evola, like Stirner, is anti-Hegelian, they see the dialectic, the idea, as something that can be developed for their own purposes to fill whatever lack of purpose one may have in ones' life - for Stirner it was the creative nothing, the Taoist mysticism of Lao Tzu. For Evola, it was combination of that and Islamic mysticism. Like Stirner, Evola saw that transcendental values were wills of the individual - the I and that content could be anything of their desires.

You, the idiot, seemingly misunderstand the implications of Stirner's thoughts, and how that could create the ground work for the mysticism of traditionalist or fascist theorists. Certainly the seemingly contradictory nature of Mussolini, and Evola's beliefs, are perfectly explained by their relation to Stirner - who even denied the Aristotelian reasoning that insists everything must have a distinct flow of logic or even purpose to be accepted you pious atheists, and your dogmatic insistence on a materialist, rationalist philosophy.

I can't imagine being so stupid you can't see that Fascists used Stirner's critique of modernism to denounce bourgeois society, and use Nietzsche's theories of decadence to explain the decline. The sorelian mythicism finishes it off by creating an alternative to it - economically and ideally.

>>18952877
You are all over the place and rambling incoherently while the issue is very simple. We can just focus on the question of the afterlife for the sake of convenience. Is there an immortal soul or not? Stirner says no, Evola says yes. Can you see how these answers differ from one another?

>>18952151
>there is no God, no Good and Evil, and no Immortal Soul or afterlife
Source for these being real?

>>18952974
So every Twitter leftists dyke?

barkist meowism was not supported in the 2040's. get your facts right you fucking idiot

>>18947805
It's the only reasonable way to read Stirner. Marxists in the 1970's view Stirner as a proto-fascist. And there is a version of the ego and its own subtitled "roots of the right" which describes it's links to fascism. It's also important to make the distinction between Evola's thought and contemporary fascism. Stirner, Evola, and Junger (In his conception of the anarch) all lay the groundwork for transcendental "fascist" movements based on the concept of the unique as a self creator. In ride the tiger evola elaborates on how to apply the creative potentiality of the unique bringing up some of dostoevsky's characters for comparison. The rejection of nihilism and the role of the will and creator are all completely there in all these movements. Echoes of this thought is even found in Dugin. "Post left" is self annihilating and limiting bullshit. No left reading of Stirner will ever hold merit.

>>18953028
You are so retarded. Stirner never denounces the conception of the afterlife. The very existence of the creative nothing is the ultimate affirmation of the infinite expression of will and being and thus the afterlife. How the hell can you reach a form of materialism from stirner.

>>18953073
he's not gonna source it cause stirner never said it

>>18953540
Very interesting, can you please expand on this?

>>18953540
>It's the only reasonable way to read Stirner.
ButterCunt is going to dilate in rage over this post.

>>18953584
YES - like why is this is so hard for that retard to get? Like holy fuck - I tried my hardest to explain it this fucking idiot.
>>18953540
Another person who gets it

>>18953540
>>18953584
These people understand the point OP is making. Like holy fuck. Thank god we have some intelligent people on this board.

>>18947805
Stirner and his understanding that if the state doesn't serve the naturally egoic interst it's one's natural enemy is the end of the Hegelian dialectic and in fact ultrafascist, to the dismay of every so-called "anarchist" who embraces the catgirl variant of Stirner. It's no wonder he's ignored or misinterpreted by all the post-structuralists when his theory resolves in an embrace of a unitarian socius which extols the virtues of the person as a foundational creative nothing rather than a positive social construction.

>>18953890
Stirner was never an anarchist author, don’t know why they read him.

>>18953890
>>18953900
Yes, exactly - so people finally understand the OP. And it only took a hours for the good posters to show up

>>18953900
He's a fringe Young Hegelian critiqued by Marx, who was incidentally also reviled by the anarchists both pre-soviet and post-soviet. Stirner is the (apparently) natural object of anyone looking to move beyond Marx, even if they misread him.

>>18952771
>Evola actually believes in afterlife, he thinks the soul is immortal and survives bodily death.
Evola did not believe in the immortality of the soul. He thought the soul can perish if were not aligned with the Solar principle.

