[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 46 KB, 1024x576, 1422125095543.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6057485 No.6057485 [Reply] [Original]

Reactionary > Revolutionary

>> No.6057491

>>6057485
evola is a noob because he wouldn't have liked alice in chains

>> No.6057492

Persian shill plz go

>> No.6057505
File: 11 KB, 460x276, LawrenceBettmannCorbis4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6057505

Amen brother.

Every revolutionary movement eventually becomes a death cult.

>> No.6057506

if this dude is supposed to be so trish why is all flustered over the free-mason coup in france? seems like a decadent degenerate.

>> No.6057511

ebin meme bruh :^)

>> No.6057515

>>6057485
Wanting to implementing his ideas would make you a revolutionary.

>> No.6057517

>>6057485

>Resentful > Powerful

Fixed**

>> No.6057518

>Implying Napoleon wasn't the greatest thing to happen to France in their history

>> No.6057524

>>6057515
It would make you a radical traditionalist

>> No.6057529

>>6057518
Charlemagne was

>> No.6057532

>>6057524
Define revolution.

>> No.6057536

>>6057529

>Christian puppet

>> No.6057539

>>6057524
A truly radical traditionalist would support Athenian democracy or Roman republicanism

>> No.6057544

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xQQzi0IdLY

probably evola's opinion if he listened to this song: eeuuugh arrivederci... this song is eeeeh quite bad and eeeuuugh has the bad spirit... i would not listen to such ravioli. this man's head al dente. he need a spicy meatball

>> No.6057548
File: 5 KB, 415x51, when a light skin nigga pull it off so dank u like.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6057548

>>6057491

>> No.6057549

>>6057485

>christian-juedo values
>post 1789

granpa pls

>> No.6057567

Ebola is a meme philosopher. There are so many good, conservative philosophers, why would you pick this one?

>> No.6057572

>>6057536
>>6057549

Catholicism>paganism
>>6057539
No true Scotsman fallacy try again

>> No.6057580
File: 41 KB, 500x374, 2010-03-13-figure-combinations-1[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6057580

>>6057485
>Reactionary
>2015
>Supporting the arbitrary power of the nobility
>Being in favor of outdated feudalism
>Being against constitutions that guarantee the liberties of the people

Monarchy is bad, but democracy is bad for different reasons. One is tyranny, one is mob rule. The two should temper eachother and be watched over by independent courts. After all, the most stable and succesful societies are the ones that mix the best elements of monarchy, democracy and meritocracy. Do you even Polybios?

>>6057518
I agree, but perhaps for different reasons. The way I see it, the democracy was an antithesis to the thesis that was the French monarchy which, while not as absolutist as is often believed, did provide the bourgeois with less rights than it deserved. Napoleon (as well as Louis-Philippe and Napoleon III) sought a synthesis, and succeeded in varying degrees. Napoleon was GOAT, Napoleon III was an inferior but still good copy but Louis-Philippe was incapable of truly reconciling the revolution with the monarchy.

Such a shame that Napoleon III got deposed by Republicans after Sedan, his rule was such a good compromise. Now we're stuck with a hyperrepublican France (and as a result a hyperrepublican world (even de jure monarchies like the UK or Sweden are de facto Republican nowadays)) where the chaos of the mob dictates all, politicians prostitute the nation and bribe the voters with their own money. Worst of all, history is forgotten. All those great French monarchs... Clovis, Charles Martel, Charlemagne, Philippe Auguste, Saint Louis, Louis XIV, Louis XVI (not as bad as he's often depicted), Napoleon, Louis-Napoléon.... forgotten, hatted, spat upon. The Republic is good and tolerant, the monarchy was evil and hateful. And thus, a thousand years of French history is ridiculed and hated.

How can you expect the survival of a country that betrays itself? The Revolution is part of France and by extent part of Western culture and thus cannot be discarded, but neither can the monarchy, no matter how hard we try.

I guess we won't learn until the West falls, and when it falls it falls hard.

>> No.6057583

>>6057485
The thought person of basically every person on earth can be summed up in my post: take note of it: never mind, I'm too tired.

>> No.6057588

>>6057532
>>6057572

>> No.6057597

>>6057588
>>6057505

>> No.6057606

>>6057597
Define revolution.

