/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19415316]

*teleports behind you*
*destroys Western civilization*
nothing personal, kid

[Anonymous No.19415320]

What are you talking about? Things are just fine.

[Anonymous No.19415336]

>>19415320
>(((What are you talking about? Things are just fine.)))

[Anonymous No.19415347]

>>19415316
Nietzsche wishes he was that influential. Replace him with Darwin or something

[Anonymous No.19415350]

>>19415336
[boo]boogeyman[/boo]

[Anonymous No.19415491]

>>19415316
*saves

[Anonymous No.19415498]

>>19415316
All three warned us about the Jews, but we didn't listen.

[Anonymous No.19415502]

>Three of the greatest do-nothings
>Totally contributed to anything

[Anonymous No.19415505]

>>19415316
>MR. BARZUN is a historian who is especially interested in the political effects of theories of race and class conflicts. He has already published works on “The French Race”(1932), “Race: A Study in Modern Superstition”(1937), and “Human Freedom”(1939). His researches have convinced him that the terrible predicament in which mankind now finds itself is mainly the result of the influence of certain ideas set in motion by three men in the second half of the nineteenth century-including under 'influence' also reactions against them. The three thinkers in question were Darwin, Marx and Wagner. At first sight this may seem a curious combination. The author may appear to have been impressed unduly by his observation that it was in the same year (1859) that Darwin published “The Origin of Species”, Marx his “Critique of Political Economy”, and Wagner completed “Tristan and Isolde”. Whether this was or was not a mere coincidence, Mr. Barzun makes out a plausible case for his view that, in spite of their obvious differences, the three authors expressed and popularized one and the same philosophy, namely, that of mechanistic materialism. Darwin did so in the field of natural science, Marx in that of sociology, Wagner in that of art.

[Anonymous No.19415552]

>>19415505
>dialectic of political economy
>mechanistic
F I L T E R E D

[Anonymous No.19415769]

>>19415316
It was already destroyed long before them.

[Anonymous No.19415778]

>>19415498
Two of them were literally Jews and the third one was a philosemite

[Anonymous No.19415780]

>>19415505
>His researches have convinced him that the terrible predicament in which mankind now finds itself is mainly the result of the influence of certain ideas set in motion by three men in the second half of the nineteenth century-
Peak idealism. Of course, the Capitalistic mode of production is totally not the problem. It's three men.

[Anonymous No.19415786]

>>19415316
It's western civilization's fault for being neurotic, capitalist, and slave moralist.

[Anonymous No.19415793]

>>19415778
Marx literally wasn't a jew. Except if you consider being converted at 6 years old to christianity, and writing a literal book criticizing judaism (on the jewish question), as well as being blatantly anti-judaic in the new york daily tribune, is being a JEW.

[Anonymous No.19415801]

*teleports in front of you*
*saves western civilization*
Nothing personel, kid

[Anonymous No.19415818]

>>19415793
Being a Jew makes one a Jew. Marx was a Jew.

QED

[Anonymous No.19415825]

>>19415786
kek

[Anonymous No.19416647]

>>19415316
Nietzsche is the only one who is still relevant.

[Anonymous No.19416661]

>>19415793
Jew doesn't mean religious Jew, many religious Jews are good people

What Jew means colloquially is evil secular "cultural Jew" aka Ashkenazi aka Khazar aka Hollywood child molester who hates Christian whites but for some reason wants to live among them for all eternity

[Anonymous No.19416675]

the funny thing about every complaint along the lines of "x deconstructionist philosopher destroyed western civilisation!" is that what makes western thought unique is that it is self-critical and indeed that is the characteristic that allowed it to dominate the world

[Anonymous No.19416676]

>>19415316
None of those are Martin Luther.

[Anonymous No.19416688]

>>19415793
>he wasn't a Jew!
>his behavior is so Unjewish!
>I mean he invented communism for god's sake
lol

[Anonymous No.19416700]

>>19416647
is he even relevant in today? aside from picrel of course.

