/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21602984]

What went wrong?

[Anonymous No.21603002]

>>21602984
Dude was a severe drug addict that went to a quack rehab in Russia that put him into a coma for several weeks. He couldn't walk or talk after waking up and had to go through large amounts of physical therapy to get back to "normal". His brain is fried at this point and he was an idiot even before the bad shit happened to him

[Anonymous No.21603040]

>>21602984
psychology as a profession has always been full of deranged crackpots with god complexes, never trust anyone who voluntarily enters that field

[Anonymous No.21603082]

>>21602984
canadian

[Anonymous No.21603108]

>>21602984
You're an evil rat.

[Anonymous No.21603143]

he was promoted by the powers that be when the alt right was gaining ground, he was always a neocon asshole meant to herd young white men into being neocons

[Anonymous No.21603145]

He became the very thing he tried so hard to prevent because he does not care about polarization. His only goal now is to prevent a nationalistic blood & soil movement arising organically in response to all the truly awful things happening in White countries.

The cherry on the cake though is the very thing he tried to stop happening that made him famous, mandatory language, has happened everywhere and progressed to the point where he no longer cares. Forget mandatory gender pronouns, we all know you will be fired for not using them in professional environments. What is worse is now we have child drag shows that he is suspiciously silent on and have now progressed to the point where his co-worker has made a documentary on what is woman.

Instead of trying to save his own people, his own nation, his own culture and his own heritage he has bowed down to Israel and the jewish interest in media, no doubt because he was told to do so by his new leash-holder, Shapiro.

[Anonymous No.21603162]

>>21603145
Amended to say he does not care about polarization beyond stopping people who are Far-Right coalescing around a shared identity. He does not care that the Left police their ranks and have presented a unified front in the US since the late 1950s and it is with this they have pushed for everything from gay marriage to child drag queen story hour. The only polarization he wishes to stop is that on the Right from growing restless for change. His only goal is to neutralize this Far-Right movement, that is it.

[Anonymous No.21603191]

>>21603108
Sully another site, you evil coward.

[Anonymous No.21603209]

>>21602984
He almost died from a benzo overdose and his brain was so fried when he came out that he basically sold out to Ben Shapiro and became a generic partisan boomer.

[Anonymous No.21603212]

>>21603145
>>21603162
Can't we just stop immigration without doing deranged shit like banning the works of Heinrich Heine and CS Lewis and amending Shakespeare's plays to get rid of 'demoralising' content? Like liquidating Kafka's family? They even banned the faithful National Socialist (and divine poet) Gottfried Benn from writing! Fascist regimes, in practice, have always been extraordinarily harmful to Western culture. Will a private citizen be allowed to read Ovid's Metamorphoses in a fascist society? Or will it be forbidden on grounds of 'degeneracy'? The Nazis publicly burned the Old fucking Testament! Tyranny is attractive in potentia but dull and moribund in its reality. I can think of nothing "traditional" about national socialism, it has no resemblance to the productive liberty and striving after excellence of antiquity or of the badly maligned Middle Ages. Socrates would not last a single day in the Third Reich. Nor for that matter would Goethe.

[Anonymous No.21603216]

>>21602984
Benzos and his slut daughter completely destroyed his mind. He himself doesn't even know what the fuck he's saying anymore, he has to be told what to say. He's just a shell of a human being who should be 100% ignored now.

[Anonymous No.21603295]

>>21603212
>Can't we just stop immigration without doing deranged shit like banning the works of Heinrich Heine and CS Lewis and amending Shakespeare's plays to get rid of 'demoralising' content?
We could once, but I think we're long past that point. We are now at the point where we can no longer say what a woman is. I think that is far more dangerous to society.

>Fascist regimes, in practice, have always been extraordinarily harmful to Western culture.
No regime has been able to inflict the systemic and wholesale destruction the last twenty years have had on the West. From demographic, to heritage, to culture all of it has been destroyed, some of it irreparably so. I do not want to know what happens in another twenty or thirty years where we will be further out numbered.

>Will a private citizen be allowed to read Ovid's Metamorphoses in a fascist society? Or will it be forbidden on grounds of 'degeneracy'?
Will a private citizen be able to eat meat or own anything in the future society we are in? One of these is far more dangerous that the other. But we seem oblivious to it as a collective.

