/lit/ - Literature

Bruh. Why there gotta be at least one of dem chart everyday

>>5590394

can you repeat that in English please?

The Three Musketeers, by Alexandre Dumas

>>5590376
You can find them in /pol/

>>5590376
>nietzsche
>Dante Inferno
Is this a joke?

>>5590419
>>nietzsche

>ranting on and on about the decadence (degeneracy) of the modern world and Germany

>>5590416
Dumas? More like DUMBASS. Heh.

Seriously though - anyone got any dirt on Dumas so I can add that gem to my literary critiquing arsenal?

>>5590376

how about Sex & Character by Weineger?

>>5590426
Sure thing buddy. You never read him, don't you?

>>5590427
Dumas was race mixed, so if you are from /bol/ you shouldn't read it.

>>5590376

>no Carl Schmitt

>>5590429

he was promoting aristocracy and ancient greek values while attacking modern degeneracy what we think of as "progress"

>>5590466
Yes but he lauded Greek aristocracy because they were always fighting among the soldiers, they were mighty and the greatest warriors.

>>5590466

Nietzsche loved degeneracy. How do you think he got syphilis?

>>5590376

neo-reactionary or just reactionary?

>>5590458

one of the very few "reactionaries" worth reading. articulated a very good critique of democracy. too bad habermas fixed everything.

>>5590458

Interesting choice. Will have to take a look at his work closely.

>author says nigger a lot
>therefore his work is reactionary

>>5590888

well it's a start...

>>5590376
bump

>>5590376
Dante isn't reactionary since he's part of a developing culture, that hasn't even reached it's peak or is in a decline. It was just part of the general agenda of the time.

>>5590484
You are mistaking consevatism with reactionary philosophy. The latter can have many branches, ranging from pagan values(degenerate) to christian ones.

>>5590848
>implying Carl wasn't just a normal thinker concise with the european tradition
He's from the just-war tradition that is an Enlightenment concept.

>>5590376
>Beofulf
>Nietzche
>di Lampedusa
>Dante
>Lovecraft

Nietzsche called himself a decadent. In the book listed if I'm not mistaken. Or maybe it was Ecce Homo.

>there are people who think "degeneracy" is a term with any more depth than "things I dont like"

I think it is a shame that the ideology of the Right stagnated into romanticism and bigotry so rapidly in the 20th century. There is real merit in the core desire of preserving functioning systems, but the madness of neoliberalism and capitalism have poisoned it forever.

>>5591238
Lovecraft was a confirmed reactionary. He even published a magazine called the Conservative.

>>5591250

>complains that "degeneracy" is just "things I don't like"

>uses the term "bigotry"

>>5590484

Bad luck. It's not like he frequented prostitutes. He got burned on his first visit.
Nietzsche is gloriously bi-polar. Some of his work is undoubtedly reactionary. Some of it is very progress.

>>5591262
Ah, thanks for spotting that error. I should have said "baseless bigotry" to not make it seem as if I was making the same mistake.

>>5590376
If Lovecraft is a reactionary at all, it is against the entire human race.

Reactionaries are faggots. The words are both insults, they aren't something to aspire to, but a few idiots try to reclaim them for god knows what reason. Declaring they are going to react against the modern world and against people with ideas, stick their heads up their butts and shout it's better that way. Conservatives aim to preserve what is established as good, reactionaries simply want to hide from change and cling to old shit.

Any literature that is openly reactionary, or indeed openly progressive is probably terrible. Instead of depicting faithfully and favourably they will try and force the reader to agree with their depiction. Quite a few of the books in the image are in no way reactionary, many more of them attempt to address the changes in society and propose their own progressions while criticising the extremes of progressive ideology.

Also, Alfred the Great's statue? Your understanding of history is embarrasing.

>>5591278

He loved white people and aristocrats. WTF are you talking about.

>>5590376
PARSIFAL IS UTTER SHIT

I've gone to a waldorf school and they forced us to read it.
i hate every fucking sentence of that book, its underlying ideology is so contrived and stale.
>muh soul
>muh knighthood
>muh bildungsroman

>>5590376
Also Turner Diaries.

Maybe not "best" lit wise but probably the "best examples" of typical American reactionaries

>>5591371
>its underlying ideology is so contrived and stale.

please go be degenerate somewhere else...really >>>/lgbt/ and tumblr are waiting for your type.

>>5590376
>see book
>read about it
>love author
>try to buy
>pic related

>>5590376
>Dante and Parzival getting conscripted into this stupid ideology

>>5591508
>>5591508

>>5591508
>>5591533

wtf, why?

>>5591561
Out of print, highly regarded.

The cheapest copy of Marble Cliffs is 65 for the paperback. Luckily I just got it off of Bibliotik

>>5590376
Evola is the litmus test for idiocy. If I see it in someone's library I know I'm dealing with a cretin.

