/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15277237]

Why shouldn't subversive books be burned? If they undermine the power of the State and sow discontent in the masses, why shouldn't they be destroyed for the security of the nation?

[Anonymous No.15277290]

>>15277237
People can get around them easily with the internet. If you want to prevent people from reading them, learn from what the current neoliberal order does with books it consider hereitcal. Nobody burns The Passing of the Great Race or The Decline of the West. They just don't read them. The only people who read them are philosophy, history, or politics nerds interested in white identity or nationalism. Nobody studies reactionary, nationalist, traditionalist, and third position thinkers in universities. When they do, they either ignore the thinker's politics (Nietzsche), condemn their politics in passing while insisting it's unrelated to their thought (Heidegger), or pretend they don't exist. The last option is what happens 90% of the time.

Another example of how to burn a book without burning it is Mein Kampf, which is even sold in bookstores with lots of annotations to ensure the reader understands it properly. I have no interest in reading Mein Kampf but something I notice about everyone who talks about it outside of right-wing cirlces is that it's supposedly very poorly written. It's the ravings of a madman. Is this true? Maybe, I'm not sure. Regardless, it is helpful to neoliberalism for everyone to dismiss it as such.

If you're Amazon, you can also prevent people from being able to read newer books by refusing to sell them. I don't think that's as effective as they think it is but it does decrease a book's potential audience.

In the modern era, you no longer have to burn books to keep people from reading them. In fact, it's more effective to do all of this than to flat out burn them, which might give them attention. In the regime of tomorrow, you will likely still be able to read Judith Butler or Noel Ignatiev online or purchase their books from obscure websites if you'd like to but very few people will do that because their ideas will be viewed as backwards. Many people won't even know who they are because they won't even be taught in universities. That's how you do it.

[Anonymous No.15277310]

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Liberty/Chapter_2

Yet it is as evident in itself, as any amount of argument can make it, that ages are no more infallible than individuals; every age having held many opinions which subsequent ages have deemed not only false but absurd; and it is as certain that many opinions, now general, will be rejected by future ages, as it is that many, once general, are rejected by the present.

The objection likely to be made to this argument, would probably take some such form as the following. There is no greater assumption of infallibility in forbidding the propagation of error, than in any other thing which is done by public authority on its own judgment and responsibility. Judgment is given to men that they may use it. Because it may be used erroneously, are men to be told that they ought not to use it at all? To prohibit what they think pernicious, is not claiming exemption from error, but fulfilling the duty incumbent on them, although fallible, of acting on their conscientious conviction. If we were never to act on our opinions, because those opinions may be wrong, we should leave all our interests uncared for, and all our duties unperformed. An objection which applies to all conduct, can be no valid objection to any conduct in particular. It is the duty of governments, and of individuals, to form the truest opinions they can; to form them carefully, and never impose them upon others unless they are quite sure of being right. But when they are sure (such reasoners may say), it is not conscientiousness but cowardice to shrink from acting on their opinions, and allow doctrines which they honestly think dangerous to the welfare of mankind, either in this life or in another, to be scattered abroad without restraint, because other people, in less enlightened times, have persecuted opinions now believed to be true.

[Anonymous No.15277319]

>>15277310
Let us take care, it may be said, not to make the same mistake: but governments and nations have made mistakes in other things, which are not denied to be fit subjects for the exercise of authority: they have laid on bad taxes, made unjust wars. Ought we therefore to lay on no taxes, and, under whatever provocation, make no wars? Men, and governments, must act to the best of their ability. There is no such thing as absolute certainty, but there is assurance sufficient for the purposes of human life. We may, and must, assume our opinion to be true for the guidance of our own conduct: and it is assuming no more when we forbid bad men to pervert society by the propagation of opinions which we regard as false and pernicious.

I answer, that it is assuming very much more. There is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true, because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation. Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion, is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right.

[Anonymous No.15277321]

>>15277237
They should be. And made available only to those willing to destroy the ideas before they ever made their way into the popular mind.

[Anonymous No.15277338]

>>15277290
"Book burnings" logically extend to "internet censorship" for the modern age

[Anonymous No.15277339]

>>15277310
>many opinions, now general, will be rejected by future ages

Is it bad that I am a leftist who supports all this trans stuff but also thinks we will look back on it as a total absurdity? I just want to support my friends....but sometimes I have to take a step back and I see how silly it seems. Sometimes I wonder if I'm just too afraid of alienating or potentially losing my friends to admit that I have doubts about the trans stuff.

[Anonymous No.15277343]

>>15277237
Burning books is treating the symptoms but not the disease. If there is problem in your society, books and subversion are a symptom of this problem. Not it's source.

[Anonymous No.15277346]

>>15277237
>believing in the state
you cucked yourself

[Anonymous No.15277371]

>>15277338
I agree but internet censorship is only effective to an extent. For example, you can still buy or read books Amazon bans on dissident websites. The first type of book burning substitute I talked about, ensuring that people simply don't want to read (or are aware of) the books in the first place seems like the most effective method of "burning" books today. Think about how few people watch silent films these days, especially racist ones. 100 years from now, it will be the same way with the films of today, especially the pozzed ones.

[Anonymous No.15277374]

Book burning was always a symbolic act of rejecting ideologies that were considered harmful, dangerous or revolting. It's not about physically getting rid of literally every book in existence.