>> No.6057610

>>6057572
>Catholicism>paganism

>whiny sandnigger muh speical snowflake turn the other ass cheek death cult slave philosophy
>better in anyway to
>manly pantheon of complex characters and well written mythology from which all western thought derrived

>> No.6057614

>>6057544
how the fuck did nobody respond to this post this is a good one

>> No.6057616

>>6057614

not meme enough

>> No.6057629

>>6057485
join the human race sometime, bucko

>> No.6057633

>>6057580
>2015
> believing in the god that failed
> democracy, secularism, liberalism etc
> being in favor of constitutions theft all for societal decay
> thinking freedom and liberty exist

Monarchy is the best form of government.


Why Is Monarchy The Best Form Of Government?
Im doing a report and I seem to be stuck, The question is "What form of…show more
10 Answers • Government

Best Answer (Chosen by Asker)
A monarchy in whatever form provides the stability to a country that democracy in many situations is unable to provide. In a monarchy the successor is bred from birth to fullfill his or her position rather than with an elected head of state who may have considerably less experience. In a republic (a country without a monarch) the head of state owes his power to the private interests that got him elected, and thus becomes indebted to them once he or she assumes power. In this way the president must satisfy those special interest groups first before he can act for what would be best for his or her country. In a monarchy however the monarch is king or queen simply because he or she was born into the role, and thus doesnt owe anyone or group for where he or she is, thus allowing the monarch to reign more freely and make decisions that are best for the country rather than the group of rich and powerful people that would have gotten him/her there as in a republic. Because the monarch reigns for life there becomes a greater amount of pressure on the monarch to rule as best as he/she can and so that things wont be messed up for the next generation. In a republic however the presidents term is often short, and whatever longterm problems or screw-ups that occured in one presidents term become carried over to the next man in office who may or may not deal with them, potentially creating a snowball effect of presidents defering difficult decisions to later presidents (such as the immense debt problem in the US). A monarchy is ultimately cost saving because the personal fortunes of the personal fortunes of the royal family can usually cover the costs that incur for the insititutions support. In the UK for example the monarchy is paid for by a tax (which is like one cent per person per year) for the monarchys upkeep. In turn however the private income from the Queens estates is turned over to the treasury which in total becomes a net gain for the national treasury (see the link about the civil list). In addition the amount of money gained from tourism brings added revenue for the state. In a republic the salary of the president is paid for by the state, and the private income of the president is kept by the president. After the president leaves office, his support is still born by the state in the form of pensions which are paid until his or her death. This can be very costly when combined with the dozens of other ex presidents living off of pensions from the state.

>> No.6057634

>>6057485
Are there any good Evola writings about multiculturalism? If so please refer me.

>> No.6057637

>>6057606
>>6057597

>> No.6057638

>>6057572
>Catholicism>paganism
I don't see how. It has gaudy, Persian aesthetics, and it supports Persian and Indian politics and a Jewish priestly aristocracy.

Everything good about Catholicism comes from paganism. When Christianity first started, art degenerated considerably over Catholic efforts to appease barbarians with primitive style. And all decent Catholic theologians took a lot from pagan thinkers.

>> No.6057639

>>6057633
>>believing in the god that failed

>implying I'm a christian.

>> No.6057642

>>6057567
>so many good, conservative philosophers,
such as?

>> No.6057647
File: 434 KB, 692x1007, 1421118570818.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6057647

>>6057610
Anti Christian is anti western

>> No.6057651

>>6057616
im gonna be as objective as possible that post was at least a solid 8 and the average itt is probably like a 2.6

>> No.6057659

>>6057647

No anti-christian is anti-sand peoole who couldn't get over the fact they were slaves. Christianity is 80% jewish resent. All christians are just post-jewish rats.

>> No.6057660
File: 27 KB, 244x400, red_god.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6057660

>>6057639

>> No.6057668

>>6057659
This is wrong, Christianity is the only religion theft has gone through the European filter for 1500+ years

>> No.6057674

>>6057633
Your answer doesn't even adress what I said. If you'd take the time to read my post, you'd realize that not all monarchists are reactionairies. Orléanistes and Bonapartistes, for example, are as far from reactionary as it gets.

>> No.6057678

>>6057660
1. Non of those are great writers
2. there's no difference between Christianity and Communism except one is a complete anti-intellectual hoax and the other believes in the existence of a floating bearded man in the sky (oh, and talking snakes).

>> No.6057680

>>6057647
>>6057638

>> No.6057683

>>6057678
>there's no difference between Christianity and Communism
Where do I even begin...