>>18953928
>He's a fringe Young Hegelian
He's literally me

> It is impossible not to recognise at the core of all these aristocratic races the beast of prey; the magnificent blonde brute, avidly rampant for spoil and for victory; this hidden core needed an outlet from time to time, the beast must get loose again, must return into the wilderness – the Roman, Arabic, German, and Japanese nobility, the Homeric heroes, the Scandinavian Vikings, are all alike in this need.

>>18952506
I’d say not commodified but censored as in the same way a monarchy wouldn’t allow the artist to paint the Queen as ugly looking. Art is controlled to be equal as opposed to merit based (best art making best money) now and not allowed to make money if it is anti-capitalist (unless you count the artist hypocrites who do it to virtue signal).

All of this seems to be production based,

>""Everything belongs to everyone!" This proposition comes from the same empty theory. To each belongs only what he is capable of If
I say: The world belongs to me, that too is actually empty talk, which has meaning only insofar as I respect no alien property. But to me
belongs only as much as I am capable of, or have the capability for. A person isn't worthy of having what he allows to be taken from him out of
weakness; he isn't worthy of it, because he isn't capable of it."
-Max Stirner
Its really not difficult to see the connection between two, and not difficult to understand how his ideas had impact on some fascist thinkers

>>18954027
Even the whole "human being" is a give away - Stirner constantly stresses the "human being" being a spook in his book.

>>18953540
Books on this?

>>18954096
Eumeswil, the forest passage, Ride The Tiger, Revolt against the modern world, some Heidegger stuff and some dugin stuff

>>18953822
in what way?

>>18954005
>>18948148
please for the love of god stop posting about materialist doctrine in a stirner thread. Everyone interested in Stirner should seek understand the relationship of self enhancing capital as Darwinian artificial intelligence in the landian sense and how that can play into the self overcoming of the unique. Communist, anarchist and post left readers of Stirner btfo

I've been noticing the appearance of Stirner threads that properly interpret him more and more often on here recently (despite how many post left, anarchist, materialist and other ideological vermin may creep in to them). A unification of the principles discussed by Evola, Junger, and Stirner provides the best basis for proper understanding of any of the three authors. One reason for this is because of the close links between the three in terms of influence, and even meta-influence in the case of Junger and Evola. I implore people to continue creating and participating in properly thought out Stirner discussion on this board more. Keep the materialists away from Stirner, further genuine discussion among those individuals who do understand him and you'll create newly synthesized forms from the material of Stirner and those like him. Keep /our guy/ out of the hands of those materialists. Stirner is more important to this board than most realize.

>creative nothing
what is the german terminology he uses for this?

>>18954143
>Everyone interested in Stirner should seek understand the relationship of self enhancing capital as Darwinian artificial intelligence in the landian sense and how that can play into the self overcoming of the unique.
really cringe phrase desu.
shouldn’t be repeated again.

>>18954143
Anarchism is based.

>>18954316
this is a stirner thread why would you bring up anarchism. Have you ever heard what Mussolini said about anarchists?

>>18954341
>failed dictators
so? anarchists love that being told that quote.

>>18954115
>the concept of the unique as a self creator
What is the "unique"?

Can some noble anon tell me what are Stirner's main works and your favorite reading order for them?

>>18954341
He was an idiot. Stop caring what he thought of anarchists.
What Stirner thought obvious has more weight with us.

Stirner is the spirit of individualists. There is no room for individualism in fascism save for the one head of state. With the whole region embracing Stirnerist “egoism”, the state doesn’t stand a chance.
THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO INTERPRET HIM

>>18954640
read nietzsche

>>18954654
I have read a good portion. Why do you say?

>>18954640
>THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO INTERPRET HIM
Don't authoritarianize my thought you statist bitch

>>18954677
I can do what I want

>>18947805
>there was also a very interesting thread about "Left-Wing" fascism, but it got shit up by retards
Hahhahhaha. It’s a retarded concept. You yourself just pit it quotation marks

>>18954668
>reads nietzsche
>champions socialism and giving political rights to the slave class
nuh uh
>>18954688
that was my thread beach don't insult me so.

>>18954694
Nietzsche isn’t a guru to follow into the desert, litli

>My thread
Was about Stalinism and Dengism, I hope. Fake leftism if ever there was.