>>5591571
>that delicate act of balancing your library so that plebs think you are smart and patricians think you are deep.
>tfw your wife ruins it all by putting her Twilight and Sooki Stackhouse books in with your Solszhenitsyn

hahahah, what braindead monkey compiled this list

>>5591571

what is your contention with Evola's work? specifically

>>5591580
There's only one thing I hate more than traditionalists, and that's New Agers. Evola combines the two.

>>5591237
>thinking Schmitt was a student of the Enlightenment
>not seeing the massive influence of the counter-Enlightenment in his work despite clear and explicit reference to figures like Burke, de Maistre, and Cortes
>not realising that the entire project is underpinned by anti-rational Catholic faith

>>5591589

that's a non-statement.
Do you have a specific reason or just a knee-jerk reaction?

ernst junger is becoming more and more well known internationally, its really nice to see. I hope he enters the realm of "classic" pretty soon

>>5591601

Storm of Steel sounds great, im gonna get it soon.

>>5591611
>>5591611
I really liked it, but On the Marble Cliffs was on another level. Its one of the best books I've ever read, and its like 90 pages. Link related, its the PDF

https://filetea.me/t1s1g7xtp4wQgeNn6wc7ZfFKA

>>5591621

thank you, hope it's not a trojan :U

>>5590426
wat

>>5591640

>wat
>i literally never read Nietzsche except quotes on wikipedia

is reactionary now counter-culture?

>>5590409
Can you say that in non-faggot, please?

>>5591723
yes

its 'hip and cool' to be right wing now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAoMqfLOYx4&list=UULfhh63n0fWn0gXXKQ5NWvw

>>5591874

English motherfucker, do u speak it? No. So stfu with your "bruh why dem gotta" nigger speak.

>>5591723
I once saw /pol/ use it to mean pro feud, I'm not sure what's the case here.

>>5591261
>thinking justr because they're rightwing means they;re reactionry

>>5591899

It's not him, it's me writing original statement and I wrote it in niggerspeak to underline the nonsense and stupidity of creating "IM FROM POL TELL ME ABOOT JULIUS EBOLA" thread for the sixth time this week.

There's nothing more reactionary than fluffy romantic literature

:^)

>>5591897
There's this idea that social constructs are something inherently bad and must be abolished when it doesn't have to mean either. He's right.

>>5591939
>There's this idea that [bad] social constructs are something inherently bad and must be abolished
This is a misunderstanding that typifies the internal insecurity of reactionaries. He's not right, he's an alienated, unexceptional little man that wants to make his life meaningful by identifying his nationality as himself.

>>5591985
Sure, that's why "is a social construct" has become an argument by itself.

>>5590430
but thats not quite true, people on /pol/ read stuff from other races all the time. Pol is more about seeing the virtue in each race and appreciating it, but at the same time bashing anything they see as degenerate. Despite pol's 'racism' they actually praise people like Thomas Sowell and other people from different races based on merits.

>>5591640
Fuck off idiot

>>5592010
It's an argument against the moronic notion that socially constructed phenomena are worth protecting based solely on the fact that they exist, or that because they exist they are eternal, natural, god-given, etc. If the reactionaries and conservatives could think about it for two-seconds you wouldn't be butt-flustered about getting blown out so easily from a single phrase.

>>5592064
>or that because they exist they are eternal, natural, god-given, etc
He explicitly stated the opposite. All he did was question whether the social construction of "nation" is really that bad, what effects it has in the material realm and whether overcoming it was something worth fighting for, then he concluded that it was worth protecting to some degree.

You're the butthurt one.

>>5592064


this is what you say and certainly it can be said to be reasonable and moderate, but thats not how its used 'in the wild'.

slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-words-words-words/

>>5592064
they are worth protecting because they provide security and identity.

>>5592064
>based solely on the fact that they exist, or that because they exist they are eternal, natural, god-given, etc.
That isn't the conservative position at all you fucking retard. There are epistemological reasons for supposing that social constructs are useful should they exist as the outcome of historical development. Try reading Hayek or Oakeshott

>>5591495
>American reactionaries

racial identity politics =/= reactionary

>>5590426
You are applying Nazism to Nietzsche

He said that modern society was too Apollonian (stoic, rational) and that there needed to be a mixture of being Apollonian and Dionysian (impulsive, emotional) like was the case (in his opinion) in ancient greece

>>5590376
how is LOTR reactionary?

Begin with the Greeks, you homo.

>>5593337
>Shitton of Christian symbolism
>Good guys- medieval like farmers
>Bad guys- USSR like industry
>The Ring is symbol for technology
et cetera

>>5590376

Race realism. Good =fair skinned folk.
Evil=dark mud people, orc niggers, etc.
Good/evil are real and not just subjective "muh social constructs".
Each race has its own segregated nation, Sauron wants a global new world order (open borders). Wants to inject his poor dirty immigrants into the pristine human and elf nations...

One ring turns u greedy. Greed gives u a hooked nose, hunched back, grubby hands that keep rubbing together and backstabbing tendencies....remind u of anythin?
Women are fairly porttayed and not unrealistic or immodest. They appear just enough in the story. Tolkien was very clever.
Also christian symbolism often makes SJW and tumblrfags furious.

