[ 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: 100 KB, 460x288, trotsky.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6574741 No.6574741 [Reply] [Original]

Is it possible to be a literary genius AND anti-Semitic?

>> No.6574755

>>6574741
Celine comes to mind. That being said, it hardly helps. I for one will probably never pick up a book of his because I'd keep thinking about what a cunt he was, which would ruin the experience.

>> No.6574772

I don't see why iy wouldn't be. Everyone has irrational hatreds & fears. That doesn't detract from their rational genius. You might as well ask if a literary genius could be afraid of wolves.

>> No.6574807

from personal experience I can confirm that it is possible

>> No.6574829

>>6574741
Yes, lots of writers were racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, misogynistic and so on. To say someone cannot be a genius because of these things is hugely limiting and if one were to do so he would dismiss writers whose genius is self-evident like Dante, Dostoevsky, Lawrence, Hemingway, Skelton, Milton and many others.

>> No.6574836

Yes. T.S. Eliot, Evelyn Waugh, Virginia Woolf, Henry James, Edith Wharton... the list could go on.

>> No.6574856

Semites can't be literary geniuses. Just look at the Frankfurt school, the Quran, and the Old Testament.

>> No.6574864

Hamsun

>> No.6574891

Ezra Pound was.

>> No.6574893

>>6574829

>Skelton

Admittedly kekable.

>> No.6574895

Bakunin hated jews and anarchists suck his dick all day long, only recently has there been a SJW backlash

>> No.6574909

>>6574741
Pretty much anyone writing before WW2 would fail today's standards of racial tolerance, and even many afterwards. If you go on most authors wiki pages there will be a section entitled "Accusations of X" in which scholars debate to what extent they were racist, homophobic, or sexist. This is what happens when one applies the accepted moral norms of one time to another.

>> No.6574916

>>6574895
Bakunin was hardly a literary genius tho

>> No.6574918

>>6574926

shit you're right

>> No.6574922

No. If you're stupid enough to hate the Jewish people as a whole, or generalise about any race or gender, then you're not a genius. In fact, you're the opposite.

>> No.6574924

>>6574909
>people didn't criticize antisemitism or racism before WW2
Right...

>> No.6574930

>>6574924
>>6574924
this is true

>> No.6574931

>>6574916
He was a powerful intellectual though, regardless if you agree with his politics

>> No.6574933

>>6574931
see
>>6574937

>> No.6574937

Knut Hamsun

>> No.6574945
File: 486 KB, 526x700, 1367211153520.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6574945

>>6574933
>>6574937

>> No.6574948

>>6574924
They weren't issues in the general discourse in the way they are today.

>> No.6574960

>>6574924
Not what I said at all, cunt.

>> No.6574961

>>6574933
>>6574937
Wtf is going on

>> No.6574962

>>6574930
No it isn't, you just lack perspective. Of course antisemitism was more widespread, as it wasn't yet discredited as the ideology that sets up death factories. Still, lots of people, jews and gentiles, would have none of it. Remember the Dreyfus affair? Or the way Nietzsche thought about his antisemitic fanboys? Or books like Daniel Deronda and Die Judenbuche? Not to mention the various Zionist and jewish socialist movements, which had its fair share of gentile supporters and sympathizers.

>> No.6574971

>>6574948
Yeah you'd think an event like the holocaust would influence the general discourse on what antisemitism is, no shit.

>> No.6574975

>>6574971
This is literally what we're saying, why are you arguing against it? Just stop, your comprehension is appalling.

>> No.6574980

>>6574962
Explicitly antisemitic policies were easier to put into practice before Zionism became mainstream, and slavery used to be widely accepted. You're not thinking of antisemitism correctly; you use examples of intelligent non-antisemites, but you can't account for the majority of people's beliefs by saying that Nietzsche thought antisemites had slave morality.

>> No.6574982

Genius and antisemitism often go hand in hand.
It also goes hand in hand with being a retard; as does racism, sexism etc in both cases.

Its only normies that are overly PC.