>The Nazis publicly burned the Old fucking Testament!
Symbolically, many were culturally Christian, more so than the average man now. But I would rather every bible was burned and lost to us than head down the current path we are heading down.

>I can think of nothing "traditional" about national socialism
It is not traditional, it is the forging of new values. Only somebody who has not read anything about the subject, beyond crude detractions would think it was some sort of 'uber-traditional' world-view. It is not, it revolutionary in the same sense that Communism is and it is Socialism.

>it has no resemblance to the productive liberty and striving after excellence of antiquity or of the badly maligned Middle Ages.
Neither does the current society, nor any since the closure of the 1940s.

>Socrates would not last a single day in the Third Reich. Nor for that matter would Goethe.
Don't ever read any of the writings of the senior National-Socialists, their thinkers, their writers, their inspirations, their influences and more. They're all packed with quotes from many classical thinkers.

[Anonymous No.21603361]

>>21603295
I am aware that fascism is a self-consciously modernist ideology, but many anons here are attracted to it (and it cultivated links with the political right) on the basis of "traditionalist" aspersions. It is engaged in a double dialectical game of positing itself as a defender of Western civilisation while also committing itself to the project of tearing down the old edifice and replacing it with an entirely new morality and vision for human life. Personally, while elements of the fascist vision are attractive, in practice it has never succeeded in creating its "higher human types" (generally the most successful specimens in fascist societies are the craven and cowardly and unprincipled), and thus has no real mandate for abolishing all the other good elements of life, like liberty and free intellectual concourse.

It's strange you talk about meat consumption as some sort of sacred right, when one of the best attributes of the National Socialist regime was its hatred of the anthropocentric worldview and its concomitant protection of animal life. Hitler eventually planned to shut down all the abattoirs. It is not liberal democracy but fascism that, in reality, micromanages people's diet. Also it would be patently better to have no control over one's food consumption and retain intellectual freedom, than to be forbidden to read Ovid and retain the "right" to gorge oneself on whatever one chooses.

>Don't ever read any of the writings of the senior National-Socialists, their thinkers, their writers, their inspirations, their influences and more. They're all packed with quotes from many classical thinkers.
So? It doesn't change the fact that if Goethe or Socrates or even Frederick the Great lived under Hitler, it wouldn't take long for them to be liquidated. My charge is not that Nazis fail to appreciate high culture, but that they obliterate the preconditions for its flourishing. The Third Reich was basically artistically infertile. Under conservative Roman autocrats like Augustus, Ovid and Virgil and Horace were patronised and promoted. Under National Socialism they would probably be locked up and their works burned for promoting "Jewish degeneracy".

[Anonymous No.21603365]

>>21603295
And the best German philosopher of them all, Nietzsche, he certainly wouldn't be allowed to exist in Nazi Germany. He would be killed very quickly

[Anonymous No.21603371]

>>21602984
internet casualty. should either be dead or off the internet.

https://odysee.com/@Realfake_Newsource:9/RFNS-6.22-001-015:9

[Anonymous No.21603390]

>>21602984
He was a shill from the beginning. Only now has he gone fully mask off.

[Anonymous No.21603419]

>>21603361
>It is engaged in a double dialectical game of positing itself as a defender of Western civilization while also committing itself to the project of tearing down the old edifice and replacing it with an entirely new morality and vision for human life
That is what it professes, nobody who has read the literature thinks anything differently to this. This is not a dialectic in a new and meaningful sense anymore than every other culture that competes with another is a dialectic. What happens with Fascism, specifically National-Socialism is that you get the Hegelian synthesis presented, it is not a pleasant realization. There is no double dialectic, you have the Thesis Build-Savior, then the antithesis in ruin-destroy but then you have the resolution in Synthesis.

>Personally, while elements of the fascist vision are attractive, in practice it has never succeeded in creating its "higher human types"
I don't know what 'higher human types' means here, but all accounting and reading is quite obvious that they apply the means of natural selection to humanity, stop allowing the sickly and dying to reproduce at rates faster than the healthy. That is not creating higher human types that is preserving health. Furthermore, every single society has tried to create a better human, that is what we did until the last seventy years, wherein weakness, illness and stupidity were increasingly seen as virtues worth preserving.