>>5593706
>elves
>good

>>5593706
that's one hell of a projection there, partner.

Good thing I made this shitty image macro a long time ago so I don't have to waste time replying to dumbasses like you

>All these faggots posting about LoTR who obviously haven't read the book

Navigate back to >>>/tv/ and stay there, /lit/ has enough cancer without you adding to the problem

>>5593729

>i'll post a quote that supports what you say

did you even read the ending of the quote? or at least the middle? did you get beyond the "I dislike allegory" bit?

>>5593724

elves are the superhuman ideal. everyone else falls below them somehow, and is corrupt. the humans are corrupted by power and the dwarves by greed. The hobbits are innocent but naive and simple. The elves represent the wise superhuman that is not corrupted by the One Ring. They are offered the ring several times, by Frodo, but they want nothing to do with it. They won't even touch it out of fear they might lose their immortality. The whole Middle-Earth is becoming an increasingly corrupt place, so the elves decided to leave it, cross the great sea in the west and move to another continent. Only the elves and Frodo can make this journey, frodo after defeating the corruption of earth has become pure, elf-like, immortal.

whiteness is a big theme in the book, and the whiter a race/individual is the closer he is to immortality/purity/wisdom. Gandalf the grey returns as an immortal Gandalf the White.

"Saruman the White" is an example of how it ends if one fails to follow these biological laws. In the book he race-mixes hill men with orcs and creates an army of half-orcs, that can travel during the Day as well as the Night. Because of this grave mistake he becomes "Saruman of Many Colours" - and is no longer "white" (pure and honourable). etc

>>5593337
LoTR was written from Tolkien's passion for pre-roman stories in northwestern Europe. He wanted to create a new mythology for British people that emulated poems like Beowulf.

Additionally, LoTR has clear good v evil. Good being those aligned with simplicity and passivity towards domination. Evil being those aligned with industrialization and coveting power and material wealth.

That is what I think when I see LoTR in that category.

Ignore the flood of "orc niggers" and christian allegory.

Rodney Stark books are pretty reactionary. He defends the Crusades, a position that'll get you death threats from sand monkeys.

>>5593877
>Ignore the deeper meaning and symbolism

No. It's there in plain sight, even if he did it unintentionally.

>>5593706
>Each race has its own segregated nation, Sauron wants a global new world order (open borders). Wants to inject his poor dirty immigrants into the pristine human and elf nations...

>>5590376
>Beowulf

wat? how is Beowulf reactionary?

>>5593801
Did you?

He doesn't like allegory, he doesn't write with allegorical intent. He says that he can understand why people interpret his works as allegorical, but that's clearly not the case.

You fucking idiot I can't believe I had to explain a 25 word quote to you.

>book is about medieval or ancient age
IT'S REACTIONAR
how the fuck is dante's inferno reactionary?
Seems someone read it upside down.

>>5593929
it symbolizes the reactionary answer to a reform, revolution knocking at your door (the reform is symbolized by grendel), at first they prevented the reform and then eradicated its roots (grendel's mother)

>>5593929
it isn't
it's just a tale made long ago

>>5593948
so the nords who were alive in the VI century thought about that?
Don't you realise you are retarded?

>>5593932

He says he doesn't like to do it intentionally, but it necessarily follows any lively work, and "any attempt to explain the myth or fairytale MUST USE ALLEGORICAL LANGUAGE."

>>5593944

>how is Dante reactionary NOW?

Imagine a modern, liberal, SJW, /lgbt/ tumblr genderfluid, strong-independent feminist Marxist reading Dante.

Imagine how flustered they would be over the themes, protrayal of women, gender roles, implications about good and evil, race and culture. That's why it's reactionary.

>>5593948
Each time the dominant tripfag leaves /lit, he's replaced by an even dumber tripfag. It has happened at least three times already. It seems to defy the laws of stupidity, but it's true.

>>5594001
>everything that tumblr doesn't like is reactionary

So Marx and De Beauvoir are reactionary then ? Because tumblr wouldn't pleased if they actually read them.

>>5593944

Because it offends the progressive, atheist left status-quo.

You can't even say "bless you" without being suspended or triggering someone.

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/21/kendra-turner-bless-you-suspension/14388581/

>>5590376
You faggots really have no idea what reactionary means, do you. Dante's Inferno, really? Top fucking kek

>>5594009
>if they actually read them.

Marx created the recipe for "cultural marxism" , the destruction of social order, family ties, aristocratic ideals, national identity, theological categories, and promoted an insane "equalization" of everything and everyone with his "muh class struggle" simplification.

>>5593989
yeah you have no fucking idea what "allegorical language" even means. I'm done talking to you. Bye now.

>>5594017

refer

>>5594001
>>5594013

>>5594001
>Imagine a modern, liberal, SJW, /lgbt/ tumblr genderfluid, strong-independent feminist Marxist reading Dante.
>Imagine how flustered they would be over the themes, protrayal of women, gender roles, implications about good and evil, race and culture. That's why it's reactionary.
This is a terrible criteria for reactionary literature, that's like saying anything that would fluster a nun is leftist.