This does not go to say that you must be so if you are a genius. But show me a PC genius; they don't exist. All genius have some form of controversial opinion because they will trust their own judgement over normal retards.

>> No.6574984

>>6574971
That's literally the point the other anon made that you're arguing against. Are you really this dense?

>> No.6575006

>>6574984
>>6574975
You have no point, people. If people back then were smart enough to criticize antisemitism, the fact that this criticism wasn't as widespread back then doesn't change ots validity, or the validity of us applying it retroactively.
>>6574980
Who gives a fuck about the majority at any given time? After all, we're talking about geniuses, shouldn't they be smarter than the majority?

>> No.6575010

>>6574741
Dostoyevsky?

>> No.6575011

>>6574971
kek

>> No.6575022

>>6574933
>>6574937
Dafuq

>> No.6575024

>>6575006
>implying hating groups is inherently intellectually wrong and always has been

smart people aren't as spooked as you are.

>> No.6575040

>>6575024
Oh ok, your point isn't some moral relativism in between historical periods, but rather the vindication of your own prejudices. How disappointingly boring.

>> No.6575054

>>6575006
The point, to re-iterate, is as follows. I'll lay it out nice and simple.

1) Standards of what is and isn't anti-semitic are today much more stringent than pre-holocaust

2) Authors before the holocaust sometimes included Jewish caricatures in their work.

3) Jewish caricatures were not considered as wrong in 1850. It'd be like caricaturing a fat American today.

4) The Holocaust was, at least in part, dependent on a certain similar caricature of Jews, but one that was explicitly directed towards extermination of the race.

5) Authors who engaged in this kind of caricaturing are now judged because of Nazi propaganda which was extremely violent and virulent,even if theirs was simply "oh that Jew loves money" much like our "oh that American loves food" or "oh that Frenchman is rude"

>> No.6575067

>>6575010
Get em on the train I'll send a courier

>> No.6575073

>>6574755
I was going to read Journey to the end of the night but I read a foreword that was so horrendously edgy that it just ruined the book for me.

>> No.6575089

>>6574741
Well anti antisemitism was the norm a hundred years ago and more so you probably would have been one too

>> No.6575095

>>6574922
There are geniuses who were racists. William Shockley, Wagner, and Keynes, to name three.

>> No.6575099

>>6575006
>You have no point, people
No, our point is exactly what you said in >>657497.

>> No.6575104
File: 85 KB, 301x220, zizzek.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6575104

>>6574856
>"I haven't read any of those"

>> No.6575105

>>6575006
>After all, we're talking about geniuses,
We're talking about the acceptability of antisemitism in discourse since the start of the 19th century.

>> No.6575109

>>6574922
The Nazi leaders at Nuremburg probably all had higher IQs than you by a fair margin.

>> No.6575110

>>6574893
Yeah I know, just trying to think of any poet who is generally regarded as great and thus can't really choose Pound.

>> No.6575112
File: 16 KB, 209x300, Frege-209x300.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6575112

>>6574741
Jo jo jo! Vat's goink on in zis tread mein negers?

>> No.6575113

>>6575040
Is it wrong to oppose ISIS?

>> No.6575120

>>6574933
>>6574937
is this that motherfucker who's been referencing his own posts and shit

Is this the 4chan messiah?

>> No.6575121

>>6575109
I wouldn't be so certain about that. Eichmann was pretty high up on the ladder, yet he was an uneducated farmer's son who couldn't even make a decision without first asking himself what his glourious leader would have done.