[Anonymous No.19416733]

>>19415793
jew is an ethnicity dumbass

[Anonymous No.19416749]

>>19416700
he is.

[Anonymous No.19416802]

>>19415498
Nietzche criticised anti semites tho

[Anonymous No.19417008]

>>19416661
>What Jew means colloquially is evil secular "cultural Jew" aka Ashkenazi aka Khazar aka Hollywood child molester who hates Christian whites but for some reason wants to live among them for all eternity
And that's exactly this cultural jew, that Marx wants to abolish. You should know this, had you read On the jewish question (Karl Marx, 1844). You can do it, it's only around one hundred pages.

[Anonymous No.19417089]

>>19415786
This is actually true.

[Anonymous No.19417518]

>>19415793
marx was the right kind of jew the kind that hates jews and understand why they must be hated better than most goys it is true some jews don't consider him jewish tho

[Anonymous No.19417526]

>>19415347
Darwin and his made up basedvolution theory has unironically damaged society beyond repair

[Anonymous No.19417659]

>>19417008
Yes, I have read On the Jewish Question, I read it in Tucker's Marx-Engels reader a dozen times back in the day. The Marx of On the Jewish Question is still the proto-communist "liberal" Marx of the early 1840s pushing the bourgeois critique of the Young Hegelians to its limits under the influence of Feuerbach, but he had only just arrived in Paris and begun to collaborate with Ruge, only incipiently under the influence of Hess' socialism, so he wasn't yet fully embroiled in the social movement as a radical alternative to German "idealism" (now becoming stagnant and conservative under figures like Bauer) as a progressive programme. It's rightfully considered one of the first texts to really demonstrate Marx's characteristic "materialism."

Marx doesn't want to abolish the cultural Jew, he wants to abolish the conditions that make the cultural Jew possible, those conditions being alienation and mystification, at this point understood along Feuerbachian lines. Like I said, Marx's thought was only beginning to fuse with the socialist critiques of bourgeois society and political economy he began to encounter through Hess, Engels, and in Paris and Belgium. At this point his "materialism" is still not quite "historical."

Marx had only ever been a German national by circumstance, he was no great nationalist or Herderian, he was a liberal enlightened radical Berlin Jew. His father was more of a good citizen than he was, an assimilated Jew who fought hard for his right to integrate into Prussian society. Marx was more like Heinrich Heine, taking the European nationalities for granted as backdrops to the great international project of enlightenment. Heine hung out with the Rothschilds by the way.

Marx in On the Jewish Question is critical of petty proto-Zionism, religious Judaism, and of the acquisitive "huckstering" of deracinated bourgeois Jews, insofar as he is critical of deracinated bourgeois acquisitiveness in general. But this criticism is not rooted in any Herderian respect for nationality, German or otherwise. Marx didn't love Germany despite appreciating its culture. He had no feeling for nations as natural entities or organisms. All that was mystification for him. As an atheist Jew he felt naturally entitled to shape and reshape European societies to match his vision of secular enlightenment. That is a far more typically Jewish outlook than his disdain for proto-Zionism.

[Anonymous No.19417666]

>>19415316
You mean eastern

[Anonymous No.19418478]

>>19416688
Why would a jew invent a system that would destroy money and private property?

[Anonymous No.19418483]

>>19417526
It makes a lot of sense though

[Anonymous No.19419244]

>>19415320
It's so obvious I shouldn't have to explain it to you. I hear about other people having premarital sex all the time but I can't even get a qt trad wife. People like you insist everything is fine when there are NIGGERS out there doing crimes and smoking drugs. These are problems unique to modernity and are a clear indicator Western civilization is collapsing.

[Anonymous No.19419264]

>>19419244
"qt trad wife" lmao

[Anonymous No.19419270]

>>19415316
>Thinks these thinkers caused the crisis of modernity merely because they addressed it in their work
ngmi

[Anonymous No.19419277]

>>19415316
Why Freud?

[Anonymous No.19419285]

>>19415552
Physics isn't materialistic but you can limit it enough to popularize materialism.