>>5594025

> you have no fucking idea what "allegorical language"

It means any attempt to analyze the fairytale will have to use allegorical language, i.e allegorical constructs/metaphors. He accepts this as a function of analysis.

>>5594024
oh god, kek
>equalization
kek more
>destruction of family ties
moar kek

Have you ever read him? Or did you just read that book wrote by goebbles (who was a communist before) about marxism and ancient jews?

>>5593975
in a sense
they called the reform a chaos (or evil etc) which creeps outside of the human settlements. it's basically the same motif, to defend against a chaos and against a reform because reforms are a manifestation of chaos

btw dante's inferno is very reactionary, it's clearly seen with the writings on the hell's door
>Lay down all hope, you that go in by me
you realize what it means? it means that the system is never changed, inferno and the whole dante's cosmology is the very manifestation of the order and reactionary dream

>>5594037
>criterion

>>5593975
She's intentionally retarded, it's called 'moe'. It's a Japanese convention where stupidity in a woman is considered sexually appetizing.

>>5590376

"Reactionary" has never really been a good term, those who are considered reactionary are usually just trying to recover what was lost due to several leftist reactions against the prevailing order during their time. Being for Monarchy isn't reacting, the democrats were the ones who reacted against the Monarchy and had their ideals based on it's negation, not the other way around. Marxism is the same with Capitalism, religion and the state, those things were there first and Marxism reacted against them. The progressive is always basing their views on the negation of the old, they need it as a leverage point because they are negative ideologies.

Buying into the term while being for it means that you accept historical contingencies like our current situation as a necessary development, which you then "react" against- starting from them and acting as a negation. When in reality, as a reactionary you are just supporting the side which happened to be defeated by those who reacted against it, at best you are just negating the negation and trying to uphold affirmative values through it. The term should be dropped really, it has tons of progressive fallacies built into it.

>>5594044
really?
>they called the reform a chaos (or evil etc) which creeps outside of the human settlements. it's basically the same motif, to defend against a chaos and against a reform because reforms are a manifestation of chaos

Beowulf was made by fucking nords from the fucking VI century, it's just a compilation of tales.
>tw dante's inferno is very reactionary, it's clearly seen with the writings on the hell's door
>Lay down all hope, you that go in by me
you realize what it means? it means that the system is never changed, inferno and the whole dante's cosmology is the very manifestation of the order and reactionary dream

Alright, did you read it? Because Virgil was there, and even if he was in purgatory he was the reason itself, and he was form tha purgatory.
The whole book is about crypto-enlightment if we are talking in /pol/speak. The book isn't about "Fucking philosophers from the modern worlds they are all in hell kek get some burns".

>>5594042

It's no coincidence that the marxists and neo-marxists ( György Lukács, Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and T.W. Adorno to Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton...etc) used Marx's foundation and ideology to critique capitalist "culture" and "social relations" beyond it's economics....

The roots of their insanity can be found in Marx...the seeds are there.

i'm not reatrded, it's not my fault you cannot really read symbols in everything ><

>>5594028
You are either retarded or underage if you think that's what reactionary means. Either way, this board is not for you.

>>5594069
>crypto-enlightment

Reactionary.

>>5594082

You're probably thinking of the word "reactionary" in a literal sense, like "reacting to" which is why you'll never say anything relevant in this thread.

>>5594073
You just watched that documentary where Ron Paul appears, don't you?
Have you ever read Gramsci? If so then you will know that the whole Jewish Marxist Culturalism Conspiracy was something he never talked about.
>György Lukács
He talked about reification, which according to you, it's against jews (capitalists).

Good Lord, are you just copypasting something you found on /pol/ and took it seriously?

>>5594094
> Gramsci? If so then you will know that the whole Jewish Marxist Culturalism Conspiracy was something he never talked about.

I think you're missing the point about cultural marxism the degeneracy it has spawned, and how it Marx himself is culpable for this ideology.

>>5594105

That's like blaming Hegel for Marxism/Communism. No?

>>5594073

You know, Adorno was kind of conservative at times- he critiques american individualism( because its just an illusion made by the market) where SJW's uphold it religiously. Allot of the leftist intellectuals who are aped by bourgeois leftist college kids would not have nice things to say about those who picked up their ideas. Derrida publically derided students who thought that they had to right to try to deconstruct the western tradition when they had hardly any knowledge of it, and many of the cultural Marxists thought that the 68 "revolution" was a joke.

It was probably the integration of all this leftist theory in capitalist consumer culture that lead these guys to be mostly irrelevant now- a down syndrome version of their ghost lives on in tumblr and university campuses , but most of the actual content, and anything actually subversive to liberal society is gone.

>>5594110

Yes, in a sense Hegel is to blame. His beaurocratic philosophy, that is removed from empirical reality, has spawned all sorts of insane schools of thought.