>>18954688
How do you reconcile this quote from Nietzsche with your ideology?
>The advantages of standing detached from one's age.—Detached from both moral movements, that of individualism and that of collectivist morality; for even the first does not recognise the order of rank, and would give one individual the same freedom as another. My thoughts are not concerned with the degree of freedom which should be granted to the one or to the other or to all, but with the degree of power which the one or the other should exercise over his neighbour or over all; and more especially with the question to what extent a sacrifice of freedom, or even enslavement, may afford the basis for the cultivation, of a superior type. In plain words: how could one sacrifice the development of mankind in order to assist a higher species than man to come into being.
This is from Will to Power.

>>18954706
>Was about Stalinism and Dengism, I hope. Fake leftism if ever there was.
oh that wasn't my thread. unless you consider this to be talking about "stalinism"- funny the reason why bombacci ended up joining the fascist party was because he was anti-stalin
>>18931564
nietzsche may not be a guru but he was right about pretty much everything.

anyway vanguardism isn't "fake" leftism.

>>18954707
By not making him into a guru. But:
>The advantages of standing detached from one's age.
So me.
>—Detached from both moral movements, that of individualism and that of collectivist morality
What do you know of quantum mechanics? Qbits to be exact.
There are many hues to these terms “individualism” and “collectivism”, though. So it’s more than switching back and forth. That they’re seen as two ideals is in itself false, and a trick of language.

>>18954716
>bombacci ended up joining the fascist party was because he was anti-stalin
Why are males so damn stupid?

>>18954727
>Why are males so damn stupid?
they were friends and musso wasn't a bad guy

>>18954688
>>18954143
Why are you people so stupid - the connection is clear by even some of Evola's own biographers:
>"Also originating from Lagneau is Evola's motto for his Saggi sull'ldealismo Magico, a wo rk that gives a very good overview of Evola's thought development around 1923- 1925, and already contains a nucleus of all his later views. The motto already indicates that purely academic philosophy would not suffice for him. What concerns him in this, as in his earlier artistic and his later political activity, is the "breakthrough of levels" to a "totally different" plane. The motto is as follows: "Philosophy is the train of thought that finally sees into its own inadequacy and realizes the need for an absolute action that originates from within." Exoterically, this view is also comparable to the solipsism of the Stirnerian type and Evola does not deny how strongly Stirner's anarchism had moved him but he wants to overcome it by referring to the "totally different" plane, namely the transcendental. "

>>18954143
Fyi I didn't mean to quote you - was talking to this idiot >>18954640
Sorry

>>18954753
>You can’t quote Stirner and debunk the thread. Idiot!

>>18954772
But that's not what's happening? Quoting's Stirner's support syndicalism makes the case of him being a foundation for fascists even stronger. You also miss the point of Stirner's argument, completely, like fascists - he makes the argument that might makes right. Even before that entire paragraph he's talking about the rich should take advantage of the poor because their own hypocrisy.
>"People have raised a tremendous uproar over the "thousand-year wrong" that the rich are committing against the poor. As if the rich were to blame for poverty, and the poor were not equally to blame for riches! Is there another difference between the two than that of capability and incapability, of the capable and the incapable?"
>"But all that is not enough for you! They are undoubtedly then supposed to share with the poor? Here you demand that they should abolish poverty. Aside from the fact that hardly anyone among you would act this way, and that this one would be a fool, just ask yourselves: why should the rich suffer badly324 and give up themselves, when such an action would be much more useful to the poor? "
He even mocks the retardation you're implying:
>""Everything belongs to everyone!" This proposition comes from the same empty theory. To each belongs only what he is capable of If I say: The world belongs to me, that too is actually empty talk, which has meaning only insofar as I respect no alien property. But to me belongs only as much as I am capable of, or have the capability for. "
>" Power is a fine matter, and useful for many things; for "one goes further with a handful of power than with a bagful of right." You long for freedom? You fools! If you took power, then freedom would come of itself. See, one who has power stands above the law. How does this view taste to you, you "law-abiding" people? But you have no taste!"
All this stuff is "evil" and "bad" according to you anarchists - this is the stuff fascists use against you, and you argue that we ought to submit your rules, your pious regulations of horizonalism and "democracy" for the poor worker. That it would be a great sin to subdue others' to our will the immorality of "exploitation" , Proudhon calls this "justice" which Stirner disregards as non-sense, for the same reason. We don't have to care what you retarded anarchists think or how we should change society. We're gonna have a society, it will have hierarchy, it will have have racial differences, and it will be in our power to prevent you from doing anything about it.