>> No.6057684

Friendly reminder that EvolaKid thinks engineers like himself would be made automatic aristocrats in a truly traditionalist system.

>> No.6057687

>>6057668

Maybe because Europeans were all resentful post-jewish rats that could never surpesed their predecessors (i.e. The Greeks and the Egyptians) so they got buttmad and raped the world for a sense of worth.

>> No.6057694

>>6057683
By picking up a book (if your weak jew hands can even handle that).

>> No.6057700

>>6057694
>jew hands
Oh, you're one of those. Escaped from your containment board, I see.

>> No.6057706

>>6057684
education is a bourgeois ideal, the kid is a moron

>> No.6057709

>>6057700

And you think Evola fags are any better? Pls, anon. Evola fags are closet /pol/tards. Except they mask it with pseudo-intellectual posturing.

>> No.6057728

>>6057642

You'd like conservative political philosophers, if so, there are few good out there like Leo Strauss, based Berkeley, Oakeshott, Hobbes (some think social contract is hardly conservative, but with Hobbes' power dynamics, natural law as a moral imperative he's overall heavily conservative, not even mentioning his alliance with hardline traditionalists during English Civil War), Burke, Herder (with nationalist sentiment, but still) and Goethe, not a philosopher by strict definition, but he used to write essays on pol phil.

Now if you would like good philosophers who also happened to be conservative then there are many and I don't like namedropping.

>> No.6057754

>>6057678
Not really. Christianity idealizes charity (which existed as a virtue long before Christianity). Communism is more of an extension of radical populist democracy (which hardly is particularly Christian) to the point that property itself is democratic.

>> No.6057801
File: 2.64 MB, 320x240, 1359914185029.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6057801

>Evola
>reactionaries
Nice memes, you guys. What kind of fool would follow an ideology that is dead by definition? Conservatism, even if it's in the right, will always lose.

>> No.6057821

>>6057684
Implying there's anything wrong here

>> No.6057824

>>6057485
>>6057524
>>6057529
>>6057572
>>6057597
>>6057633
>>6057637
>>6057647
>>6057660
>>6057668

top level trolling I'm genuinely impressed 10/10

>> No.6057844

In the real world, Fascists (or similar Far Rightists) and Communists are mostly irrelevant fringe parties except for in a small handful of countries.

>> No.6057851

>>6057844
>and this discredits them entirely

>> No.6057854

>>6057580
>direct democracy
>"mob rule"

you're only a level 7 authoritarian.
fascists, monarchists, absolutists of all sort have failed. Liberal democracies (which carry huge elements of elitist rule), have also failed--and for the same reasons. You don't fix monarchism with a lesser version, replacing advisors with a Parliament and a President instead of a King. Really it's only slightly better. But until the proletariat has full independence, can self-sustain and self-govern and is truly in control over himself/herself THEN will we have true democracy.

>> No.6057861

>>6057854
>implying communism
>implying it hasn't failed the worse in all history

>> No.6057865
File: 12 KB, 444x507, mises.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6057865

Analytic > Continental

>> No.6057871

>>6057485
In war, an offensive position is better than a defensive one. So I disagree.

>> No.6057872

>>6057865
Mises is a sophist who refuses to use math. Git gud, skrub.

>> No.6057874

>>6057865

Analytic Philosophy has frankly more mises than hits.

>> No.6057882
File: 69 KB, 600x800, 1421636222493.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6057882

anyone who has studied monarchys at all knows its the worst form of government

its a recipe for coups, inter-sibling murder, assassinations and similar stuff. When the way the entire country is run depends on someone being alive people always try to change that

also there are always people who become monarchs and then turn out to be horrible rulers that ruin there country but nobody can do anything about it because its a monarchy

>> No.6057896

>>6057882
You obviously haven't studied about monarchies.

>> No.6057902

>>6057882

i have

the history of monarchys if filled with coups, sibling-heirs murdering eachother, assasinations and monarchs who did horribly and made the people of there country suffer greatly

for most of the middle ages genuinely good monarchs were extremely rare

>> No.6057904

>>6057896
if monarchies were worth a damn they wouldn't have gone extinct.

>> No.6057905

>>6057896
meant to quote you in this post
>>6057902

>> No.6057912

>>6057904
Well they fared well for thousands of years.