>> No.6575123

Everyone pre-1945 was anti-semitic by todays' standards. Even the so-called "philo-semites" like Nietzsche or Twain refrained from anti-semitism for what we would now regard as "anti-semitic" reasons (they are more hateful than other people or they perform a useful function as a merchant class)

>> No.6575127

>>6575040
>but rather the vindication of your own prejudices. How disappointingly boring.
>boring
I'd argue it's not as boring as the widespread "peace and love, coexist" narrative dominant throughout western discourse. It's almost like nowadays to be bold or original one has to be virulently racist or homophobic.
>>6575121
>I wouldn't be so certain about that
Eh, I was referring to actual IQ tests administered to prominent Nazis on trial at Nuremberg. More than a few were scoring 130+

>> No.6575137

>>6574741
The two are mutually inclusive

>> No.6575138

>>6575054
>1) Standards of what is and isn't anti-semitic are today much more stringent than pre-holocaust
I don't think so, if anything, the holocaust led to a shift in perception about the consequences of antisemitism, not about the characteristics of the prejudice.
>2) Authors before the holocaust sometimes included Jewish caricatures in their work.
Well, yeah.
>3) Jewish caricatures were not considered as wrong in 1850. It'd be like caricaturing a fat American today.
Depends on whom you ask. Jews, and people who liked jews amd were opposed to their discrimination, probably disagreed.
>4) The Holocaust was, at least in part, dependent on a certain similar caricature of Jews, but one that was explicitly directed towards extermination of the race.
That's a rather simpleminded view of history in that it gives caricatures sway over evnts of global significance, but whatever.
>5) Authors who engaged in this kind of caricaturing are now judged because of Nazi propaganda which was extremely violent and virulent,even if theirs was simply "oh that Jew loves money" much like our "oh that American loves food" or "oh that Frenchman is rude"
Right, discrimnation of a minority is just the same as discriminination of foreign nationals. I mean, you do realize that antisemitiic pogroms were a thing, right?
Again, you have no point. And, evidently, no desire to intellectually engage with the mindsets of the past, other than declaring them off limits.
2) Authors before the holocaust sometimes included Jewish caricatures in their work.

3) Jewish caricatures were not considered as wrong in 1850. It'd be like caricaturing a fat American today.

4) The Holocaust was, at least in part, dependent on a certain similar caricature of Jews, but one that was explicitly directed towards extermination of the race.

5) Authors who engaged in this kind of caricaturing are now judged because of Nazi propaganda which was extremely violent and virulent,even if theirs was simply "oh that Jew loves money" much like our "oh that American loves food" or "oh that Frenchman is rude"

>> No.6575152

>>6575137
>implying it takes a genius to work out jews are bad

>> No.6575158

>>6575127
>It's almost like nowadays to be bold or original one has to be virulently racist or homophobic.
Yeah you wish. But a nice insight into how the /pol/lack hivemind works
>hey guise, let's hate some jews and make our moms mad
>lol so dark and edgy

>> No.6575162

>>6575138
Really, I am finding this incredibly strange.

Are you saying that today, calling an American fat is the same as calling a Jew a money-grubber?

Say an author used a caricature of Americans as fat. Say, in 100 years after the writer was writing, Americans are thrown in camps and killed for being fat.

Now suppose a reader after this event looks at the writer (who was writing 100 years before) and sees them calling Americans fat. They are appalled, because it was the same stereotype that led to camps.

Is this author morally as bad as the reader retrospectively judging them believes? Does the event in fact change perceptions?

>> No.6575175

>>6575158
>Yeah you wish.
I'm just pointing it out. Stand on a corner a hundred years ago and wave a sign around saying that black men should be able to date and marry white women. The reaction you'd get then is the same nowadays if you wove around a "God Hates Fags" poster or something advocating the reinstallment of Jim Crow. It takes no courage nowadays to be an anti-racist, an anti-nationalist, or a pro-equality advocate. To be bold or countercultural nowadays almost means being a racist.

>> No.6575182

>>6575162
Ok, you don't want to get it, right? Antisemitism was ALWAYS violent. And in the 19th century, which is what we're talking about now, because before that antisemitism was largely a religious prejudice, and only then did it take the racial form we all know and cherish, it was largely a movement to strip a minority of citizenship. It was never just harmless jokes, most people just didn't think it was that bad because they either didn't believe it would ever gain momentum again, or because they agreed.

