/lit/ - Literature

>>21758571
and that's a good thing

>>21758593
Why and how?

>>21758571
>X is fascist for ... reasons?
Man Hitler really destroyed people's brains, didn't he?

>>21758571
Hebrew is Greek and the moshiach will destroy the Erev Rav

Still didn't jailbreak your thought software, did you, wagecuckie

leftists think that their oversized suicide rate makes them better revolutionaries

Listen Adorno, you have some good ideas, but I just can't take your larger philosophical projects seriously when you drag this obsessive 'no, we can never have anything positive again, think about Auschwitz AAAAAAAAHH' attitude into everything you write.

>>21758571
Ah, yes, the latest censorship to Roald Dahl, Ian Fleming and R L Stine were made by reactionaries.

>>21758571
Go fuck yourself with a cactus, Moorefag.

Nobody takes Grimm fairy tales seriously as art anymore, they're just historical curiosities.

If you wrote a story about somebody carving Cinderella's stepsister's foot apart today, everyone would laugh, with good reason. Ridiculous fairytale scare-stories aren't relevant to anyone's lives anymore.

Stop spamming these threads and get better taste, you autistic retard.

>>21758761
>If you wrote a story about somebody carving Cinderella's stepsister's foot apart today, everyone would laugh, with good reason. Ridiculous fairytale scare-stories aren't relevant to anyone's lives anymore.
A story involving not mutilating yourself and destroying your body with borderline insane behavior just to get with good graces of your betters isn't relevant today?

>>21758571
>the desire to sand away all the rough edges of humanity is not progressive
This is very literally exactly what communists want. In what way is traditional or martial hierarchy an attempt to cleave mans imperfections? Natural hierarchy in itself is an acceptance of essential inequalities between men, down to even biological constitution. It's very literally Marxists and other stripes of progressive egalitarians that suggest there can be some sort of impossible equality, or perfect equanimity between individuals. Stop projecting, nigger.

>>21758571
fascism isn't even real

>>21758571
from the wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimms%27_Fairy_Tales
'Adolf Hitler praised them so strongly that the Allies of World War II warned against them, as Hitler thought they were folkish tales showing children with sound racial instincts seeking racially pure marriage partners;[11] for instance, Cinderella with the heroine as racially pure, the stepmother as an alien, and the prince with an unspoiled instinct being able to distinguish.[12]'

>>21759060
>Hitler drank water
Also, this does not refute anything and doesn't refute the obvious similarities with the sentimentality, saccharineness and sanitization that coincides with many nazi propaganda films.

It’s really crazy just how much progressives have sterilized life itself just so they could feel like the world is a little bit nicer.

>>21759124
>sentimentality, saccharineness and sanitization
Wow sounds like all contemporary popular media. Now that I'm thinking of it, Antman: Quantamania and Triumph of the Will really are the same, thanks anon.

>>21759289
Stop being disingenuous.

>>21759944
Quit being a clown.

>>21758637
>Man Hitler really destroyed people's brains, didn't he?
He's living rent free in every brain in the West.

>>21758935
This
I had to read OP multiple times to try and understand the mental gymnastics he's following

>>21759124
>Hitler drank water
Wtf I love water now

>>21758724
>R L Stine
Didn't heard about that one. What did they censored? Wasn't he a jew?

>>21758626
He's probably referencing this phenomenon:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190630214627/https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/910a0x/and_heres_why_thats_a_good_thing/
.

>>21760638
You haven't refuted anything, retard. You just tried pointing out tangential relationships and pretended that was the same thing.

Bump

>OLD THING BAD BECAUSE RACIST SEXIST HOMOPHOBIA MARRIAGE KIDS HAPPY FAMILIES WHITE PEOPLE

>>21761293
Those qualities aren't meaningful descriptions of unique properties of fascist art and media if they're evident in media produced by diametrically opposed cultures. 'Sentimentality,' says literally nothing about fascist art or media, and it comes across as a very transparent attempt to produce a justification for your original point which is night incoherent and also basically inconsistent with reality as I mentioned here>>21758935

>>21762481
Nigh*

>>21762481
>Those qualities aren't meaningful descriptions of unique properties of fascist art and media if they're evident in media produced by diametrically opposed cultures.
How? If sentimentality, longing for nostalgia and sanitizing artwork are relevant in fascism, how is not a good descriptor? These are literally what nazi propaganda was all about. The most effective nazi films were of wholesome family stories.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nazi_propaganda_films

>>21758571
Ok. So, what is wrong with fascism?

>>21758571
>multi-billion dollar business waters down folktales for mass consumption
How profound. Don't hurt yourself, with that big brain of yours.