>> No.6057913
File: 243 KB, 1192x670, futurism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6057913

>>6057485
>I want to live according to rules and strictures that made perfect sense in a completely different world

Reactionaries are the enemies of progress and should all be shot.

>> No.6057919

>>6057904

this, people got fed up with the bullshit of dealing with monarchs who ruled them horribly so they decided to take matters into there own hands and rightfully so

>> No.6057922

>>6057902
I guarantee your ass it's a better history than any other mainstream political form.

>> No.6057923

>>6057912

but it would be complete shit today

either you are trolling or you genuinely believe what you are saying in which case I feel sorry for you

>> No.6057926

>>6057865
>pic utterly unrelated

>> No.6057929

>>6057851

How many people do you know or encounter in a position of intellectual or political authority who have any respect for those ideologies or take their current forms seriously?

Not very many.

>> No.6057932

>>6057919
Right, because the results were that the power was in the hands of the people.

>> No.6057934

>>6057922

top kek

im pretty sure 90% of the people on the planet and 99% of academics would disagree

>> No.6057939

>>6057912
yeah, in asia maybe, no monarchy lasted thousands of years in europe, damn you really are a retard, but then again you take evola seriously so i guess that says it all

>> No.6057942

>>6057923
>but it would be complete shit today
Maybe at this very moment, but it could still work when oncoming tensions arise.

>> No.6057952

>>6057934
Show me these academics.

>>6057939
Monarchy the system still survived.

>> No.6057962

>>6057865
>>6057872
this.
Mises has nothing to do with analytic philosophy. He was a pseudo-cientist and obscurantist. His followers will be known in the future as the witch-doctors of economy.

>> No.6057963

>>6057952
monarchy survived in what country? there is no monarchy on the planet that isn't just a figurehead or front for some military junta

>> No.6057967

>>6057963
>monarchy survived in what country?
Europe and Asia for thousands of years.

>there is no monarchy on the planet
Not right now obviously.

>> No.6057970

>>6057967

Your quote made it sound like there isn't a monarchy on the planet..... uuhhhh Saudi Arabia says hello.

>> No.6057971

>>6057967
what monarchy in europe survived for thousands of years? sounds like you need to get a fucking clue buddy

>> No.6057982

>>6057970
I'm not sure if you're trying to make monarchy look better or worse, but it's something.

>> No.6057986

>>6057970
the saudi royal family was put in place by british imperialists less than 100 years ago, they hardly a real monarchy, damn nigga, you really are stupid aren't you

>> No.6057989

>>6057861
>>6057861
>implying the masses weren't getting fucked over under the Czar.

We only see "evil" when it's convenient for us, don't we? When Saudia Arabia has royalty which funds terrorist groups and creates oppressive laws, it's ok. When the Nazis did it, we were also fine with it. It was good for commerce.

But when Lenin drove away the capitalist class, (and yes, murdered many of them), then MY GOODNESS HOW TRAGIC. 200,000 children can die of starvation ANNUALLY under capitalism but if a few hundred (or more) bankers, kings, corrupt lawyers, CEOs and the like are killed, THEN it's a tragedy?! BOO FUCKING HOO. This is scientific socialism not some utopian dream planter by liberals. This is not a reformist policy or a protest or a simple taxation of the rich. This is an elimination of class through revolution.

>> No.6058006

am i actually wasting my time arguing about how monarchy and communism are shitty systems? in the 21st fucking century? god damn, this is fucking beyond stupid, time to fucking blow this joint, peace fags

>> No.6058090

>>6057580
>arbitrary
>outdated
all these buzzwords

>> No.6058101

>>6057485
>Evola « Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » Kid:The Usurper
>« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ »
>Evola

We are fucked.

>> No.6058110

people in this thread literally think its better to react to history than come to terms with the fact we make it? jesus fuck get off the internet

>> No.6058121

>>6058110

Not sure where you're coming from but yes, people do make history. Typically this has happened more calmly and at less cost, albeit still contentiously, in the form of top-down reforms agreeable to the masses and restructuring of systems than it has in the case of bloody purges, revolutions etc

>> No.6058138

>>6057913
>completely different world

isn't that what fucking progressive/futurist types get their ideology?

the world wouldn't bear any semblance after we would adopt far leftist ideals.

>> No.6058147

>>6057485
Don't you mean " Evola Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Kid:The Usurper"?
I took the motion things from Ry after you too my name as your middle name.
Ya kook.