>>18954772
When the revolution comes - fascists and communists are just gonna make a truce temporarily to kill you off like they always do and there's nothing you're going to be able to do about it because your cause will never generate enough support to stop it. Everyone knows you guys are fucking idiots, and its a waste of time to take you seriously.

>>18954813
>Conveniently forgets the conversation stopper

>>18954836
>When the next coup happens….
All will be lost. The sixth extinction will wipe your sorry asses out. All our potential lost

>>18954836
>fascists and communists
i am the former and i prefer anarchists

Fascists are just bullies with an inferiority complex. they love obeying stronger bullies and bossing around the ones who they consider weaker, but need a bullshit narrative that makes it look like there's some metaphysical justification to their pathetic behavior.

I hate fascists because they are weak in the deepest sense of the word, and they would never understand what 'virtue' actually means. Trying to twist Nietzsche or Stirner to make it look like they're their predecessors is one of their pathetic ways to try to justify their stupid actions and obscure their own motivations.

>>18947805
>Where as Stirner - "justice", like all values, are nominal, and only having the meaning we create for them for one's own utilization ... Stirner, like many fascists, found that might is what makes "right" - so he isn't far off from being one of them besides his own disinterest in politics and revolutions. Kołakowski went as far saying Stirner's ideas were basis of fascist education.
I was listening to a video the other day critiquing Vaush, this "libertarian socialist" streamer (who just seems like a centrist liberal to me but whatever), and the way this critic described his worldview, it was a lot like that, in fact.

He's basically an extreme egoist and his own truth is the only thing matters, and he's on the record that anyone who disagrees with his own subjective, self-interested interpretation of the truth should be killed. He might as well be a fascist, or not very different from one, but he doesn't believe he is, because he has decided it isn't in his interest to be called one... and if you disagree, then you deserve in a bullet in the brain.

>>18954875
>i am the former [a fascist] and i prefer anarchists
I think they're ontologically similar.

I think communism and Stalinist / Marxist-Leninism (which is really the authentic tradition IMO) has been suppressed in the West more than my conservative friends around here tend to say, and that leads to a lot of confusion about what it really is, which is an ideology conceived as part of the Enlightenment tradition. Universal reason is objectivized in the guise of the inexorable laws of historical progress -- and in power, we are all its servants, including the leader.

It's like what Zizek about applause. Hitler never says "heil myself!" and that would be a joke because it never happened. But Stalin effectively did do that by applauding himself. But in the imaginary subjective experience of these people, there is no difference. Stalin hears all, sees all, how the people live and work, and his vision is our vision, and his thoughts are our thoughts, and he rewards everyone. He even invites everyone to see him in Moscow, and welcomes them, and asks them if they need anything while sitting around tables made of oak.

He gives advice, which the people are grateful for, because they've faced many trials and have a suffered a lot from the hands of many bullies. But now Stalin is the banner flying from the people's fortress, the flame which warms their spirit. And then Stalin says, "isn't our motherland beautiful?"

That's kind of an amazing and beautiful vision. It's a very frightening one, too.

11:05:

https://youtu.be/Net9YgT7qMM

I was just thinking of /pol/ guys who will say "don't you know Stalin made homosexuality illegal," or at least the act of it, like that's supposed to mean something. But this kind of thing reminds me of how divorced people today actually are from a regime like that -- like THAT was somehow the central issue involved. Or the belief that somehow the Stalin system in the USSR was actually governed by the laws that were technically on the books.

I'm pretty sure the laws did not, in fact, protect a lot of people who were thrown in prison for a variety of reasons including no reason at all. I'm also somewhat confident that if life in the USSR at that time was too uncomfortable, and you left and moved to some other country -- and if you were both criticizing them and were prominent enough for the Kremlin to decide you were a threat -- then the laws of your new country weren't a 99% guarantee of your safety. But that's also what's so fascinating about Stalinism to me because it conscripted the whole society, and any 4chan guys who are reading this, if they were living there, weren't getting out of that shit on account of being straight or based or whatever identity you have.

