ITT: Correct about everything

[Anonymous No.18714033]

ITT: Post thinkers who were correct about LITERALLY everything.
Post your favorite works and quotes
>Democratic nations are at all times fond of equality, but there are certain epochs at which the passion they entertain for it swells to the height of fury. This occurs at the moment when the old social system, long menaced, is overthrown after a severe internal struggle, and the barriers of rank are at length thrown down. At such times men pounce upon equality as their booty, and they cling to it as to some precious treasure which they fear to lose. The passion for equality penetrates on every side into men's hearts, expands there, and fills them entirely. Tell them not that by this blind surrender of themselves to an exclusive passion they risk their dearest interests; they are deaf. Show them not freedom escaping from their grasp while they are looking another way; they are blind, or rather they can discern but one object to be desired in the universe.

[Anonymous No.18714042]

>>18714033
start with the greeks

[Anonymous No.18714048]

>>18714042
not OP but Plato was getting thigh fucked by Socrates lets be real here

[Anonymous No.18714055]

i wonder how many people Socrates butchered during the wars

[Anonymous No.18714068]

>>18714048
Not really, Alcibiades however...

[Anonymous No.18714085]

Schmitt

[Anonymous No.18714202]

>tocqueville
Yep it's quote time.

[Anonymous No.18714213]

[Anonymous No.18714233]

>If one does not believe in God, the only honest alternative is vulgar utilitarianism.
The rest is rhetoric.

[Anonymous No.18714249]

>>18714233
>Davila
Based. Only correct answer

[Anonymous No.18714260]

>>18714249
>>18714233
he was literally tradcath twitter before twitter

[Anonymous No.18714307]

>>18714033
No one. Wittgenstein more than anyone else, though, and only in his later work.

[Anonymous No.18714315]

>>18714249

Typical self-serving elitist drivel.

[Anonymous No.18714327]

>>18714315
cringe

[Anonymous No.18714337]

[Anonymous No.18714395]

>>18714033
Who said this?

[Anonymous No.18714405]

>>18714395
If I am to assume the accompanying pic is related, then...

[Anonymous No.18714430]

Spengler
>If by "democracy" we mean the form which the Third Estate as such wishes to impart to public life as a whole, it must be concluded that democracy and plutocracy are the same thing under the two aspects of wish and actuality, theory and practice, knowing and doing. It is the tragic comedy of the world‑improvers' and freedom‑teachers' desperate fight against money that they are ipso facto assisting money to be effective. Respect for the big number—expressed in the principles of equality for all, natural rights, and universal suffrage—is just as much a class‑ideal of the unclassed as freedom of public opinion (and more particularly freedom of the press) is so. These are ideals, but in actuality the freedom of public opinion involves the preparation of public opinion, which costs money; and the freedom of the press brings with it the question of possession of the press, which again is a matter of money; and with the franchise comes electioneering, in which he who pays the piper calls the tune. The representatives of the ideas look at one side only, while the representatives of money operate with the other. The concepts of Liberalism and Socialism are set in effective motion only by money. … the Jacobins had destroyed the old obligations of the blood and so had emancipated money; now it stepped forward as lord of the land. There is no proletarian, not even a Communist movement, that has not operated in the interests of money, in the directions indicated by money, and for the time being permitted by money—and that without the idealists among its leaders having the slightest suspicion of the fact. The great movement which makes use of the catchwords of Marx has not delivered the entrepreneur into the power of the worker, but both into that of the Bourse.

[Anonymous No.18714443]

>>18714033
>>18714202
>>18714085
>>18714213
>tocqueville
>schmitt
>junger
Yep it's quote time.

[Anonymous No.18714671]

>>18714443
Is jungerfag the new guenonfag?

[Anonymous No.18715152]

>>18714033
COMING THROUGH, FAGGOTS
ONE SIDE

[Anonymous No.18716175]

What do you guys think of Burke

>Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, — in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity,—in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption,—in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.

[Anonymous No.18717536]

Based Tocqueville.

[Anonymous No.18717541]

democracy is just the veneer for privatization

[Anonymous No.18718742]

>>18716175
He's based

[Anonymous No.18719761]

>>18714430
He's wrong here though.