[Anonymous No.19419406]

>>19416675
Based and faustian-pilled.

[Anonymous No.19419508]

>>19417526
i mean you can literally look at natural selection working in near real time but hey yeah its made up lmao

[Anonymous No.19419641]

>>19418478
B/c that's what the jew wants you to think, in reality it concentrated those things and power in jewish hands. Who do you think the Soviet elite were?

[Anonymous No.19419716]

>>19416700

Cope harder. Peterson is the most influential Nietzschean out there.

[Anonymous No.19419733]

>>19415347
>Darwin
Nah Darwin was a quirk.

The real "destroyed western civilization" should be Freud, Marx, and Newton.

[Anonymous No.19419747]

>>19417659
>But this criticism is not rooted in any Herderian respect for nationality, German or otherwise. Marx didn't love Germany despite appreciating its culture. He had no feeling for nations as natural entities or organisms. All that was mystification for him. As an atheist Jew he felt naturally entitled to shape and reshape European societies to match his vision of secular enlightenment. That is a far more typically Jewish outlook than his disdain for proto-Zionism.
Engels felt the same

[Anonymous No.19419750]

>>19419641
Russians?

[Anonymous No.19419753]

>>19417659
>Marx wasn't real Marxism

[Anonymous No.19419754]

>>19419716
kek

[Anonymous No.19419756]

>>19416733
This isn't the real criticism of Judaism via Martin Luther though. Their doctrine is what is evil, not blood alone.

[Anonymous No.19419781]

>>19419750
From 1917 to the mid 30s almost all of the Soviet elite were Jewish, you can look it up.

[Anonymous No.19419789]

>>19419244
>qt trad wife
>niggers all caps
take your pills

[Anonymous No.19419936]

>>19419781
Deboonked.

[Anonymous No.19420444]

>>19417666
this, also based trips of untruth

[Anonymous No.19420456]

>>19419936
Cope, deboonker

[Anonymous No.19420741]

>>19419244
This is not unique to modernity, there have always been losers like you and there always will. Now lay down and die for me

[Anonymous No.19421094]

>>19419244
> Bait this apparent
> Commie retards itt took it

[Anonymous No.19421103]

>>19415316
Those aren't Anglos

[Anonymous No.19421106]

>>19415793
Jews are a race, retard.

[Anonymous No.19421231]

>>19416700
>Jordan peterson is Nietzschean
Has the bar really fallen this fucking low?

[Anonymous No.19421263]

>>19415316
>3 men who agree on nearly nothing with one another, all of which have had a minuscule impact in the West at best save mayyybe for Freud indirectly
Yeah, no.

[Anonymous No.19421275]

>>19419716
Very stale bait

[Anonymous No.19421830]

>>19421231
Calling anything you want Nietzschean is a very Nietzschean thing to do.

[Anonymous No.19422043]

>>19417659
>marx was a jew because he wasn't a nationalist

[Anonymous No.19422166]

>>19422043
>The question of the role of world Jewry is not a racial question, but the metaphysical question about the kind of humanity that, without any restraints, can take over the uprooting of all beings from being as its world-historical 'task.'
Martin Heidegger

>The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew.
>The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.
>Bourgeois society continuously brings forth the Jew from its own entrails.
Karl Marx

>Money is the god of our time, and Rothschild is his prophet.
Heinrich Heine

>Marx is a Jew and is surrounded by a crowd of little, more or less intelligent, scheming, agile, speculating Jews, just as Jews are everywhere, commercial and banking agents, writers, politicians, correspondents for newspapers of all shades; in short, literary brokers, just as they are financial brokers, with one foot in the bank and the other in the socialist movement, and their arses sitting upon the German press. They have grabbed hold of all newspapers, and you can imagine what a nauseating literature is the outcome of it.

>Now this entire Jewish world, which constitutes an exploiting sect, a people of leeches, a voracious parasite, Marx feels an instinctive inclination and a great respect for the Rothschilds. This may seem strange. What could there be in common between communism and high finance? Ho ho! The communism of Marx seeks a strong state centralization, and where this exists there must inevitably exist a state central bank, and where this exists, there the parasitic Jewish nation, which speculates upon the labor of the people, will always find the means for its existence.

