/lit/ - Literature

>>19749249
How can he be based when he died alone and crazy while her sister cucked him out of the true legacy of his works by promoting a lie against his will?

>>19749249
Nietzche was living a lie that caught up to him in the end.

>>19749249
Nupagans are just atheists in denial

>>19749249
Also, go chug chug some piss from the boot.

>>19749259
It is Joos, Christcucks and Moslems the ones that are atheists in denial, specially joos.

Abrahamicshit is not a real religion, it's a meaningless set of rules with a scary deity on top of them to make you comply. This is why it has been so easy to get rid of the God and preserve the stupid morality aka globohomo.

>>19749269
So what? Like a nupagans are any better, at least the Christcucks can be taken seriously. The real spirituality will be reborn upon the grave of modern civilization.

>>19749269

>>19749269
>Abrahamicshit is not a real religion, it's a meaningless set of rules with a scary deity on top of them to make you comply.
>This is why it has been so easy to get rid of the God and preserve the stupid morality aka globohomo.

>>19749287
>So what? Like a nupagans are any better
Yes, at least "nupagans" let you break free from that bullshit. And that's those that are just LARPers. We have thousands of years of pagan philosophy and science that we can access anytime to revive a culture, like Florence did in the Renaissance. Meanwhile, what do Christcucks have?

>big man at cloud tells you to not touch your pp
>*thousands of pages of mental gymnastics trying to rationalize why touching pp is bad because God said so*

And you take that seriously?

>>19749289
Sorry I don't watch Weimerican shit.

>>19749291
BASED

>>19749303
>he thinks the Renaissance was an authentic revival of the Grecian spirit
>he thinks the Renaissance wasn't Christian

>>19749249
What a cringe-inducing faggot, lmfao. That fucking feather duster lip cover is PATHETIC. The "reddit" of philosophers.

>>19749303
much pagan very advanced indeed...

>>19749311
No, the Renaissance was not an "authentic revival", it was a movement that borrowed from paganism in true pagan fashion. There can be no "pagan revival" because that's not how paganism works.

You are a Christcuck that believes in a linear conception of history, so this is your mental process:

>hurr durr you are not a pagan if you don't go back and make a carbon copy of paganism in the II century BC

But the truth is, in paganism, there is NO BACK. There is no "past", the past only exists in relationship to the present. So you borrow from tradition and adapt it to the present however you want.

>he thinks the Renaissance was Christian
Holy cope

>>19749316
Ancient Greeks were able to calculate the diameter of the Earth in the Hellenistic era.

A thousand years after that, Christcucks were trying to cure epilepsy by reading the gospels.

>>19749316
Christianity has not produced a single original thought in 2000 years of history. Everything Christianity has vaguely resembling a "philosophy" was stolen from Plato or Aristotle. Hard cope.

>>19749325
>paganism means adapting the past for the future
How can you even call yourself a pagan? You literally don't care about any particular tradition, you just think it's some cool way an individual can act.

>There can be no "pagan revival"
You literally just said you can revive Mediterranean paganism any time because we have all the remnants of its culture.

>Holy cope
Oh yeah like all that Christian Neoplatonism and Hermeticism was any different from the centuries of theology before.

I just want to fucking circumcize the cunt

>>19749362
>How can you even call yourself a pagan? You literally don't care about any particular tradition
Because paganism is not a book with a stupid set of fixed rules like Abrahamic bullshit. It's not that difficult to understand. It's organic, it changes, it evolves, it morphs into something different depending on the place or the time, and two different families can have two radically different beliefs at the same time because it is NOT, like the Bible, a handbook on how to be gay.

It imposes NO morality and NO beliefs. The only thing that matters is the worldview and the cohesion of the group. There will be, at the same time, people that believe in literal gods, people that think gods are the personification of forces of nature, and people that believe the gods are mere metaphors, and that's fine. There will be people that venerate some deities and people that venerate others. That's how it has ALWAYS been.

>You literally just said you can revive Mediterranean paganism any time because we have all the remnants of its culture.
Yes, but a "revival" is not a carbon copy of a culture two thousand years ago. That would be stupid. Paganism has always evolved. Romans went from believing in literal deities to worshipping the sun in four centuries because, again, there are no rules.

>Oh yeah like all that Christian Neoplatonism and Hermeticism was any different from the centuries of theology before.
That Neoplatonism was "Christian" because otherwise Christians (the niggers of Europe) would burn people alive like they did to Giordano Bruno and others. They were underground:

>“I myself heard [Plethon] at Florence … asserting that in a few more years the whole world would accept one and the same religion with one mind, one intelligence, one teaching. And when I asked him “Christ’s or Muhammad’s?” he said, “Neither; but it will not differ much from paganism.” I was so shocked by these words that I hated him ever after and feared him like a poisonous viper, and I could no longer bear to see or hear him.”
> – George of Trebizond, Comparison of Plato and Aristotle

After he died, the patriarch of Constantinople ordered Plethon's pagan writing's to be burned.