>>21762492
>hitler drank water too, you know
bunkerchan is not sending their best

>>21762538
If you're someone who regularly spends time browsing 4chan, you're definitely the kind of person who'd end up as a political prisoner because you can't fully suppress your contrarian, anti-bullshit impulses.

>>21762657
I can pretend to be "well adjusted" online and offline. But that doesn't really answer the question, even if the respond was intended to be rhetorical in nature. I know what fascism is, I understand the baseline of the ideology, I know of several leaders, I know the difference between fascism, falangism, national socialism, and a lot of the other ideas that line up with the third position.
What I want to know is "What is wrong with fascism?" I don't want to lead the conversation so I will not provide "suggested responses". This is mostly because I get the impression that there is no one here who knows what is wrong and it's "just bad".

>>21762767
When you say that you know what fascism is, what do you actually mean by that? What do you think you're ready to sign up for?
Do you mean it in the way most commies do, where they're talking about their familiarity with the theory, and not the history of the real, historical instantiations of that ideology? Because as far as I'm concerned, the history at least pretty much speaks for itself. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live under a fascist regime or a communist one, though either might be preferable to whatever cybertotalitarian nightmare we're currently sliding into.

>>21758571
i couldn't agree more, OP. it's crazy how people even want to censor reality

>>21762811
>When you say that you know what fascism is, what do you actually mean by that?
I mean that I've read the theory and looked into the application, outside of the context of just war and from the liberal worldview.
>What do you think you're ready to sign up for?
I have signed up for nothing. I am simply asking the OP to tell me: "What is wrong with fascism?" exactly this, no more, no less. What is bad/wrong with it.
>Do you mean it in the way most commies do, where they're talking about their familiarity with the theory, and not the history of the real, historical instantiations of that ideology?
In my experience, communists, and other marxist derivatives, do not understand the mechanics, foundations, nor theory of any ideology, let alone the actual application of the theory.
>the history at least pretty much speaks for itself
>I wouldn't want to live under a fascist regime
Just as a single counter-point/example, the corporatist system under Oswald Mosley would have been much more agreeable than the situation we live in today, both inside and outside of the U.K. This "fascist regime" was more of a sort of specialized "super democracy" where you only participate in where you have a vested interest. That is to say, if it doesn't impact you, you will have some say, but it's not going to be taken into consideration as much as someone who is actively impacted by it. Of course, the underlining goal is to be certain to boost the entire nation, so a "vested interest" can't be used to take advantage of everyone else. I've left out a lot of excess for brevity.
The only reason why someone wouldn't want this situation would be if they're not an ethnic native to Oswald Mosley's United Kingdom. Interestingly, speaking of this "ethnonationalist idea", I had selected Mosley for his anti-colonial stance towards Ireland, where I leave you will a block quote from Mosley about Ireland, which you would be hardpressed to find from another British politician up to today (tl;dr: Irish unity and sovereignty is beneficial for the entire Europe.):
>What interest has an Englishman in Ireland? The answer is that this Englishman proved his interest in Ireland and friendship for her people when, as the youngest member of the British Parliament, he became Secretary of the Parliamentary Committee which opposed the operations of the Black and Tans and demanded peace with Ireland. We succeeded at any rate in bringing the Black and Tan iniquity to an end, but we were only partially successful in winning peace for Ireland, because the Government of the day dismembered Ireland. The original Tory demand was for a nine county Ulster divided from Ireland, which would have subjected a 65% Catholic majority, to the Protestant minority in those counties. The final “partition” of six counties still included predominantly Catholic areas.

>>21758641

Lol! Look at this guy!

>>21762948
>a sort of specialized "super democracy" where you only participate in where you have a vested interest. That is to say, if it doesn't impact you, you will have some say, but it's not going to be taken into consideration as much as someone who is actively impacted by it.
Ah, gotcha. The problem with this model is that there's no non-partisan way to decide who is and isn't impacted by a decision, who does or does not have "legitimate" interests at stake. This determination will have to be made by a particular group (the party) which holds particular views about the good of society and so on. To put the program into practice, they will have to determine what is 'in the common interest', and it will also be up to them to decide what is 'the real voice of the people'. If you were to think of this as an electrical diagram, it'd be a short circuit - the same problem the communist classless society runs into, in other words. The end result is that "democracy" means that the votes add up to just that perceived common interest the party desires.
With the examples you have given, Mosley (from what I've been able to gather, I haven't actually read up on the guy before) never got to put this kind of system into practice, so its flaws remain obscured (though he apparently did blame the Jews for the holocaust, kek).
But I think you can observe the results of this short-circuit with any totalitarian regime once it really gets going. Then you get the standard purity spiral of ideological conformity, the scapegoating, political purges, you know the drill. Authoritarianism necessarily smothers the very high culture and things of beauty it claims to wish to uphold.
That'd be my argument as to why fascism as you describe it wouldn't work, also in very abbreviated form.