>In reality, this would be for the proletariat a barrack regime, under which the workingmen and the working closely and intimately connected with one another, regarless not only of frontiers but of political differences as well - this Jewish world is today largely at the disposal of Marx or Rothschild. I am sure that, on the one hand, the Rothschilds appreciate the merits of Marx, and that on the other hand, women, converted into a uniform mass, would rise, fall asleep, work and live at the beat of the drum; the privilege of ruling would be in the hands of the skilled and the learned, with a wide scope left for profitable crooked deals carried on by the Jews, who would be attracted by the enormous extension of the international speculations of the national banks.
Mikhail Bakunin

[Anonymous No.19422180]

>>19419277
No one answered my question :/

[Anonymous No.19422183]

>>19415336
>(((>(((What are you talking about? Things are just fine.))))))

[Anonymous No.19422228]

>>19415316
I'm sitting in America right now watching UFC. The West seems fine to me. Maybe Euros imploded but we are fine.

[Anonymous No.19422252]

>>19422180
Putting Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud together is a reference to Ricoeur's designation of all three as the "school of suspicion," or founders of the "hermeneutics of suspicion."

Nietzsche taught that all truths can be genealogically traced to lies, that the highest symbols and values of a culture can always be traced back, not to rational discoveries of determinations, but to relations of power, force, etc., which are irrational in the last instance. Life proceeds truths about life. Life, power, vitality, is ultimately everything. Truths that don't serve life are just fetters. This is a very powerful tool if taken as a running assumption, and underlies a lot of postmodern analysis and critical theory for a reason, but it can also lead to nihilism and power worship.

Marx similarly reduced all mental contents, culture, values, etc., to "material" factors: for him, ultimately economic relations between producers, consumers, owners. The most that culture, the "ideal," can do is to correspond adequately to the material realities of production without mystifying them, e.g. by concentrating produced wealth in the hands of an owner class that structurally is not responsible or necessary for production. Everything else, everything, is just details in the war between the producer class and the owners. Everything that justifies or obfuscates the continued ownership of wealth by non-producers is ultimately propaganda, ideology. The "material" relations that are ultimately real for Marx are pre-rational, effectively irrational, in that they are "given" and cannot be questioned or altere dby rational thought. Rational thought can only reveal them and bring them into consciousness through dialectical criticism. This basic insight lies behind all influential Marxist frameworks, from Adorno's "negative" dialectics to vulgar and dogmatic "scientific Marxism."

Freud similarly reduced everything apparently rational to irrational, biological impulses. If for Marx all culture and rational thought are just various coping strategies for the brute, pre-rational givenness of the material relations, then for Freud they are coping strategies for brute impulses underlying human nature, equally "given" and inevitably in conflict with one another. The most we can do is prevent particularly bad tangles of conflicting drives from developing (neuroses) by therapeutically, i.e. dialectically, bringing these into consciousness through the intersubjective hermeneutic process of psychoanalysis. Freud was also very scientistic and naturalistic, viewing his theories as empirically confirmable and confirmed: the ultimate base of reality is primal irrational biological pre-rational drives, and the acme of "reason" is simply science which ferrets out these drives.

All three have in common the reduction of the rational to the pre-rational. Any time you think you've justified your values rationally, you're "REALLY just... (plug in preferred hermeneutics of suspicion here)."

[Anonymous No.19422266]

>>19422252
>Life proceeds truths about life.
Sorry, typo. Life precedes*

[Anonymous No.19422810]

>>19422166
if being a jew is being a capitalist then marx could never be a jew tho

[Anonymous No.19422916]

>>19419733
>Trinitarian cope
Never insult Shaykh Ishaq Newton in front of me ever again.

[Anonymous No.19423020]

>>19419733
What’s wrong with gravity?

[Anonymous No.19423288]

I want my age of reason back.