>>5594105
nope, I just read them and don't get convinced about infogaphics and documentaries that easily.
Do you really think this whole cultural marxism shit is real?
I've never meet someone or watch someone saying "I'm cultural marxist". I'm talking about real people, not those who post on 4chan, reddit or Tumblr.
>and how it Marx himself is culpable for this ideology.
Even Marx was against ideology. Again, read about it and you will know what I'm talking about.

>>5594069
i mean that the first book is about defending vs chaos (and of course nords clearly understood it, people understood it since they defended vs the chaos personified as sabretooth tigers roaming against their bonfire) while the second is a description of a highly stable (in fact eternal) and structured cosmology, eternal fate of people in the hell (and heaven, only purgatory is temporal) and even eternal society, and both of those ideas can be understood as reactionary ones. you misunderstand what reactionary means, it means 'something which is against the changes', those changes are not supposed to be always good

of course they have other motifs too, divine comedy as a description of mid age crisis etc

>>5594116
>His beaurocratic philosophy,
Libertarian detected.

>>5594121
but it's reactionary, Dante never writes something about the moder society ever.

>>5594119
>is it real
>I've never meet someone or watch someone saying "I'm cultural marxist"

Like Marx would said: "Sie wissen das nicht, aber sie tun es"
"they do not know it, but they are doing it."

>Even Marx was against ideology.

Are you implying that Marxism/Communism aren't ideologies? Hilarious. How NEW are you?

>>5594116
>beaurocratic
ayy lmao

>Seneca
>reactionary
kek

>>5594146
>implying the person who made that list has even read the books

>>5594151

>implying the people judging this list have even read the books

Seneca is 100% reactionary, today.

>>5594140
>le funny gif
Wow how good arguments.
>Like Marx would said: "Sie wissen das nicht, aber sie tun es"
"they do not know it, but they are doing it."
>take quote without a context
>omg conspiracy
Sure thing buddy.
>Are you implying that Marxism/Communism aren't ideologies? Hilarious. How NEW are you?
I'm not someone who eats propaganda everyday, I read. Marx was against ideology, because he saw that ideology was a form to control people. I don't care about waht zizek says, but true marxism (marxism from marx) it's not about ideology. That you categorize them as ideology is another thing. An example of this is saying that hitlerian national socialism is right wing, when they said they were outside the political spectrum (a third position).

Seriously, start reading something.

>>5594159
>for today
what a fucking moron you are. Everyone then was reactionary 'for today', might as well list everything old

>>5590376
I bet the one who made this chart thinks that Pinnochio is reactionary.

>>5594167
>>take quote without a context

The point is that many are 'cultural marxists' without even knowing it. That's how "ideology functions"...ppl don't know their own presuppositions. That's the ironic thing here.

>Marx was against ideology, because he saw that ideology was a form to control people.

He was against a particular capitalist ideology and wanted to show it's "internal contradictions"...You can't be against "ideology" in general. He used Hegelian ideology as his tool and created Marxist ideology in turn....

>>5594172

Nope. There were degenerates back then too.
Check mate.

>this thread is still alive
>there is someone on this board right now that hasn't given up hope trying to talk to e/pol/a

insane or determined

>>5594159
>Seneca is 100% reactionary, today.
Just LOOK at this shit, man, do you think these people think?

>>5594191
>Just LOOK at this shit, man, do you think these people think?

Who are you calling "these people" ???

>>5594188
Yeah, they were called 'normal'. Going to a brothel and fucking a twelve-year-old slave boy, then writing a poem about it, was considered patrician.

>>5594140

The thing with Marx's work is that it is not homogeneous. That era is definitely still ideology, by Capital he had done a much better job of getting out of "ideology"- they claim to have a "scientific" epistemology that filters out ideology and get at what is "real", and it is a decent system despite some flaws. Of course the materialist conception of the world that defines what is "real" we could argue is quite ideological( I certainly would argue that myself)- but by Capital Marx at least have a method to try to filter ideology that made some sense. Go read Althusser's "For Marx" if you are interested on this subject, because he criticized Marxists heavily for their use of early and middle Marx and ignoring that it was all stuff that Marx transcended.

>>5594191
Do you think these people think?
>Do think people think
>think think

>>5594173
pinnochio is rebellious though, he is at the side of the chaos

>>5594183
>The point is that many are 'cultural marxists' without even knowing it. That's how "ideology functions"...ppl don't know their own presuppositions. That's the ironic thing here.
Really?
>He was against a particular capitalist ideology and wanted to show it's "internal contradictions"...You can't be against "ideology" in general. He used Hegelian ideology as his tool and created Marxist ideology in turn....
>hegelian ideology
><insert shit here> ideology
Again, you are classifying that as ideology. Hegel never talked about that. Marx was against ideology because of what I said. Keep in mind that was the way he defined it.
He literally said this:
"As Prometheus, having stolen fire from heaven, begins to build houses and to settle upon the earth, so philosophy, expanded to be the whole world, turns against the world of appearance. The same now with the philosophy of Hegel."