>Hitler eventually planned to shut down all the abattoirs. It is not liberal democracy but fascism that, in reality, micromanages people's diet. Also it would be patently better to have no control over one's food consumption and retain intellectual freedom, than to be forbidden to read Ovid and retain the "right" to gorge oneself on whatever one chooses.
No thought is perfect and no world-view can not be improved and made better, much like your earlier point about 'making higher humans', this applies to thought. There is no perfect system, only improvements on the previous one. This is what people intentionally ignore when talking about this, it is not binary, good or bad. There are improvements to be made sequentially that result in greater and better results. Read Plutarch and his comments on Spartan eating habits, you should neither have the right to gorge ones self on goyslop, eating habits should reflect health and stability.

>So? It doesn't change the fact that if Goethe or Socrates or even Frederick the Great lived under Hitler, it wouldn't take long for them to be liquidated.
All evidence points to the opposite, all three are direct inspirations and mentioned in Mein Kampf and all sorts of literature. They would not have been despised and liquidated, likely they would of agreed with what was happening, like most intellectuals do. They go along with the power, always have and always will. This goes more so for proud, German intellectuals.

[Anonymous No.21603425]

>>21603361
>The Third Reich was basically artistically infertile. Under conservative Roman autocrats like Augustus, Ovid and Virgil and Horace were patronized and promoted.
That would imply that every rigid hierarchy would also impose likewise but this is not the case, ever. The only time this was true was in Marxism wherein they killed all the creative souls, all the creators and all the artists. This did not happen in National-Socialist Germany, they were free to produce what they would, provided it did not undermine the Volksgemeinschaft, and thus the Nation.

>Under National Socialism they would probably be locked up and their works burned for promoting "Jewish degeneracy".
Again, you are applying your own personalized view on what you think would happen when there is no evidence to support this. The often quoted meme applies here. Everybody in the last two thousands five hundred years of European history was a right-wing extremist, if they saw what was happening in this day, in this age, they would be violently mad. Under a National-Socialist state, they would be elevated and made central to the curriculum of the youth.

[Anonymous No.21603446]

>>21603212
>Can't we just stop immigration without doing
not really
liberal systems inherently lack the capacity to deal with such issues

[Anonymous No.21603451]

>>21603212
I'm far-right and the questions you're posing here haunt me too. I think we're at the point though that asking a question like
>Can't we just stop immigration
is silly because we're hundreds of years down the line with egalitarianism. Something that right-wingers should probably come to understand is that we and not our enemies are the rupture within Western history.
Back when postmodernism was the big thing people were raging against I watched a bunch of lectures by a leftist professor from the 90s (Rick Roderick I believe it was) engaging with that topic and responding to the criticisms of it coming from chuds like Bloom. He basically said that critical theorists, postmodernists, and the broader cultural "left" represent continuity with the Western tradition in the spirit of the greater forerunner to critical theory, Socrates. While that comparison might be silly under scrutiny it always stuck with me because it sure does seem like my side has been racking up Ls for a long time.
With that we come to the Natsoc question. The reason they were so radical and repressive is because as others itt have said they were not conservative but revolutionary. The type of people that, very much in line with socialists, declared a New Man and might have declared a new Year One down the line. A real total revolution, if Heine, Lewis, Shakespeare, Kafka, Socrates are against it then heap them on the pyre. That's the kind of spirit we're talking about. My issue is that if we are indeed fighting against the trajectory of Western history then that is what is needed. Though of course, a new chud hermeneutics could unveil a countertradition (or the real tradition) in Western thought against the one posited as mostly compatible with liberal democracy and egalitarianism, at which point total revolution is not needed. Still though a shadow has been cast over my mind on this stuff. To quote a song from the double lightning strike chuds:
>we don't care about those above or below, and the entire world may praise us or blame us, as much as it pleases them to, where we are we only go forwards
as I said though this could all be a moot point and I'm only shadowboxing with the phantom of a triumphalist liberal egalitarianism tooting its own horn

[Anonymous No.21603453]

>>21603419
>>21603425
The spirit of Socrates, Goethe etc. are so contrary to National Socialism you have to be deranged to think they would approve of it. The poverty of your worldview is exposed by the fact you think banal categories like right and left can be applied to people living before modernity (they don't even encompass national socialism).