[Anonymous No.15277385]

>>15277346
You can't have a functioning society without a state. Anarchism, whether ancap, ancom, or mutualist, is a pipedream. Accept that the state is a tool of oppression and then accept that oppression is to some extent necessary. Then use the state to reshape society as you see fit. Rejecting state power is a loser's strategy. This is one of the big reasons why conservatism is so impotent.

[Anonymous No.15277394]

>>15277374
A person or group who wishes to seriously improve their society can do better than symbolic acts that are a waste if time. Why burn a book when you can burn the authors?

[Anonymous No.15278205]

>>15277237
Insofar as a state is behind burnings, books that subvert it are the ones most worth saving from the flames.
>>15277385
Good states are modeled after a benign parental style, and are consciously designed to oppress the oppressive. This is a distinction that anarchists, in leaving the door of law open to thugs, are curiously oblivious to. They have a kind of magical thinking when it comes to consent, a deus ex machina of Karma that spontaneously and invisibly intervenes, as if poetic justice were the rule rather than the exception.

[Anonymous No.15278213]

>>15277237
>conflating state and nation

Maybe you should read more books?

[Anonymous No.15278228]

>>15277371
>you can still buy or read books Amazon bans on dissident websites.
amazon is a powerful and influential retailer but does not have the power to "ban" anything except from itself. they can refuse to stock an item, which makes it less visible to the public, but it can still be stocked by other retailers, which are not necessarily "dissident" websites.

[Anonymous No.15278246]

>>15277290

[Anonymous No.15278252]

>>15277237
once they're uploaded online, nothing can delete them from existence. internet as it is now is a vaccine against censorship.
let the normies be censored in their anally moderated sites, you know where to look for the forbidden.

[Anonymous No.15278256]

>>15277339
>Is it bad that I am a leftist who supports all this trans stuff but also thinks we will look back on it as a total absurdity?
What's wrong with that?
>I just want to support my friends....but sometimes I have to take a step back and I see how silly it seems. Sometimes I wonder if I'm just too afraid of alienating or potentially losing my friends to admit that I have doubts about the trans stuff.
You don't have to tell them what you think, you know. I have trans friends, and I've had trans sexual partners. I never tell them what I think, because it's not important. I also go out of my way to call them what they want to be called.

What you think internally doesn't have to be expressed to everyone, nor does it have to be acted out unkindly. You can support them without doing and saying things that you don't believe. It's up to you to figure out where that line is.

[Anonymous No.15278264]

>be a right-winger
>get banned from every possible media outlet and social network
>get doxxed and fired from your job
>try to make a living by selling books, get banned from Amazon, Paypal and Visa
>"Theoretically, I see no problem with censorship. If we were in power, we would show them all!"

[Anonymous No.15278274]

>>15278264
lel this nigga gets it. the fashy pol niggas in favor of strict censorship must have a severe case of bootlicker's stlckholm syndrom if they dont see how their opinion is retarded.
today the silence everyone you dislike, tomorrow it's like you never existed. can't trust the state.

[Anonymous No.15278275]

>>15277237
>there's an objective criteria you can use to parse subversive and nonsubversive literature
>undermining the power of the state and sowing discontent in the masses is a bad thing

[Anonymous No.15278291]

>>15278264
nick said it best

https://www.bitchute.com/video/ITRK5m4FCQnq/

[Anonymous No.15278339]

>>15278291
> libertarians are people who think they are already free
> if they support fag marriage and non-retarded drug law, they're gay stoners
> "we're slaves, get over it!"
> no american has ever used his guns against muggers, rapists or intruders
> niggers and trannies are the real enemy!!1 totally not the state that makes them hostile and influental
i dont know who he is but he's retarded

[Anonymous No.15278449]

>>15278339
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnrFisOsH1Q
watch this, he clarifies his position on libertarians

[Anonymous No.15279423]

>>15278449
why would i watch it? this 2min clip above was enough to convince me he's a braindead polfaggot who thinks he's funny.

[Anonymous No.15279430]

1. Streishand effect
2. you're a faggot with a meme tier ideology

[Anonymous No.15279517]

>>15279430
>1. Streishand effect
great point. many books became well-known because their ban was public.

[Anonymous No.15280362]

>>15277237
Little known fact: what they are burning there are not books but the archives of the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, the laboratory of horrors where transexualism was invented by the Jew Magnus Hirschfeld. This bonfire set back the tranny agenda by decades. Good riddance!

[Anonymous No.15280612]

>>15279423
you will never be a real woman

[Anonymous No.15280619]

>>15278264
>>15278274
>Having my opinions censored is the same as censoring my enemies.
I'd say it's pretty obvious that opposing censorship when you are weak and supporting it when you are strong is the most pragmatic stance on the subject.

[Anonymous No.15280712]

>>15277237
Don't confuse the interests of the State with those of the Nation.

From the point of view of the leaders of a State or its beneficiaries, book burning and its equivalents are useful tools of thought control and should be used as much as possible while accounting for public opinion.

On the other hand, if you don't benefit from the well-being of the current régime, or you don't trust its present or potential future leaders, censorship should be opposed.

[Anonymous No.15281614]

this isn't a fascist board, we're lefties here. zoomer groypers fuck off back to /pol/

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.15281682]

Nations should not be secure
Nations are dangerous and only cause insecurity