Nothing about ideology here.
Also: "Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking."

So if you are going to say that absolutely everything Marx said or somethin about that is part of a conspiracy, thus refuting everything I said, I suspect you are trolling me.

>>5594210
oh god kek'd so hard
u just trolled me

>>5594199
>Going to a brothel and fucking a twelve-year-old slave boy, then writing a poem about it, was considered patrician
>prostitutes and homosex normal

Buddhists and Christians would disagree.
Plus prostitutes were marginalized by greek society.

>>5590376
I have to admitt this, I love /pol/, the way the post and their infographics.
HOWEVER it was a joke, but many of those faggots take all of that seriously. All those EDfags must be laughing hard.

>>5594212

What he is saying is that while Marx postured about being beyond ideology, but he never ACTUALLY escaped it.

>>5590376
AYY LMAO SHUT IT DOWN LE JOOZ ARE HERE
MODS PLS BAN ME

>>5594219
phew
i just dunno how you read pinnochio if you didn't see revolutionary ideas there. it's full of descriptions of unjust society pinnochio had to cope and struggle with. btw it's soviet version was was very popular in soviet russia for a reason

>>5594222
>Buddhists and Christians would disagree.
Christians were just a Jew cult during Seneca's life.
>Plus prostitutes were marginalized by greek society.
So were slaves, what's your point?

>>5594205
So we see the answer was 'no'.

>>5594242
>but he never ACTUALLY escaped it.
Nope. He's saying that there is a marxist cultural conspiracy that Marx and his ideology initiated.

>>5594222
>Buddhists and Christians would disagree.
>he actually thinks Buddhist and Christian monks weren't fucking boy pussy
There's good documentation of both, bucko.

>>5594212
>Again, you are classifying that as ideology. Hegel never talked about that. Nothing about ideology here.

And? You're confused again. You don't have to explicitally say "I HAVE AN IDEOLOGY" for you to have an ideology.

Adam Smith never talked about Capitalist "Ideology" yet it was part of his work all along....

Hegel doesn't have to use the term "ideology" for his system to be an ideology. Marx doesn't have to specifically call Communism an ideology for it to be an ideology, but it is.


>to say that absolutely everything Marx said or somethin about that is part of a conspiracy

Ideology doesn't mean conspiracy. Ideology is a system of thought based on various presuppositions. Marx used hegelian dialectic, atheism, materialism and historicism to analyze problems in terms of class struggle...He synthesized ideologies and created his own new ideology...

>>5594252
>what's your point?

Even then there were red-pilled people who could identify "degeneracy".

>>5594268
>...
Kek. Every time someone is talking about some sort of conspiracy always post "..."
>Adam Smith never talked about Capitalist "Ideology" yet it was part of his work all along....

Just because you say something is an ideology doesn't mean it is. Also, Smith talked about an economical system, not an ideology, talking about in a way you think ideology is.

Do you really think historicism is an ideology?
Atheism as well?
Even dialectic?

Marx never wanted to make some sort of ideology, even he wasn't marxist (kek). If some tumblrfags just said something about equality doesn't mean it's cultural marxism. There were shitloads of philosophers who talked about equality before marx was even born.

>>5594278
>Just because you say something is an ideology doesn't mean it is

True. I could see a bicycle is an ideology, but it isn't. However, I'm right in this case because I gave the right reasons.

>Marx never wanted to make some sort of ideology

So? He did anyway.
Explain why Hegelianism or Communism or Marxism aren't ideologies but Capitalism is.

What even is a reactionist? I remember reading some article about a group of students who were all acting very high and mighty because the were reactionists. Then they all made card game about it and no one took them seriously. I still don't know what a reactionist it.

>>5594294

Reactionaries are considered to be one end of a political spectrum whose opposite pole is progressivism/radicalism (in the meaning "left").

>>5594301
So they are the left side of left sided politics?

>>5594311
>So they are the left side of left sided politics?

right side of the spectrum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary

>>5594289
>True. I could see a bicycle is an ideology, but it isn't. However, I'm right in this case because I gave the right reasons.
huh?
>Explain why Hegelianism or Communism or Marxism aren't ideologies but Capitalism is.
Never said Capitalism is an ideology, did you read my post?
>Also, Smith talked about an economical system, not an ideology, talking about in a way you think ideology is.
Did you read it?

I guess you think I'm marxist because I've read many books wrote by marxist.
There aren't people who said "I'm capitalist" in an ideology sense. I'm sure Marx was talking about the "capitalist" ideology as a whole mix of industrialism, medieval and victorian values, religion and yadda yadda. So he just said "capitalism" as whole to talk about all things he was against.

Communism is an ideology according to Marx, even if he doesn't say it is. Marxism, on the other hand, isn't an ideology. Even cultural marxism isn't an ideology itself.

Again, there were many philosophers and politicians that talked about equality in an even more radical way Marx thinked, so in a hypotetical situation where Marx say that cultural marxism was something he wante to create as an ideology, blaming Marx for all of that is non sense.