>> No.6575192

>>6575175
>To be bold or countercultural nowadays almost means being a racist.
Well, if you define boldness and counterculture in terms of 'will people think I 'm a bad person if I do this', then yeah, totally.
And advocates of race-mixing have existed forever. If anything, American 19th century racism was an exceptional phenomenon, as many europeans believed. Hell, even Hitler though the americans were taking things too far with the one drop rule and all.

>> No.6575199

>>6575182
>Antisemitism was ALWAYS violent

No, it wasn't. I'm not being antisemitic myself here, but by definition it cannot be always violent. Dostoevsky saying the Jew liked money is not equatable to a pogrom. One is evidently worse than the other. This isn't a hard or radical concept.

>> No.6575211

>>6575162
> Americans are thrown in camps and killed for being fat
Awesome, I could get behind that.

>> No.6575216

>>6575199
Ok I don't think anyone is getting mad at Dostoyewski these days, to the point of calling him an antisemite, but feel free to correct me.

Apart from that, you missed the point completely. I didn't say that every expression of antisemitism is an act of violence, but that antisemitism has always involved violence.

>> No.6575234

>>6575138
>I don't think so
You're flat-out wrong.
>Depends on whom you ask
You can cherrypick conscientious Gentiles and fearful Jews if you want, but it was much more common and acceptable-objectively speaking-to see antisemitic language used prior to the Holocaust. No one said '6,000,000: Never Again' before the Holocaust, for instance-a point you've already admitted is true, so don't contest this.
>in that it gives caricatures sway over evnts of global significance
Are you implying people don't get worked up over caricatures? What about the Charlie Hebdo shootings? Are you seriously implying that misleading images of minority groups don't perpetuate racism?
>Right, discrimnation of a minority is just the same as discriminination of foreign nationals. I mean, you do realize that antisemitiic pogroms were a thing, right?
Not sure what kind of point you're trying to make here tbh.

Kindly fuck off.

>> No.6575239

>>6575216
>I don't think anyone is getting mad at Dostoyewski these days

Oh man, where have you been? This entire thread is discussing perceptions of anti-semitism and literary genius.

You are missing the point of this thread and the entire argument, its absurd. We were saying that yes, a lot of literary geniuses before 1945 used anti-semitic caricature *by our own standards* because the holocaust was a watershed moment in what is or isn't considered anti-semitic.

As other anons have said, many authors who are now accused of anti-semitism today wouldn't have had a clue why, because they liked and were friends with Jews.

Example: Virginia Woolf married a jew and still used anti-semitic stereotypes in her work and letters.

>> No.6575240

>>6575216
>getting mad at Dostoyewski these days, to the point of calling him an antisemite,
No one's calling him one out of anger, you moron, it's a simple fact that he had some antisemitic views-not that he killed a Jew every day. We're saying that antisemitism comes in numerous forms.
What do you understand 'violence' to be?

>> No.6575270
File: 13 KB, 450x500, freg ded.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6575270

>>6574982
bill gates is a PC genius

>> No.6575277

>>6575234
>No one said '6,000,000: Never Again' before the Holocaust, for instance-a point you've already admitted is true, so don't contest this.
Am I being rused right now?
>What about the Charlie Hebdo shootings?
The only thing this has to do with our discussion is the fact that the perpetrators were antisemites, but how does this help your point?
>Not sure what kind of point you're trying to make here tbh
The point is that it makes a huge difference wether there's a widespread prejudice against a largely defenceless minority that is regularly subjected to outbursts of violence, or a widespread prejudice against the inhabitant of a souvereign nation
>Are you seriously implying that misleading images of minority groups don't perpetuate racism?
Are you calling CH racist? Also, pictures are not the cause, but an expression of prejudice.

>> No.6575289

>>6574836
>woolf
>anti-semetic

>> No.6575292

>>6575109
Why do you think that?

>> No.6575312

>>6575239
What are you talking about? Do people consider Dostoyewski an antisemite? Never heard of anyone who actually called him that.
Same with Woolf, no one, no matter how deep into sjw stuff, has a problem with her.
>>6575240
Not sure what your point is, either.
If the standards have shofted that much, why is no one mad at Fjodor?