>>19749388
>writing's
writings*

>>19749388
Also
>You literally just said you can revive Mediterranean paganism any time because we have all the remnants of its culture.
No, I said that you can always access Ancient paganism to revive the PRESENT culture with it, not the ancient culture.

>>19749388
>Because paganism is not a book with a stupid set of fixed rules like Abrahamic bullshit.
That means you a random individual can just believe whatever and be crowned both equal and inheritor of Greece?

>It imposes NO morality and NO beliefs.
Of course someone who belongs to no tradition would say this.

>There will be, at the same time, people that believe in literal gods, people that think gods are the personification of forces of nature, and people that believe the gods are mere metaphors, and that's fine. There will be people that venerate some deities and people that venerate others. That's how it has ALWAYS been.
Sure you're not confusing paganism with freedom of thought here?

>Yes, but a "revival" is not a carbon copy of a culture two thousand years ago.
I never said it was a carbon copy, that was your strawman.

>That Neoplatonism was "Christian" because otherwise Christians (the niggers of Europe) would burn people alive [...]
I don't think Ficino was just pretending to be a Christian lol. I also don't think the renaissance amounts to the work of underground pagans.

>>19749402
>No, I said that you can always access Ancient paganism to revive the PRESENT culture with it,
This necessarily implies a revival of something from ancient paganism. If you don't understand ancient paganism (just like all of the renaissance), then you can hardly call it in the same pagan spirit.

>>19749417
>That means you a random individual can just believe whatever and be crowned both equal and inheritor of Greece?
There are no "inheritors to Greece" and noone will be an inheritor of Greece for believing in Zeus. And no, it doesn't mean a "random individual can just believe whatever", it means paganism has always been just a consensus. There is some common ground (for example, in Ancient Greece, believing in Zeus as the ruler of all gods and participating in pagan rituals, and sometimes not even that) and then there's a disparate range of beliefs that are irrelevant, because paganism is not a "religion", it's a worldview.

>Of course someone who belongs to no tradition would say this.
There's no such thing as a pagan tradition. Never has been.

>Sure you're not confusing paganism with freedom of thought here?
No, I'm describing paganism as practiced in Greece and Rome.

>I don't think Ficino was just pretending to be a Christian lol. I also don't think the renaissance amounts to the work of underground pagans.
I don't think Ficino was pretending to be a Christian, but many rich people in Florence were: https://godsandradicals.org/tag/sola-busca-tarot/

>This necessarily implies a revival of something from ancient paganism. If you don't understand ancient paganism (just like all of the renaissance), then you can hardly call it in the same pagan spirit
I think they understood ancient paganism much better than modern people believe. For example, historians always said Plethon was a LARPer because he said Chronos was the son of Zeus, which was "incorrect"; however, now it is known that those beliefs came from some Ancient Greek tradition whose name I can't remember. Same with most people in the Renaissance.

>>19749417
Also
>This necessarily implies a revival of something from ancient paganism. If you don't understand ancient paganism (just like all of the renaissance), then you can hardly call it in the same pagan spirit.
People in classical Athens were working backwards from the texts of Homer and Hesiod that they did not completely understand either. They were "LARPing" as much as Renaissance people were.

>>19749447
>No, I'm describing paganism as practiced in Greece and Rome.
Yes anon, in no time in Greece would you have been executed for infidelity.

>>19749473
We have plenty of texts from Greece doing what a Christian would consider "heresy" and none of the authors were ever executed.

People were tried for "insulting/ignoring the gods", "corrupting the youth", etc. In other words, for breaking group cohesion, not for their belief system.

>>19749269
> Abrahamicshit is not a real religion, it's a meaningless set of rules with a scary deity on top of them to make you comply. This is why it has been so easy to get rid of the God and preserve the stupid morality aka globohomo.

I don’t understand you. If scary deity has been removed then why are people still complying?

>>19749635
>I don’t understand you. If scary deity has been removed then why are people still complying?
Because the deity was always just a personification of the morality aka "the word" and nothing more. That morality existed because the loser was jealous of the winner and the weak was scared of the strong; now that the deity has been surpassed, poorfags are still jealous so they enforce the same morality under a different form of messianism ("equality"). But the source of that morality is weakness and jealousy.

>>19749269
>>19749303
>>19749325


> Christianity is the reason why Europe is globohomo in the 21st century
> But also Europe has somehow really been pagan since the 15th century renaissance

Keep it consistent, loser.

>>19749659
>furiously fights strawman

>>19749663
I’m sorry if Europe has really been pagan since the renaissance there’s nothing more to say. As the 19th century Frenchman Pugin saw so clearly after the French Revolution and the declaration of the republic (such a beloved system of government among pagan Greeks and Romans).