>> No.6058187

>>6058121
if you think humans make history in the fullest sense of that phrase then you believe capitalism to be a social totality, and you have no excuse not to be a marxist and accept the only method that can explain the social totality: dialectical materialism

>> No.6058349

>>6057529
The real butterfly would never praise the christian emperor who single handedly ended European paganism.

>> No.6058377

>>6058349
charlemagne didn't end european paganism u fucking tardlord, god damn these board gets stupider every day

>> No.6058390

>>6057963
Oman, the papacy, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Morocco...

>> No.6058405

>>6058390
wow who could forget such major world powers! clearly monarchy is a key to having a successful and influential nation!


also, the pope is elected, you are a retard

>> No.6058436

>>6058405
Monarchies can be elective

I'm not him by the way, that monarchies gradually became less and less common isn't the fault of monarchy, Louis XVI, Nicholas II, etc. were not bad people or particularly bad monarchs if they were bad at all. Those monarchies fell because evil people misled the populace into overthrowing them and establishing national myths of noble revolutionaries. It isn't monarchy's fault that the Bolsheviks replaced the emperor in Russia any more than it's liberal democracy's fault that it was replaced by Nazism in Germany

>> No.6058443

>>6058436
>monarchs are elected

well then stalin was a monarch since he was elected by the central committee of the communist party, dirpity dooo, you are a retard

>> No.6058459

>>6058443
Epin :DDD

>> No.6058576

>>6057485
You have no methodological base except statement, allegory and mystification.

>> No.6058733

>>6057518
Napoleon was a reaction though.

>> No.6058742

>>6057634
Here's his version of racism that I like(there's more writtings). Sounds better than violent biological racism.

>> No.6058750

>>6057694
>he hasn't read Marx's disertation

>> No.6058759

>>6058006
>>>/reddit/

>> No.6058762

>>6058742
*http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/10/the-races-of-the-spirit/

>> No.6058768

>>6057572
fallacy fallacy try again

>> No.6058769

>>6058138

Oh I'm not a progressive, I'm an anarcho-capitalist futurist. Fuck wanting to live in the dead gone over-with past, weather 1871 or 1571.

>> No.6058787

>>6058138
Futurism is fascist, if anything.

>> No.6058789
File: 34 KB, 635x283, equality.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6058789

ever notice how calls for equality come from the people who have more to gain from an evening of power?

>> No.6058795

>>6058789
Yes, and?

>> No.6058813

>>6058789
I see her as a sexual object.

>> No.6059499

I can respect liberals, I can respect socialists, I can respect social democrats, I can respect even communists and fascists.

But monarchists? They're the lowest of the low. They're the ideological equivalent of cucks. They're the people who are literally asking for other humans to divinely rule over them, as a legally accepted higher caste of humans.

>> No.6059532
File: 87 KB, 1674x939, maxresdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6059532

>>6059499
Marxists are the lowest of the low

>> No.6059542
File: 51 KB, 217x320, Julius-Evola-Obamicon-Tradition.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6059542

How do we stay uncorrupted and pure in Kali-Yuga, my brethren?

>> No.6059546

>>6059542
Buddhism.

>> No.6059575

>>6059499
We just want top-tier art faggot. You can cocksuck your capitalism all day long, but you'll always be Last Man in a democracy. Lives don't matter when the aesthetical is at stake.

>> No.6059583

>>6059575
>implying monarchical art wasn't shit until the Renaissance when they revived classical art which thrived during Athenian democracy

>> No.6059736

>>6059583
Real monarchy(absolutism in particular) took place only after the latter half of the 16th century. The feudal lords ruled the politics of the middle-ages and the monarchs were way less powerful than during the Enlightenment. Same goes for Russia.

>> No.6059920

>>6057854
>fascists, monarchists, absolutists of all sort have failed.
>Monarchists
>Failed
Such arrogance. How long have we had democracy? A century and a half at best? Literally the rest of human history had been governed by monarchism in one form or another. Claiming that monarchism has failed when it has governed the grand majority of human history is not only arrogant, but blatantly false as well.

>You don't fix monarchism with a lesser version, replacing advisors with a Parliament and a President instead of a King.
You don't fix it because there's nothing that needs fixing, the absolute power of the king simply needs tempering. The power of even Louis XIV was tempered by powers that are right now powerless (the Church, the nobility, Feudal laws, Courts that were hereditary rather than appointed etc.) thus we need other powers to limit the kings, preferably powers that do not rely on an arbitrary nobility.