>>21758571
Wrong. Ugliness and depravity is the backbone of fascist art. They draw troonjaks and write about eating poop.

>>21763307
I understand what you're getting at. I agree, the fact that it was never implemented means we can't really know how it would really work out. I enjoyed his critique of his nation's system and his passion for his people, but I don't know if I can say I'd agree with his system, just that it would be preferrable, assuming the working parts could be managed. I did leave out a lot, and his entire system was... well, very British. The interesting part of a critique like this is that there are no modern systems that "work as intended". Well, that's not entirely true. You could argue that "capitalism works as exactly as intended" if you hold this sort of viewpoint, but it's not really explicit that the point of capitalism is to undermine democracy and so on. We have many other systems and words for that, but the commonly used one is oligarchy.
If you're wanting a real world system, while it's not fascism, national socialism is a derivative of third position, like fascism, and we did see national socialism work exceptionally well. From the liberal capitalist worldview, the only way it would work is "war" because globalism / GDP / "economic sustainability", but even if we exclude this, it's more difficult to talk about Germany's national socialism because of the entire point of WW2 and the accusations of what may or may not have happened. The best points we have are the people who wrote about it while there and the people who visited. Unfortunately, many of those people were deemed to be propagandists and so on, even the ones who were considered to be highly ethical and respected journalists. Of course, those reputations were only destroyed after the national socialist leaders were excuted. So, you can take that as you wish.
The unfortunate reality of all of this discussion: We cannot prove anything. Look at what they did to everyone who tried to. The first step is to remove the central bank influence, and just look at what they did to Hitler, Gadaffi, and countless others for that. They even assassinated one banker who began to talk about it in South America. They slew his character, then they murdered him. Sure, it can become a "might is right" discussion, but the liberals needed to use the commies to take down national socialist Germany. Of course, this leaves the scope of the discussion, but you get the idea, I'm sure.
>>21763343
Arno Breker's art is hardly "ugly" and "depraved". In fact, they were widely accepted as the "antithesis of degenerate". Rockwell was considered a rather good artist who won awards for it, Ezra Pound is still considered one of the best poets and literary critic, even by some of the greats themselves: T. S. Eliot, Joyce, Yeats, and even Robert Frost. Not to mention the Neoclassicism and Rationalism architecture, of which are the most familiar and often attributed to "fascism". Don't let me get started on Futurismo and Art Deco.

>>21762977

>>21759124
you claimed that fascists and reactionaries prefer to sanitize fairy tails and in your image you have several instances in which the Grimms brothers are watered down as an example of what you're talking about.
and i showed you proof that Adolf Hitler was fond of the original Grimms brothers compilation of fairy tails and that actually it was the allies who had 'warned against' the stories. also im fairly certain that the soviets were against folklore and fairy tails. so i think you are just outright wrong

>>21758571
So by that logic, anything ultra-negative and symbolic of evil is the backbone of libertarianism? Damn I wonder what Harlan Ellison and Cormac McCarthy would think of that.

Yes, everything is Fascist. Anything else?

>>21758571
Please fuck of back to twitter/reddit faggot

>>21762492
Not that anon, but you can't seriously be insinuating that a "wholesome" narrative is inherently fascist, can you? That's terminally online to a painful degree, and you should unironically touch grass.

>>21758761

It depicts the sublinguistic reality of envy and animal aggression, especially rooted in sexual desire. And rooted in mortality, time, limitation, death. I'm sorry you still believe in the exploitative infant nigger retard child fantasies propagated by American culture

>>21758571
Thats completely ridiculous
>OH MY WOJAK
>IS THAT AN IDEAL
>HOW DARE YOU ASSERT AN IDEAL YOURE LITERALLY HITLER!
>>21758637
Ironically defeating him was the punishment for his enemies

>>21763378
>The best points we have are the people who wrote about it while there and the people who visited.
Friend, this is exactly what the frog intellectuals in denial about the absolute state of the Soviet Union argued. "the horror stories about people being starved to death in labor camps by the millions are just western capitalist propaganda, stop taking it so seriously. look at all the people who visited and loved it!"
I don't really trust my own ability to make sense of historical sources and determine where the facts end and the exaggerations begin, but we're on /lit/, so I assume that you read sometimes. Go through your list of favourite authors and see if you can't find a few who lived through the 30s, then look at those people's biographies and, if something like that exists, their own accounts of events. I think you'll find that many of them will have suffered personal tragedies, lost friends, had to face if not the reality then at least the very real possibility of political censorship and percecution at the hands of these regimes, as a direct result of the policies that were put into place in accordance with fascist philosophy. Once you see it, you can't un-see it.