>>19749681
>I’m sorry if Europe has really been pagan since the renaissance
>continues to fight retarded strawman

>>19749269
>Abrahamicshit is not a real religion, it's a meaningless set of rules with a scary deity on top of them to make you comply
abrahamism is more of a socio-political system than a pure religion then, right?

>>19749712
I think so. And it's specially clear in the case of Islam.

>>19749689
Why do you deny the fact that Europe has been pagan since the renaissance? It’s upsetting that the renaissance destroyed an evolving medieval culture, but everyone admits it. As Oscar Wilde put it:

> To me one of the things in history the most to be regretted is that the Christ’s own renaissance, which has produced the Cathedral at Chartres, the Arthurian cycle of legends, the life of St. Francis of Assisi, the art of Giotto, and Dante’s Divine Comedy, was not allowed to develop on its own lines, but was interrupted and spoiled by the dreary classical Renaissance that gave us Petrarch, and Raphael’s frescoes and Palladian architecture, and formal French tragedy, and St. Paul’s Cathedral, and Pope’s poetry, and everything that is made from without and by dead rules, and does not spring from within through some spirit informing it.

And John Ruskin saw it the same way

> John Ruskin's strong rejection of Classical tradition in The Stones of Venice typifies the inextricable mix of aesthetics and morality in his thought: "Pagan in its origin, proud and unholy in its revival, paralysed in its old age... an architecture invented, as it seems, to make plagiarists of its architects, slaves of its workmen, and sybarites of its inhabitants; an architecture in which intellect is idle, invention impossible, but in which all luxury is gratified and all insolence fortified." Rejection of mechanisation and standardisation informed Ruskin's theories of architecture, and his emphasis on the importance of the Medieval Gothic style. To John Ruskin, neo-classical architecture expressed a morally vacuous and repressive standardisation. Ruskin associated Classical values with modern developments, in particular with the demoralising consequences of the industrial revolution, resulting in buildings such as The Crystal Palace, which he criticised.

>>19749717
>Why do you deny the fact that Europe has been pagan since the renaissance?
Because Europe has been undisputably Christian since the V century and a brief period in which people were inspired by paganism does not change that.

>>19749388
>It imposes NO morality and NO beliefs.

Exactly what I detest about paganism.

> The only thing that matters is the worldview and the cohesion of the group

Cohesion among pagans? Christians were the ones who had take care of pagans to the point that Julian complained about how pagans don’t care about each other like Christians do.

>>19749388
>“I myself heard [Plethon] at Florence … asserting that in a few more years the whole world would accept one and the same religion with one mind, one intelligence, one teaching.

So really not much has changed when it comes to genuine paganfags. 600 years later and they’re still claiming that everyone will become a paganfag anytime now.

> "everyone will worship the gods! Two more weeks! Trust me guys!”

everything great in europe came from paganism

don't @ me

>>19749818
butt-fucking?

OP here. This schizo nigger has started to argue with himself. Fuck it, I'm out.

>41 messages
>9 IPs

>>19749818
>>19749837
yes

I honestly don’t understand these RETVRN to tradition people. Has this literally every worked in the history of mankind? It seems like it’s been nothing but continuous defeat since Emperor Julian for these traditionalists.

Show me one example of RETVRN to tradition that actually worked out and lasted long enough to have a significant impact?

>>19749855
>Show me one example of RETVRN to tradition that actually worked out and lasted long enough to have a significant impact?
Israelis are speaking what was a literal dead tongue in the XIX century right now.

>>19749855
>>19749856
And also:

>Ataturk purging like 50% of the Turkish vocabulary to remove "foreign influences"
>Fréderic Mistral reviving Occitan, winning a Nobel prize and founding the félibrige that exists until this day
>protestantism

>>19749869
> Protestantism

Now that I think about it Protesturds remind me of LARPagans with their whole ‘return to true and pure form of worship.’ Although I’d say they failed. Badly.

>>19749843
i love ancient warrior bromance and i hate modern day faggots

>I-It's just temporary! Christianity is forever!
LOL

>>19749948
Foucault?

You’d be surprised how many people secretly remain Christian. People just keep more quite about it these days since being Christian is no longer considered cool or hip even though it remains surprisingly popular.

I mean just search up podcasts about religion and all the popular ones are either about Christianity or Buddhism.

>>19749256
He didn't die alone. He had family and friends looking after him up until the end. Also, he already had a following before he suffered from dementia, which was gaining popularity through guys like Georges Brandes. Elizabeth was an inconsequential moment in his overall legacy.