[Anonymous No.18720061]

>>18714033
Tocqueville poster can literally NOT BE STOPPED

[Anonymous No.18720137]

>>18714068
Why would such a beautiful young man from such an aristocratic family with a future in Athenian politics want to be thigh-fucked by an ugly, smelly hippie vagrant? Just because he's good at arguing and he saved his life one time? Something doesn't add up here.

[Anonymous No.18720179]

>>18714443
Wait is tocquevillefag jungerfag?

[Anonymous No.18720268]

>>18714033
Leo Strauss.

[Anonymous No.18720357]

>>18716175

Here he indiscriminately praises good and bad qualities. And then, appetite is trivial but will is often good and exceptional. Therefore the goodness or badness of society seems mixed

[Anonymous No.18720790]

Moldbug

[Anonymous No.18720804]

>>18714033
Obviously.

[Anonymous No.18720844]

>>18720790
>atheist jew
That's two strikes

[Anonymous No.18720876]

>>18720061
Not my thread.

[Anonymous No.18720923]

Something that stuck with me with tocqueville was very early In DIA about how American aboriginals were without exception polite and generous in due to the primitive lack of inequality and subordinate qualities in their life. Never thought of it that way.

[Anonymous No.18720947]

>>18714085
>>18714249
Based

[Anonymous No.18720955]

>>18714033
>a fucking frog
>correct about anything
French frogs are subhuman garbage. That state of filth had never once produced a single useful or respectable work. Frogs are and have always been the scum of the earth. No frogman had ever made any insight of worth, nor cobbled together a string of words with value by even the most subjective of measurements. If you are a frog, kill yourself. If you are not a frog, and above the age of 18, kill yourself. If however you are not a frog and are not above the age of 18, cease consuming their pus immediately, and wash your mind of it thoroughly/

[Anonymous No.18720981]

>>18714033
My copy of Democracy in America has this picture on the cover but it's blown up and pixelated to hell lmao

[Anonymous No.18720993]

Also who should play him In the biopic ?

[Anonymous No.18721029]

>>18714307
This pretty much.

[Anonymous No.18721030]

>>18720955
>Properly speaking, therefore, Americans still have no literature. The only recognizably American authors I know are journalists. They are not great writers, but they speak the country’s language and make themselves heard. The rest strike me simply as foreigners. To Americans they are what the imitators of the Greeks and Romans were to us during the renaissance of letters: an object of curiosity rather than of general sympathy. They divert the mind and have no effect on mores.

[Anonymous No.18721095]

>>18714033
Peter Thiel
>What important truth do very few people agree with you on?
>Brilliant thinking is rare, but courage is in even shorter supply than genius.
>The best projects are likely to be overlooked, not trumpeted by a crowd; the best problems to work on are often the ones nobody else even tries to solve.
>Technology is the alternative to politics.

If politics and its society determines your worldview, you are its dog.
The unreasonable man forces the universe into his hands...
I believe Aristotle said it is best, which probably best describes Thiel's world view in a sentence better than I can: "He who is unable to live in society or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a God."

[Anonymous No.18721321]

"Man's destructive hand spares nothing that lives; he kills to feed himself, he kills to clothe himself, he kills to adorn himself, he kills to attack, he kills to defend himself, he kills to instruct himself, he kills to amuse himself, he kills for the sake of killing. Proud and terrible king, he wants everything and nothing resists him... from the lamb he tears its guts and makes his harp resound... from the wolf his most deadly tooth to polish his pretty works of art; from the elephant his tusks to make a toy for his child - his table is covered with corpses... And who [in this general carnage] will exterminate him who exterminates all others? Himself. It is man who is charged with the slaughter of man... So it is accomplished... the great law of the violent destruction of living creatures. The whole earth, perpetually steeped in blood, is nothing but a vast altar upon which all that is living must be sacrificed without end, without measure, without pause, until the consummation of things, until evil is extinct, until the death of death."
Josef de Maistre

[Anonymous No.18721383]

>>18721095
>Thiel
Kys

[Anonymous No.18721385]

>>18714033

[Anonymous No.18722145]

>>18714327

Again, the exact same wrongheaded projection of hierarchy in the present life into the afterlife, as if it were even desirable that it should be so.