>>5594315
>huh?

Just because you say I'm wrong, doesn't mean I am. You have to use REASONS, something you haven't been doing.

>Never said Capitalism is an ideology, did you read my post?

Yes, you made many errors. Capitalism IS an ideology. Marx critiqued it and listed how it is an ideology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology#Marxist_view


>I guess you think I'm marxist because I've read many books wrote by marxist.

I don't know what you are other than someone who can't explain themselves well and is confused by the English language.

Is English your second language?

>>5594335
>Yes, you made many errors. Capitalism IS an ideology. Marx critiqued it and listed how it is an ideology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology#Marxist_view
Did you ever read my post?
Here it is, a quote made by A. Nonymous:
"There aren't people who said "I'm capitalist" in an ideology sense. I'm sure Marx was talking about the "capitalist" ideology as a whole mix of industrialism, medieval and victorian values, religion and yadda yadda. So he just said "capitalism" as whole to talk about all things he was against."

Yes, english is my second language.

>>5594294
On 4chan it's used to mean Nazis and monarchists.

>>5590376
To what point of history does reactionaries go?
Medieval?
Victorian?
Fucking cavemen?
Does it depends?

>>5594340
>"There aren't people who said "I'm capitalist" in an ideology sense"

So? You don't have to "self-identify" as a RAPIST to be a RAPIST. Stop repeating the idea that you have to call yourself something to be it.

>I'm sure Marx was talking about the "capitalist" ideology as a whole mix of industrialism, medieval and victorian values, religion and yadda yadda. So he just said "capitalism" as whole to talk about all things he was against."

And that's why you're wrong. He talked about Capitalism as an ideology with various phases and stages of development.

JUST READ THIS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology#Marxist_view

>>5594340

stop talking, you are confused because you don't understand English words.

>>5594350
It literally says all what I posted. Capitalism is a mix of many things, read what you post. He said capitalism wasn't solely an economic system.
>So? You don't have to "self-identify" as a RAPIST to be a RAPIST. Stop repeating the idea that you have to call yourself something to be it.
Who determines what is an ideology and what is not? Marx? Hegel? You?
>>5594356
Nice argument.

>>5594376
>Who determines what is an ideology and what is not? Marx? Hegel? You?
>Ideology?

It's an english word with a specific use/meaning. You're confused because you don't understand an english word. Go look it up in the dictionary or encyclopedia.


>He said capitalism wasn't solely an economic system.

It's an ideology with many dimensions. Yes.

Any books that destroy Cultural Marxism?

>>5594395
again with the english language?
So a dictionary is the supreme institution to define everything, so the terms that are defined in a different way by other people don't matter?

>>5594411
nice dubs nig

>>5594410
It doesn't exist. If you want criticisms of the Frankfurt School, or contemporary US radical liberalism, why don't you ask with specificity.

>>5594469
>>5594410

Dennis Dworkin wrote a book about it.

This is more of a history of the phenomena than "destruction"...It's an okay read.

>>5594502
Does gay culture come from Marxism?

>>5594563

Homosexual pride culture was promoted by many Marxists, like Magnus Hirschfeld & Wilhelm Reich in the early 1900s but the strongest promotion began by liberal-left wing radicals in the 1970s. Homosexuality obviously pre-dates marxism.

Interesting fact, even the pagans were against it according to Tacitus in the Germania in 98AD. Only two crimes carried the death sentence for the Germanic pagans, high treason and homosexuality, murder did not.
The Aztecs also brutally rejected it.

>>5594563
No, Marx hated gays

>>5594592

Marxism is bigger than Marx's personal opinions. Don't confuse the two.

>Marx and homosex

He never discussed it in his works and rarely talked about sexuality at all.
But his faithful followers and students did and the continue the legacy today in our Universities and media.

>>5594601
>le death of the author XD

>>>r/books

>>5594563
Well obviously yes, because some dumb cunt found a book where people described the Birmingham school as marxist; therefore conspiracy theories are real.

I can see why you describe yourself as "post-right".

>>5594591
>Interesting fact, even the pagans were against it according to Tacitus in the Germania in 98AD
Herodotus noted that too. He said it was the mark of primitive peoples to frown on homosexuality.

>>5594601
>>5594592
>>5594563


>“The embrace of immigration” is part of that, as is the involvement of Jews in social justice movements.
>“I bet you 85 percent of those changes [i.e promoting gay marriage/homosexuality], whether it’s in Hollywood or social media are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry....Their influence is immense...and might I add GOOD!"

Vice President Joe Biden, 2013.

Biden Praises Jews, Goes Too Far, Accidentally Thrills Anti-Semites
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/05/biden-praises-jews-goes-too-far.html

>>5594611

>he thinks pagan means primitive

heh

>>5594617
The comments of this article are golden.

>>5594617

>>5594617

/thread

>>5594622
In that context it does, since it doesn't include the Persians, the Egyptians, the Romans, or the Greeks, who were all pagans.