>> No.6575331

>>6575312
Yes, people consider Dostoevsky an antisemite. Just looking at his wiki page ffs:

Orlando Figes states that A Writer's Diary is "filled with politics, literary criticism, and pan-Slav diatribes about the virtues of the Russian Empire, [and] represents a major challenge to the Dostoyevsky fan, not least on account of its frequent expressions of antisemitism."[112] In his foreword for David I. Goldstein's book Dostoevsky and the Jews, Frank tried to paint Dostoyevsky as a product of his time, noting that Dostoyevsky made antisemitic remarks, but was not entirely comfortable with these views.[113]

Woolf: Though happily married to a Jewish man, Woolf often wrote of Jewish characters in stereotypical archetypes and generalisations, including describing some of her Jewish characters as physically repulsive and dirty.[30] She wrote in her diary: "I do not like the Jewish voice; I do not like the Jewish laugh."

The question is: do we judge people who weren't considered anti-semites in their own time as anti-semitic by our standards?
This is the basis of the entire threads argument, so if you don't understand why people are debating, just fuck off.

>> No.6575337

>>6575277
>The only thing this has to do with our discussion is the fact that the perpetrators were antisemites,
No, the cartoonists drew a caricature of Muhammad. It's quite pertinent.
>or a widespread prejudice against the inhabitant of a souvereign nation
I'm not sure what ethnic group or inhabitants other than Jews you're talking about. Could you be more specific?
>Are you calling CH racist?
No, I'm saying that part of Islamic fundamentalism involves killing people who draw the Prophet.
>Also, pictures are not the cause,
The picture was the catalyst, stop lying to yourself.

>> No.6575346

>>6575312
>If the standards have shofted that much, why is no one mad at Fjodor?
Because he wrote before the Holocaust, you fucking brick. There are modern-day people who think he was a bigot for writing like he did, I'm not sure who your 'no one' is.

>> No.6575353
File: 33 KB, 1280x720, 1280x720-Xg-.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6575353

>>6574741
>Is it possible to be a literary genius AND anti-Semitic?
yes

this french author is considered very good

>> No.6575384

>>6575331
>do we judge people who weren't considered anti-semites in their own time as anti-semitic by our standards?
I don't think it's that simple. What about people who weren't considered antisemites in their own day, but are considered antisemites now due to documents that weren't available back then, e.g. Heidegger?
>This is the basis of the entire threads argument
Absolutely not. It wasn't part of OP's question, nor of the assertion I initially replied to, which merely stated that people didn't consider bigotry as big a deal back then, as they do now.
Of course you can make it about some remarks by Woolfe or Dostoyewski, but then you are derailing, not me. The first reply mentioned Celine, was that off-topic? No. You are.

>> No.6575402

>>6575337
We, however, were talking about caricatures that make people violent against the object of ridicule, not against the author. If you do not undrrstand the difference, I don't know how I'm supposed to explain ot to you, sorry.
>>6575346
>There are modern-day people who think he was a bigot for writing like he did
Literally who?

>> No.6575410

>>6575384
>What about people who weren't considered antisemites in their own day, but are considered antisemites now due to documents that weren't available back then, e.g. Heidegger?
Heidegger is a special case because of his time as a member of the Nazi Party. He is a part of the reason for the new perception of antisemitism. Interesting in his case is the fact that, despite his membership in the Party, he had a long affair with a Jewess.

>> No.6575418

>>6575402
>not against the author
My point was separate from that. I mentioned Charlie Hebdo in response to someone who said that caricatures don't cause anything to happen in the historical or social spheres.

>> No.6575454

w2c glasses

>> No.6575501

>>6575418
That post was from me, too. Still, if you're using CH as an example, it's a false equivalency. Anti-islamic cartoons do not cause islamism, they just draw violence from it.