It's exactly the other way round. What makes existence tolerable is that in the end everyone is reduced to the exact same one undifferentiated nothing, that Jeffery Dahmer and Jesus Christ are now both equal, where it really counts. That every rich asshole, every homeless piece of And you, we, will all join them both soon, as they are both together in the exact same one place, which is neither heaven, nor hell, but infinitely superior to both.

A better aphorism, attributed to the Italians: "At the end of the day, the king and the pawn go back in the same box."

[Anonymous No.18722262]

>>18714033
how this man is not /ourguy/ and been posted over and over in this thread is beyond me.
>life's default is pain and happiness is the temporary escape from pain
>the only thing really and truly worth pursuing is aesthetics
>women are bullshit

[Anonymous No.18722278]

[Anonymous No.18722497]

>>18721030
So, what? In essence, proper intellectuals aren't properly American, but following a European tradition ignored by most of the country?

[Anonymous No.18722540]

>I should have liked to be able to say with Montaigne, Man fools himself, for this is exactly right. It is quite true: man fools himself; he is his own dupe; he takes the sophisms of his naturally rebellious heart (alas, nothing is more certain) for real doubts born of his understanding. If occasionally superstition believes in belief, as it is accused of, more often still, you can be sure, pride believes in disbelief. In both cases, man fools himself, but in the second this is much worse.

[Anonymous No.18722565]

>>18722262
Buddha is literally the chad to the virgin Schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.18722654]

>>18722540
What a midwit.

[Anonymous No.18722662]

>>18720137
because Socrates was the only one that stayed around, all the other suitors couldn't handle Alcibiades' 12 incher like Socrates could

[Anonymous No.18722970]

>>18722565

Flight from the world is not "Chad". The whole point of Chad as an archetype is that he is already comfortable in this world and has mastery over it, and has no need to make a coping mechanism. Nietzsche understood this.

[Anonymous No.18722979]

>>18722970
Retard. The Chad meme was ironic because they are basically just the virgin but female

[Anonymous No.18723001]

>>18720137
Read The Symposium

[Anonymous No.18723004]

>>18722654
Smarter than Rosseau, Montaigne, Locke, etc., although that isn't even saying much.

[Anonymous No.18723011]

>>18722970
>The whole point of Chad as an archetype is that he is already comfortable in this world and has mastery over it
You just described Buddha, the opposite of Schopenhauer. There's a reason Buddha is called a wheel-turning monarch, King of the Four Quarters and the Roaring Lion.

[Anonymous No.18723197]

>>18723011

No I didn't, because fat-faced weird-eared Buddha advocates reflective flight from the world. this has nothing to do with pic related, the western, unreflective archetype of a guy with good facial structure WHO NEVER NEEDED TO THINK THOUGHTS OR STUPIDLY STARVE HIMSELF UNDER A TREE FOR NO REASON IN THE FIRST PLACE. He was already handsome. He was already whole, unto himself. The Western Chad archetype is a dumber and happier organism than both the Buddha and Schopenhauer.

The reason why I don't care to engage in your comparision to Schopenhauer at all is ismply because you used the word "chad" to describe the Buddha. As I've satisfactorily explained, this latter comparison is unsatisfyinjg, not matter how many weird beta appelations you care to toss out about your buddha.

[Anonymous No.18723202]

>>18723197
You should probably read original Buddhist texts before thinking you know anything about it. Nietzsche and Schopenhauer were both uninformed on it.
>As I've satisfactorily explained,
You didn't explain anything, you just gave unsourced opinions, which are all wrong.
>He was already handsome. He was already whole, unto himself.
In other words, Buddha.

[Anonymous No.18723223]

>>18723202

Buddha advocated flight from the world. This is not "Chad", it's an Eastern cowardly worldview. You have mistaken my posts as being primarily informed by Nietzsche and Schopy on this point, for no other reason than that those are the two other guys named up to this point.

It is possible to give a reasonable, contexual argument without sources. I did that, but you're too simple to read.

The Buddha is uniformly and objectively ugly in all visual depictions of his person, as in the the picture posted earlier. I reasonably assume that was your choice.

You're 0/0 here, on all grounds. Please discern, please learn to read, for god's sake.

[Anonymous No.18723905]

>>18714213
Based

[Anonymous No.18723918]

GK Chesterton

[Anonymous No.18723941]

>She looked as if she had been poured into her clothes and had forgotten to say 'when.'

[Anonymous No.18724698]

>>18723004
Doubt