Socrates thought the unexamined life was not worth living, and that human beings have a (literally) sacred duty to examine their beliefs and scrutinise what they are told by those in power. National Socialism, by contrast, enforces the Führerprinzip, that the leader should not only be followed outwardly but believed unquestioningly. Socrates taught that to do evil was more harmful to the wrongdoer than the person wronged, and overturned the ancient notion that you should be kind to your friends but cruel to your enemies. National Socialism says you must be merciless to your enemies, that you must have no human feeling for Jews and subhumans. And Socrates' personal habits would undoubtedly land him in a concentration camp: he was firmly chaste, but he didn't conceal his attraction to young men. In some cases even tickling another man was grounds for castration under National Socialism.

[Anonymous No.21603475]

>>21603451
>is silly because we're hundreds of years down the line with egalitarianism. Something that right-wingers should probably come to understand is that we and not our enemies are the rupture within Western history.
Disagree strongly, it was only after the inclusion of a few different ethnic groups in to the whole that things started coming to a head. When differences in ability were then used as weapons to hobble those who were objectively more capable. If what you said was true then it would of happened much earlier in our society and more frequently.

>He basically said that critical theorists, postmodernists, and the broader cultural "left" represent continuity with the Western tradition in the spirit of the greater forerunner to critical theory, Socrates. While that comparison might be silly under scrutiny it always stuck with me because it sure does seem like my side has been racking up Ls for a long time.
Can you further explain specifically what aspects of Socrates thought explains this? If you're just using the socratic method of asking open ended questions at your opponent, that could be used and applied to anything. Specifically his theory establishes a grand narrative, one of the earliest we have, the professor must ignore it in order to focus in on a handful of tangibly related similarities.

>if Heine, Lewis, Shakespeare, Kafka, Socrates are against it then heap them on the pyre.
This does not seem to be the case, Nietzsche hated much of what the National-Socialists stood for but they embraced much of his thought that they did agree with. Just like every other aspect of human life, we keep what we love and discard what we do not and soon it is forgotten that our idols ever had opinions that we would find abhorrent today.

[Anonymous No.21603479]

>>21603451
Personally I find the Nietzschean vision is both more realistic and more radical than the paltry National Socialist one -- and more conducive to human excellence and beauty and flourishing (aren't the sunny worlds of Periclean Athens and Medici Florence a trillion times more attractive than Nazi Germany?) A lot of the content of the supposedly revolutionary Nazi ideology is mere 19th century bourgeois prejudice, dull German patriotism, a potpourri of Whiggish utopianism and Junker stereotypy, reified into eternal principles. It doesn't solve modernity. It just consolidates its basest elements. This is evident in the fact that Nietzsche diagnosed the anti-Semitic nationalist moralist strain of culture as part of the same general decadence as liberalism, socialism, Christianity, etc.

[Anonymous No.21603487]

>>21603475
>Can you further explain specifically what aspects of Socrates thought explains this? If you're just using the socratic method of asking open ended questions at your opponent, that could be used and applied to anything. Specifically his theory establishes a grand narrative, one of the earliest we have, the professor must ignore it in order to focus in on a handful of tangibly related similarities.
I don't know that Socrates establishes any grand narrative, not in the way that Plato does. Socrates gives us a life ethic -- about learning how to be properly human. There were many different interpretations of this: cynic, stoic, platonist, sceptic.

[Anonymous No.21603489]

>>21603361
> when one of the best attributes of the National Socialist regime was its hatred of the anthropocentric worldview and its concomitant protection of animal life
Damn not many people pick up on this glad more are, did you pick that up from online discussions or a book? I took a few courses on Fascism in college that delved into Gentile and Rosenberg even but none of the professors really talked about the animal thing. I think it's implicitly the most radical part of NS because it fights back against central Abrahamic themes in a way that basically no other cultural-political group has while being self-consistent (most treehuggers and such are usual fervent believers in human rights and such)

>And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

[Anonymous No.21603496]

>>21603453
>The spirit of Socrates, Goethe etc. are so contrary to National Socialism you have to be deranged to think they would approve of it.
What they would think of it is irrelevant, as I said. My point is clearly that the National-Socialists would embrace those thinkers that supported what they did, just as every single government does, even now. It matters not two blue fucks what an imagined figure would do, it does not at all advance any discourse but your own stupidity.