>>5594622
>>5594591

so there are things we should learn from these primitive pagans.

>>5594683
Human sacrifice?

>>5590376
read a bit on evola on wikipedia, seems like im going to agree with the core premises of his but hate the packaging.

sex and character got me laid

>>5594704
>sex and character got me laid

How so?

What is the philosophy of the right, exactly?

>>5594810
Do you mean the book by Hegel, or right-wing philosophy? If the latter, it depends heavily on the right-wing ideology.

Giovanni Gentile's Philosophic Basis of Fascism can be found here
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14058/14058-h/14058-h.htm#THE_PHILOSOPHIC_BASIS_OF_FASCISM

>>5594843
>http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14058/14058-h/14058-h.htm#THE_PHILOSOPHIC_BASIS_OF_FASCISM

Thanks.

>>5594847
However you should keep in mind that that there is a significant discrepancy between fascism and many other right-wing thinking. Even though Gentile explicitly says fascism is far right, he also says that there is no concrete nation, nations are simply ideas made concrete through laws, and he strongly of nationalism.

>Nationalism identified State with Nation, and made of the nation an entity preëxisting, which needed not to be created but merely to be recognized or known. The nationalists, therefore, required a ruling class of an intellectual character, which was conscious of the nation and could understand, appreciate and exalt it. The authority of the State, furthermore, was not a product but a presupposition. It could not depend on the people—rather the people depended on the State and on the State's authority as the source of the life which they lived and apart from which they could not live. The nationalistic State was, therefore, an aristocratic State, enforcing itself upon the masses through the power conferred upon it by its origins.

That's obviously at odds with the core of many right-wing strains of thought;he considers this negatively.

>Both Fascism and nationalism regard the State as the foundation of all rights and the source of all values in the individuals composing it. For the one as for the other the State is not a consequence—it is a principle. But in the case of nationalism, the relation which individualistic liberalism, and for that matter socialism also, assumed between individual and State is inverted. Since the State is a principle, the individual becomes a consequence—he is something which finds an antecedent in the State: the State limits him and determines his manner of existence, restricting his freedom, binding him to a piece of ground whereon he was born, whereon he must live and will die. In the case of Fascism, State and individual are one and the same things, or rather, they are inseparable terms of a necessary synthesis.

>Nationalism, in fact, founds the State on the concept of nation, the nation being an entity which transcends the will and the life of the individual because it is conceived as objectively existing apart from the consciousness of individuals, existing even if the individual does nothing to bring it into being. For the nationalist, the nation exists not by virtue of the citizen's will, but as datum, a fact, of nature.

>For Fascism, on the contrary, the State is a wholly spiritual creation. It is a national State, because, from the Fascist point of view, the nation itself is a creation of the mind and is not a material presupposition, is not a datum of nature. The nation, says the Fascist, is never really made; neither, therefore, can the State attain an absolute form, since it is merely the nation in the latter's concrete, political manifestation. For the Fascist, the State is always in fieri. It is in our hands, wholly; whence our very serious responsibility towards it.

>>5594863
>strongly critical of nationalism

>>5591899
>So stfu
Oh God just kill yourself pleb.

>>5591576
>I do it for attention
The face of /lit/, ladies and gentlemen.

>>5594902
>Capitalizes "god"
>Calls someone else pleb

top kek

>>5590888
Was Huckleberry Finn reactionary?

>>5595011

Today it would be banned and Mr. Twain would be lynched by genderfluid, communist druggies screaming "DIE FASCIST"

>>5595077
>Mr. Twain would be lynched by genderfluid

huckleberry finn cross-dressed as a girl though... he was found out by an old lady and got some advice how to cross-dress better
so it's actually a book about a young drag queen, very tolerant :3

>>5595167

very tolerant of niggers too

>>5595186
actually yes. a nigger helps huck to cross-dress, tom and huck save the nigger vs reactionary society. huckleberry finn is anti-reactionary, if anything

>>5595189
>tom and huck save the nigger
wtf you can't call him that

>>5595189

didn't they have doubts after they saved the nigger? some sort of doubts about doing the right thing? I can't recall

also i can see how people criticize what tom did, he needlessly played a game of prison-breaking using the simplicity of nigger jim, but it's not racist per se, it's just tom wasn't really an adult and behaved childishly

Who is the best far right moral philosopher?

>>5595351

theistic or non-theistic?

bump

>the 21st century Right is intellectually dead

>>5595361
lmfao

>>5595534

by intellectual do you mean the vapid, jargon spewing rhetoric of people like Hegel, Freud, Marx, et al?

That's not what the right is about.

>>5595546
>proving the 21st century Right is intellectually dead
>proving there never really was intellectual life in the Right to begin with

>>5595556
>dat reading comprehension

>>5594091

Reactionary is another word for 'right wing' or 'conservative' i think it started in the french revol.

>>5592036
Don't be such an a/pol/ogist.

>>5595689

why so mad