But none of that was relevant. The question was, do antisemitic/racist cartoons cause racism/antisemitism, and more precisely, did antisemitic caricatures cause the holocaust. And nothing you mentioned about CH inclines me to back off from answering that with a 'no' on both counts.

>> No.6575509

>>6574922
>smart people have to have the same morals as me

>> No.6575655

Most people throughout European history have been antisemitic due to culture. This is extremely obvious, Shakespeare for example. Besides, hating a culture/religion is entirely different than hating a real race, which we Hebrews at this point in history really aren't. Shouldn't be a moral issue for you.

>> No.6575689

>>6575182
I have a feeling your definition of violence somehow goes beyond physical harm, are you an american university student by chance?

>> No.6575691

>>6575655
>Shakespeare for example.
Shylocks status as a villain is pretty ambigious imo.

>Besides, hating a culture/religion is entirely different than hating a real race, which we Hebrews at this point in history really aren't. Shouldn't be a moral issue for you.
You do realize that the nazis didn't care wether or not you went to the synagogue, had converted to christianity, o even identified as a jew, as long as you had a sufficient number of jewish grandparents, right? Racsim isn't just a problem for the victim when direced against a, as you call it "real race", whatever that's supposed to be.

>> No.6575710
File: 20 KB, 518x408, 1205-09.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6575710

>> No.6575713

>>6575239
Lovecraft is another example of a jew hater who married a jew. The problem with dumbass city folks is that they cant differentiate between "talking the talk and walking the walk" so to speak. My grandpa says some very racist things but he helped some poor Mexican children avoid border patrol without a moments hesitation.

>> No.6575727

>>6575689
Not at all, my point was that antisemitism leads to attacks and pogroms, and always did.

>> No.6575733

>>6575713
Lovecraft is a very different matter, though. No one doubted his racist and antisemitic credentials, ever. Can't really compare that to Woolf.

>> No.6575736

>>6575501
>Anti-islamic cartoons do not cause islamism
And my claim isn't that they do, only that they're connected to it--it isn't meant to be a controversial premise.
> question was, do antisemitic/racist cartoons cause racism/antisemitism, and more precisely, did antisemitic caricatures cause the holocaust
The word was 'caricature,' not cartoon, and my point wasn't about where antisemitism comes from, only about its relationship with media, society, and the state. If you don't think the Nazis used that sort of imagery-not cartoons, imagery, which includes more than just print media-to gain public support, I don't know how you think they did it.

>> No.6575737

>>6574755
celine doesn't write about anti-semitism in his novels, though, so your refusal to read him is pointless.

>> No.6575741

>>6575727
Are all attacks and pogroms on any ethnic group as bad as the Holocaust was?

>> No.6575756

>>6575733
The fuck does public perception have to do with it? Furthermore that poem and his letters weren't available until years after his death. His fans had no clue unless they wrote him a letter and he happened to mention it.

>> No.6575759

Genius is a garbage criteia.
You won't get anything but subjective answers for a subjective question.

>> No.6575761

>>6575759
What does an objective answer/objective question look like? :^)

>> No.6575762

Jews were hated even before BCE.

>> No.6575763

>>6575736
>If you don't think the Nazis used that sort of imagery-not cartoons, imagery, which includes more than just print media-to gain public support, I don't know how you think they did it.
Of course bigots will express their bigotry one way or the other, but that certainly isn't what causes their bigotry in the first place. Caricatures work because both the author and the reader are in on the joke, they do not change people's perspective.

Now, it is of course legitimate to ask what turned ordinary germans into ntisemites, and antisemites ito nazis. But I don't believe caricatures played a causal role there, they only serve a reassuring role for the already converted. For actual causes, you'll alwys have to look deeper, e.g. at the socio-economic constellation in the Weimar Rebublic, or the historical development of german nationalism.
And if we're getting into cultural aspects, it isn't all that straightforward, either. Wagner, for instance, was a raing antisemite, but I believe his aesthetics had a much greater influence on the german public than anything he ever wrote about jews.