>Socrates taught that to do evil was more harmful to the wrongdoer than the person wronged, and overturned the ancient notion that you should be kind to your friends but cruel to your enemies.
There is much I have read about Socrates that is truly profound and justifies his position as one of the bedrocks of our society. But this is not part it.

>National Socialism says you must be merciless to your enemies
Yes, you should.


>And Socrates' personal habits would undoubtedly land him in a concentration camp: he was firmly chaste, but he didn't conceal his attraction to young men. In some cases even tickling another man was grounds for castration under National Socialism.
This is meaningless and all conjecture at this point. The obvious answer is that did Socrates grow up in Germany in the early 1900s he would not be the same person he was that we revere him for now.

[Anonymous No.21603500]

>>21603487
>Socrates gives us a life ethic -- about learning how to be properly human
Post-Modernists reject explicitly this, anon.

[Anonymous No.21603516]

>>21603500
The postmodernist philosophers all seem to be ethically motivated, that is, interested in creating some kind of the ‘goodlife’

[Anonymous No.21603520]

>>21603496
The problem anon is that Socrates core doctrines, unshakeable ethical principles, are at odds with Nazi ones. This would not be a problem in a liberal (in the broad sense) society where people are allowed to hold contrary opinions about the nature of the Good. Nazism requires assent. Nazism requires that Socrates be silenced if he does not agree with the state. Socrates said he would not ever cease speaking his truth. Ergo, Socrates would be liquidated

[Anonymous No.21603542]

>>21603516
No, i don't think that is true. They are diagnostically motivated, they don't have any creative goal or endgame beyond dissecting current structure, they have nothing to replace what they destroy.

>>21603520
The problem anon is that Socrates core doctrines, unshakeable ethical principles, are at odds with Nazi ones.
I disagree with this sentiment, he strongly justified slaves and a natural hierarchy of greater over lesser. However look at how he is said to have died, I won't lie that his actions could easily be paralleled in a modern National-Socialist state. But then parallel Ernst Junger with Socrates. It is a complicated issue.

>This would not be a problem in a liberal (in the broad sense) society where people are allowed to hold contrary opinions about the nature of the Good.
This is true of National-Socialist Germany, as I said there were dozens of public intellectuals that had contrary opinions on what should be done. It only became an issue when they actively tried to destroy and harm the people and their state. Now in the supposed liberal society a man can not in a professional setting voice what a woman is without him losing everything,

[Anonymous No.21603561]

>>21602984
He's right about basically everything outside of Israel. Notice how these leftists never argue against any of his positions and only attack his benzo addiction despite being drug addicts themselves with no achievements.

[Anonymous No.21603599]

>>21603542
Socrates thought slaves ought not to be mistreated though, and thought that to seek the good through rational questioning was the duty of all human beings, whether man, woman, citizen, slave, or foreigner. There is no universe in which Socrates would sanction the liquidation of entire peoples

[Anonymous No.21603617]

>>21603561
Part of Peterson's whole schtick is that ad hominem attacks are valid. How can you tell someone else how to live if you can't clean your own room? By his own words you should disregard him since he is a drug addict

[Anonymous No.21603645]

>>21603617
Nobody is perfect and his room looks pristine compared to basically every leftist in existence. There's also a massive difference between someone that gets temporarily addicted to prescribed medication and the average crack addicted /r/antiwork leftist that has been in and out of rehab for decades.

[Anonymous No.21603660]

>>21603645
The man is a joke

[Anonymous No.21603674]

>>21603660
That picture was taken when the room next to that one was being renovated. Why does he make you seethe so much? Is it just pure jealousy at the fact that you won't accomplish even a small fraction of what he has?

[Anonymous No.21603677]

>>21603674
Let us just ignore the fact his mad slut of a daughter is riddled with STI's, is a single mother and literally a walking embodiment of all things that undermine his world-view.

[Anonymous No.21603679]

>>21603674
Why are you so desperate to defend a self-refuting drug addict?