>But until the proletariat has full independence, can self-sustain and self-govern and is truly in control over himself/herself THEN will we have true democracy.
True democracy is not a good thing, it is disorder. It is the equality of all and thus the erosion of authority.

>>6058090
>Muh buzzwords
The power of the nobility IS arbitrary, considering it relies on birth rather than merit. So does the power of the king, but the power of the monarch is neccessary whereas the power of the nobility is not.

>Implying it's controversial that feudalism is outdated
Feudalism only arises when the power of the state is weak. It's an exploitation system akin to that of gangsters in failed states or some of America's roughest cities (Detroit, certain parts of LA etc.). Nowadays states are stronger than ever, thus feudalism is outdated. This is in no way controversial.

>> No.6059939

reactionary is the new edgy
basically philosophy for easily impressed tweens

>> No.6060149

>>6057485
Reactionaries are revolutionaries. Although they're a specific type that wants to replace the status quo with what didn't work before.

>> No.6060171

>>6057505
That guy has a beautiful face. N-no homo

>> No.6060174

>>6060149
This is a suspiciously intelligent answer.. are you me?

>> No.6060189

>dribble

>> No.6060202
File: 1.51 MB, 1900x1564, heraclitus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6060202

>>6060174
Yes and no.

>> No.6060241

Stop implying reactionaries actually go back to a previous stage.

>> No.6060248

>>6060149
But the fact is that most of what they want back worked rather well.

>> No.6060268

>>6059939
Most tweens like being special snowflakes who need no heirarchy.

>> No.6060302

>>6057485

Surely anarcho primitivists are the real traditionalists?

>> No.6060831

>>6058795

Should the powerful curtail their own power just to make the lesser happy?

Should an Olympic sprinter allow himself to get his kneecaps busted to make the fat pieces of shit in the world feel better?

>> No.6060862

>>6060241
implying that that was implied

>> No.6060900
File: 1.83 MB, 353x234, 1356134079665.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6060900

>>6060831
>people on this planet exist who use this argument

>> No.6060910

Why is 4chan's entire political dialog based on the fallacious notion that 4chan's entire community is composed of either far right extremists or far left extremists?

>> No.6060916

>>6057485
>muh pre-french revolution society
>erryone went around and yammered "Roi et le Dieu! Roi et le Dieu!"
Yeah...

>>6057539
I'm on!

>>6057572
>muh made up history
>muh tantric finns
>muh aryan daoism
If Evola lived today and didn't really believe in all that shit, he would make a great fantasy writer. Maybe not writing novels by himself, but constructing those elaborate worlds other people can populate.

>> No.6060920

>>6060910
Because most of us are either Catholic and other Catholic leaning Christians or Marxists.

>> No.6061089

>>6060916
>erryone went around and yammered "Roi et le Dieu! Roi et le Dieu!"
Assuming they speak correct French, they'd say "Dieu et le Roi", or even "Dieu et le Roy" for ye Olde Frenche.

But I get your point. That's why I empathize more with Orléanistes than Légitimistes.

>> No.6061094

>>6060910

If you want to make a thread about John Rawls, be my guest

>> No.6061164

>>6060910
Because Muhammed Yunus is boring.

>> No.6061187

>>6060910
There exists this 'me/us' and 'them' divide illusion is any online community. I browse a lot of 'meta' subreddits on reddit and in one post you'll have someone complain about how the site is too ignorant and conservative and then the very next one, with just as much points, will talk about how the site is so ignorant and liberal.

>> No.6061237

>>6061187
>Leddit
The problem with leddit is that there is a hivemind there. On 4chan, all opinions are there. You post something and others can't get around it. They'll call you a faggot etc. but they'll acknowledge it.

On leddit, going against the mainstream means you're either downvoted or banned. It happened to me often enough: I go against the mainstream, I get a ban, I contact a mod pointing out that my post did not violate the rules in any way, I ask for an explanation clarifying my ban and I never get a response.

>> No.6061985
File: 162 KB, 736x549, 1392398315275.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6061985

>>6058813

>> No.6061988

>>6058147
In reality you are both two sides of the same coin.

>> No.6062019

>>6061988
kek, no they aren't. EvolaKid is literally a troll who only ever posts reactionary shit. Butters is a sincere poster who is a bit spacey at times, but posts a lot more than just her political views or views on God, including plenty of history books

>> No.6062748

Bump