/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16075329]

>"Hegel introduced Evil into the Trinity with his dialectic in order to justify sleeping with his chambermaid"
>look it up
>he's right
>"the jewish spirit, due to their rejection of the Logos, is subversive and seeks to manipulate host-nations through libidinal domination while financing and instigating revolutionary sentiments that are hostile to order and reason"
>look it up
>he's right
>"academia is bankrolled by powerful jewish institutions"
>look it up
>he's right
>"Catholicism and Thomism offer the only viable system of axiomatically grounded ontology"
>look it up
>he's right
>"Goethe's mephistopheles was based on Hegel because Goethe intuited the sinister nature of Hegel's system"
>look it up
>he's right
>"sex is very bad"
>look it up
>he's right once again
has anyone ever been more right than this man? we're talking thousands and thousands of pages that are just him being right about one thing after another.

[Anonymous No.16075336]

>>16075329
take your meds

[Anonymous No.16075346]

>christfag
>right
Does not compute.
The fact that he's right about the Jews is just the broken clock thing.

[Anonymous No.16075356]

>>16075329
EMJ freaks me out. Sometimes I think he's just a schizo and sometimes I think he is plugged into the Source like no other nigga.

[Anonymous No.16075364]

>>16075329
Uh, physiognomy check? Not listening to some lanky skeleton about the affairs of men.

[Anonymous No.16075369]

>"Catholicism and Thomism offer the only viable system of axiomatically grounded ontology"
>look it up
>he's right

I'm convinced. redpill me.

[Anonymous No.16075380]

>>16075329
Right about Jews, wrong about everything else.
Catholics are spiritual Jews themselves.

[Anonymous No.16075382]

>>16075329
EMJ is not hardcore enough for me
Bishop Williamson is far superior
Even Taylor Marshall is way better than the Bill Nye lookalike

[Anonymous No.16075398]

>>16075329
hes a joke among catholic circles

[Anonymous No.16075428]

>>16075382
Just watched an interview where he and a bishop fretted about all the particles of Jesus that people are dropping on the floor and what this means for God's wrath. This is the final consequence of taking religion seriously.

[Anonymous No.16075431]

>>16075329
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/E._Michael_Jones

[Anonymous No.16075475]

>>16075329
BASED

[Anonymous No.16075480]

>>16075398
they hate him cause they ain't him

[Anonymous No.16075541]

>A 1300-page self-published book that is held in a grand total of seven libraries counts for roughly nothing in evaluating notability.
Oof
No wonder you faggots read utter nonsense unironically.

[Anonymous No.16075554]

>>16075329
>still seething about hegel
stay worked ya marks

[Anonymous No.16075586]

>>16075369
It's a personal thesis of mine that all modern terminology has been crafted for the explicit purpose of being deconstructed. In other words, Deconstructionism has necessarily moved passed its initial, purely negative phase of merely deconstructing prexisting concepts and systems to now assuming a positive motion in constructing its own. But because it still takes the (contradictory) absolute of Deconstruction's validity, it preemptively ensures that these new terms and relativistic concepts that will be introduced can be deconstructed. It was something I noticed in the language of the papers of my professors who were unapologetic in their embrace of such techniques. This allows for the reign of socio-political/technological/capitalist agents who cut through this Gordian knot of linguistic short-circuits and positive feedback loops since such ideologies function by purely operational validity and calculative thinking and do not require authentic understanding of what they presuppose. the perfect little angloid technocrat can manipulate the terminology and process, which they can't do with say, German Idealism

As a result, almost ALL ideas and "systems" which we encounter today have this capacity for being deconstructed and subverted hardcoded into them due to their lack of genuine axioms and can be viewed as so many exhaust valves for the good little managerial academics and subsequently the public to waste their efforts on. They possess no traction, instead only a built-in planned obsolescence. In the mean time it also allows all things to be reduced to mere convention, in which case capitalist and idpol agents will once again come to dominate and determine all discourse. In other words--all ontology and values become reflexive and the sole active component is the Political. Political hegemony is the goal. And we see this especially over the last few months.

But if we reexamine the axiomatic view, which resists such banal influences, we come to find a sort of perennial necessity that spawns variations according to time and culture but which are essential compatible. This is Aristotelian ontology reclaimed. And even figures like Graham Oppy, who is a Naturalist and a Nominalist, only ends up rejecting a full embrace of Aristotelian ontology due to a rather tenuous acceptance of ontology terminating in "brute contingency" of "unmoved particulars" which even he admits sound very Aristotelian. Thomas Nagel is an example of another secular figure who is shifting towards Aristotelian ontology, but does not want to admit the teleology of it (since it would necessitate theism)

the embrace of Axioms will eventually lead you to Aristotle. But since Aristotelian ontology cannot be hijacked so easily by capital, it has been made anathema. Or parodied to the point of sterility. Aristotle is anti-capital. Catholicism (Thomism) is perhaps one of the few authentic bastions of it left. (but I'm neither)

[Anonymous No.16075598]

>>16075329
>"sex is very bad"
>look it up
>he's right once again
my god

[Anonymous No.16075618]

>>16075364
This post only gets the replies of "based" you so crave when directed at people /pol/cels don't like

[Anonymous No.16075631]

>>16075618
It's funny that you think I don't know who I'm targeting.

[Anonymous No.16075635]

Half of these are not objective statements. How can you just say "I looked it up" as if you all you had to do is type it into Google "is sex bad" and it showed up as objectively true.

[Anonymous No.16075708]

>>16075329
>tfw phisiognomy was right once again

[Anonymous No.16075720]

>>16075586
this is actually super interesting anon and have noticed the same, or similar thing. i understood the premise the professor was trying to put forth, but its innate construct seemed to be one that was meant to be, while still somehow being concrete, a strawman to preform a deconstruction upon. i could understand it as a particular lense of view, but it in itself as an arguement was hopelessly strung on by a specific paradigm of thought that is just as arbitrary as another and only gains credence because it is supported by a deconstruction of a “strawmanned” “norm” thars not all together a “norm” either.

i think reading actual historical texts really put this in perspective as the paradigms of thoughr, the core epistemological disimilarities and similarities became easier to recognize from a meta perspective. core implicit but often vague and not as concrete comming into picture. using these as eefrence it felt like these moderns are intentionally using wordgames in order to promote a continued directed deconstruction that was for all intents and purposes a construction in itself, instead of honestly trying to communicare a coherent thought or idea.

[Anonymous No.16075730]

>>16075631
>I was just pretending to be retarded