>>19749249
Pernicious nonsense wrapped in twiddle twaddle ramblings while easily being one of the most influential books published in the 20th century. This is the most different of all of Nietzsche’s books while simultaneously epitomizing all of his other writings even to the point of making this book seem unoriginal, something that I’ve never felt with any of his other books. It’s clear that a lot of this book were notes from his other books, and the rest were notes for what would become this book. There is one thing that struck me about this book, overall it was the most unoriginal of all of Nietzsche’s writings because he had for the most part said it elsewhere in his writings but says it here in such a way that it will appeal to the proto-fascist and soon-to-be Nazis who will lap this stuff up.

Ayn Rand loved Nietzsche and was going to use his quotations as chapter headings for ‘The Fountainhead’ until she realized that she misunderstood him; she obviously agreed with his fascism but wasn’t able to understand his philosophy beyond the superficial and I suspect it was this book that originally hooked her. Heidegger wrote an incredibly influential book explaining this book that influenced Derrida, Foucault and Rorty, but, most importantly, Oswald Spengler explicitly cites Nietzsche and Goethe as his major influences for volume I of Decline of the West (by all means read that God awful book if only to understand why one can call Trump a fascist), and lastly in Hitler’s autobiography, Nietzsche with Goethe, Luther and Fredrich the Great were Hitler’s acknowledged greatest influences. BTW, within this book I would say that Goethe was equally praised by Nietzsche as Hitler and Spengler praised him.

Make no mistake. This book is vile. The ‘always conniving Jew uses their knowledge against the ignorance of the other’ or whatever nonsense Nietzsche wrote, hysterical women never can learn or write good literature, the German is superior, Machiavelli was a great thinker, and so on and so on. But, that’s not my real problem with this book since it’s easy to dismiss that has nothing but prejudices.

All of the perniciousness of fascism lurks within this book. All of Donald Trump and what he is trying to do against humanity is within this book. Equality is anathema for them. Humanism is irrelevant and dangerous to them. A great leader, according to Nietzsche is required in order to save us. Spengler made Julius Caesar his great leader while in this book Nietzsche did too, but also Napoleon would do, or until a Hitler comes along or a Trump.

>>19751689
Trump has anointed himself as the self-appointed uber-mensch for our time. Nietzsche is really saying ‘stop thinking and follow me and let your feelings be your guide’. There is no being, there is only becoming and a great thinker will be needed to rise above the herd. A thinker who is not encumbered by sympathy, empathy or reciprocity and one who is a narcissist with socio-pathological tendencies would be Nietzsche’s ideal, and Hitler would fit the bill as would Trump. Somebody who would always be able to always say that they didn’t fail, but only those around them failed, since the uber-mensch is always right by definition and all failure must come from the herd.

Anyone who is not in synch with what Nietzsche desires is considered weak, corrupt and not worthy of consideration exactly how Trump campaigned in 2016, and all awhile fascist such as Trump projects their faux strength through bluster and flays against imaginary windmills and also real windmills as he babbles incoherently how the TV won’t work on non-windy days if we attach windmills to the power grid. Overall, Nietzsche makes as much sense as Trump does regarding windmills, and both are just as dangerous.

Nietzsche will say that morality is immoral and therefore only the morality that he feels is worthwhile or worthy of consideration since Truth is what an uber-mensch says it is. Of all the statements from fascist beware of the statement such as ‘stop thinking and follow me, and all facts are alternative facts, and no science is true except for the science I say’. All are ravings of a lunatic, but only a bigger lunatic could believe such crap, and Nietzsche does have that kind of crap within this book, and there will always be Fox News viewers who want to be afraid of the imaginary windmills. They only need to be told.

Spengler, Heidegger, Hitler and Ayn Rand loved this book and were influenced by it until they weren’t for a reason. This book gives a ground for the hate they want to practice, and ironically, a justification since in the end Nietzsche believes the only justification that exists is the justification that we make for ourselves, just like Donald Trump does.

Before I had read this book, I wasn’t sure that it was really representative of Nietzsche. But now, I’m fairly certain that it does represent him overall since so much of what was in this book seemed to overlap with what he had written elsewhere. In this book, he’s more explicit on his active nihilism, moralic acid and his contempt for democracy, equality and his always blaming the individual for not understanding that morality is immoral because he says it is, but overall, that only differs from what he previously said by degrees not kind. By putting all of his twiddle twaddle in one place the wanna be fascists were falsely lulled into a non-existence coherence within this guidebook on becoming a good fascist.

>>19749249
Ah yes, the pedo-apologist de Benoist yeah.

>another thread for people who haven't read N to debate people who didn't understand him about whether it is based and redpilled to agree with him or not

>>19751956
There's an easy way to fix that. Go read him:

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/52914/52914-h/52914-h.htm
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/52915/52915-h/52915-h.htm

>>19751951
Source?

>>19751951
I think you might have made a typo. Did you mean to type Sartre, Deleuze, Aragon, Althusser, Rancière, Lyotard, and the rest of their Marxist buddies?

>>19751951
Wut