[Anonymous No.21603680]

>>21603475
>Can you further explain specifically what aspects of Socrates thought explains this?
I'm quoting someone who was saying that critical theorists are like Socrates. I don't know exactly what he was talking about, but he was probably saying that Socrates was charged with spreading atheism and corrupting the youth, therefore when conservative types accuse lefties or corrupting the youth and such, it's like they are putting Socrates on trial a second time.
>socrates criticized popular beliefs and morality in his day
>therefore Socrates would agree with critical theorists today
Doesn't matter if it's a retarded take, because dominant narratives usually end up casting many thinkers/philosophers as forerunners of liberal democracy and their opponents as chuds anyways lol

[Anonymous No.21603686]

>>21603677
That's just more lies. Let's focus on you though. What about him makes you this upset? Are you a woman? You have extremely feminine personality traits.

[Anonymous No.21603693]

>>21603686

[Anonymous No.21603701]

>>21603693
That doesn't prove anything and she was there for all of a couple of hours with multiple people accompanying her. Now answer the other questions.

[Anonymous No.21603705]

>>21603686
I'm a woman and that's irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.21603717]

>>21603701
As soon as you answer why you listen to a drug addict after the same drug addict told you not to listen to drug addicts no matter what they say.

[Anonymous No.21603722]

>>21603686
Nothing of that is lies, anon.

[Anonymous No.21603726]

>>21603680
I don’t think they are making such a banal and silly claim. It is more like they are saying they have inherited Socrates fundamental ethos. I disagree with the postmodernists but their leading philosophers were extremely conversant with the ancients

[Anonymous No.21603729]

>>21603717
>the same drug addict told you not to listen to drug addicts no matter what they say.

He's never said this. You just can't stop lying. I'm just going to assume you're a woman.

[Anonymous No.21603734]

>>21603729
Again his whole clean your room before you tell anyone else what to do. It frequently comes up in his lectures, I was assuming you've seen some of them.

[Anonymous No.21603740]

>>21603729
From the benzo addicted horses mouth
>If you can't even clean up your own room, who the hell are you to give advice to the world?

[Anonymous No.21603746]

>>21603729
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvpSB1ajcBo

[Anonymous No.21603760]

>>21603734
>>21603740
>>21603746
He never argued that people have to be perfect and compared to most people he's had an incredibly successful life. He's also not the one arguing for massive overhauls to society.

When he brings this up in the context of debates he's typically talking to people that are complete fuckups by every metric imaginable (the average leftist, Bernie Sanders etc.).

[Anonymous No.21603782]

>>21603760
>When he brings this up in the context of debates he's typically talking to people that are complete fuckups by every metric imaginable
A benzo addict that goes to Russia for a coma rehab and then loses his ability to talk is a pretty sever fuckup.

[Anonymous No.21603792]

>>21603782
Yes it is. It's still not even remotely close to as bad as the life of the average Democrat or leftist.

[Anonymous No.21603806]

>>21603792
>Yes it is. It's still not even remotely close to as bad as the life of the average Democrat or leftist.
But the average Democrat or leftist is vastly better off than Peterson's audience. And leftist intellectuals are worlds ahead of Peterson. So Peterson should listen to real academics and Peterson's audience should listen to leftists and keep their mouths shut.

[Anonymous No.21603815]

>>21603806
>And leftist intellectuals are worlds ahead of Peterson

Without expanding the definition of leftist to include neoliberals, there are zero leftist intellectuals alive worth listening to. In all of human history there are only a few worth listening to and that is mainly just for historical context.

[Anonymous No.21604149]

>>21603740
Wait, I thought he quit his addiction. Isn't that cleaning your room?

[Anonymous No.21604283]

>>21603479
I am compelled to echo this statement. Of course, any genuine mass-movement can merely claim to be anything but. Any vision that truly celebrates strength - of body, of wit, of will - will find its core principles to be alienating to the common folk when put into practice. One may claim to cultivate excellence, but one cannot expect - much less demand - it.
A system that sufficiently rewards dedication to the betterment of oneself will be seen by the weak as unfairly hierarchical and demanding. As such National Socialism cannot survive without its constituent nationalism, which promises certain privileged groups status by mere birthright. This component, antithetical to growth of personal virtue yet necessary for large-scale movements, will forever separate any popular movement celebrating strength from those it seeks to deify.