This was far more totalizing and its inner laws -- not the formal laws -- pervaded the entire social body.

And we still don't have a satisfactory theory of this phenomena.

>>18947805
iirc, Ernst Junger also read Stirner while in the trenches, maybe he also got these ideas (partly) from Stirner? And by ideas i mean the critique of liberalism, egalitarianism, and democracy etc. By this time, Junger had already read nietzsche before the war - aldo i don't know how much. So im guessing Junger was also very influenced already by nietzsche by the time he read Stirner.

I also remember reading that the germans distributed nietzsche's books to soliders at the front, so he might have read nietzsche in the trenches as well.

>>18955331
Good post.

To me, Stalinist Russia seems to be the only system that managed to be completely totalitarian.

if your post in any thread has any image file attached to it, you immediately make whatever you write irrelevant and impossible to consider seriously.

>>18947902
>Giovanni Gentile

Mamma mia, let's a go killa some jews

>>18953584
He clearly believes that religion is false. Where is the passages in Stirner talking about the creative nothing, you are just making shit up at this point.
>>18953834
There is nothing to explain to anybody, your interpretation is hopelessly deluded. Evola doesn't believe in egoism, he believes in tradition.

>>18953540
There is nothing right wing in Stirner, he is a far left anarchist. End of story.

>jreg kiddies confusing novatore and stirner again
LMAO chuds please

>>18954027
Evola man, you've got wheels spinning in your head!

>>18955348
Yeah eumeswil and the forest passage are both based heavily on stirner

>>18954027
They are still fundamentally different, the fact that you can find connection is irrelevant since connections can be found everywhere.

>>18954034
Stirner was directly reacting to the theories of Feuerbach and other Hegelians and idealists when he criticized the idea of a "human being." Most of history, traditional antiquity included, also rejected any idea of the uniform human being. This isn't anything unique to Stirner or Evola. You need to gain more education about historical thought before you start making silly comparisons like this.

>>18953890
>Stirner and his understanding that if the state doesn't serve the naturally egoic interst it's one's natural enemy is the end of the Hegelian dialectic and in fact ultrafascist,
This is a non-sequitur and he never advocated for any sort of state in his main book. He called it a union of egoists, which is quite clearly different in his description of it from any sort of fascism. It's not anarchism though either.

Are people itt really saying Stirner was a proto-Evola lmaooo

>>18954640
Stirner here is simply stating a fact, he isn't saying that is what should happen or that such a goal is a moral good.

Truth is ideas have fuck all to do with the actions you see taken. It is in truth a metaphysical force within consciousness the shadow self of the world soul that carries out ALL of the evil deeds you see unfold before you. Fascism, communism, egoism all mere deflections by Saturn onto the helpless little humans he subjugates.

>>18948951
Please give link to this on archive. I have known about the magical idealism for years, but have not seen a single translated sentence of it

>>18949325
>Mussolini tried

and look where he ended up

>>18954639
Just read Ego and its Own

>>18955749
That painting of the worker staring into Stalin's eyes is really wild. It's like one vision, right? It's very intriguing but very scary, at the same time.

This is why I think North Korea is Stalinist, more or less. That's the DNA in the system, and ideologically they're now reemphasizing communism and the leader as a mere "comrade."

https://youtu.be/eOBCYKYutf0?t=577

But this system has held on. It's just not repression that keeps people in line, although it is highly repressive. It's more existential and a lot of people really buy into this.

It's also interesting to read about Stalin's approval ratings in Russia going up and up and up. And people say "well, it's because there's nostalgia" or "they're a bunch of rednecks who want Russia to be stronk." There's something about the Stalinist system that went further than anything else at constructing an alternative modernity that would transform people.

>>18947805
Stirnerism is just AnCap without the pseud nonsense

>>18959176
Can you start a blog or something? I always like reading what you write, or maybe you should be gay and get a trip.

>>18959031
>>/lit/thread/18266519

bump