>> No.6575766

>>6575762
*before CE

>> No.6575770
File: 2.45 MB, 1000x3000, 1428456322370.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6575770

Is it possible to be any type of genius and not anti-semitic?

>> No.6575775

>>6575756
Concerning Woolf, well she was brought up as someone who wasn't considered an antisemite back then, but would be now. Lovecraft barely left any room for doubt, not so much in his attitude towards jews as towards non-whites, but still.

>> No.6575779

>>6575691
So following your logic youre agreeing that hating fat americans, or any group of people in general, is exactly the same as Racism? So why did you say the exact opposite earlier?
And for fucks sake stop with the emotional appeals, my grandparents were killed by nazis but its common sense that they took it too far. People have a right to their own opinion about other groups but murder is only acceptable in self defense or to avenge murder in a lawless situation.

>> No.6575780
File: 1.98 MB, 1712x2288, Chomsky.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6575780

>>6574741
Of course (pic related)

>> No.6575789

>>6575763
>but that certainly isn't what causes their bigotry in the first place
I repeat: my point is not about causes of antisemitism but the relationship between society, the media, and discursive-not physical-antisemitism. Obviously there was antisemitism in Germany before the Holocaust and the Nazis, I never claimed otherwise.

My point is that stereotypes applied to caricatures are useful propaganda tools, and prior to the Holocaust, the idea of members of a civilized society openly advocating a pogrom in serious discourse is much less palatable than it was before the Holocaust.

I'm not claiming that anything comes from anywhere, so stop acting like I am.

>> No.6575792

It is not merely possible, OP. In many cases, it it essential..!

>ctrl+F Mein Kampf
>0 results

This is as unsurprising (and nevertheless depressing) for an, ahem, "blue" board which celebrates the leftist canon, and meets it on its own terms.

>B-but the prose is graceless and tedious

Once you've dismissed about half of your precious technical philosophical texts on the same grounds, then I'll extend a little more credence to the above non-rebuttal of any arguments.

>> No.6575796

>>6575775
Nice back pedaling. I guess the culture of a different time period only counts for authors you personally like. Read Lovecrafts Letters, his prejudices were a mental symptom of his shut in lifestyle. By the end of his life he hated prejudice, and he was only in his 30s, it wasn't some death bed repentance.

>> No.6575808

>>6575779
>youre agreeing that hating fat americans, or any group of people in general, is exactly the same as Racism?
No, nothing I said implies that. But yes, persecuting people for some group criteria you project onto them is pretty much the same across the board. Because it doesn't matter matter to the victims wether the hated traits are even real. "oh they're putting me into a camp, but I'm not even the kind of person they think I am, so it's alright", are you really this stupid?

>And for fucks sake stop with the emotional appeals, my grandparents were killed by nazis but its common sense that they took it too far.
Ok what do you mean by that sentence? I can't think of a single interpretation that doesn't paint you as a retard.

>murder is only acceptable in self defense or to avenge murder in a lawless situation.
Murder is by definition never acceptable. Killing may be, but murder not. Don't understand the difference? Congratulations, you're retarded.

I really, really hope you're underage, because that would be the only excuse.

>> No.6575824

>>6575789
>I'm not claiming that anything comes from anywhere, so stop acting like I am
Then what are we even disagreeing about you autistic fuck?
>>6575796
Dude, I love Lovecraft, my entire point is about different standards now and then.
And about his letters, I haven't read them, but I find it kind of had to believe he swore off racism, as it's so deeply ingrained in hs stories.

>> No.6575846

>>6575824
>Then what are we even disagreeing about you autistic fuck?
You initially claimed that caricatures don't affect the historical or social spheres. My claim is that there is a relation between caricature and society. You interpreted my claim about a formal relation between media and its use of stereotypes as propaganda tools as a claim about the origins of antisemitism.

>> No.6575847

>>6575808
>murder is by definition never acceptable

wooooh there cowboy
You wouldn't kill someone who was about to kill the people dearest to you?

>> No.6575872

>>6575846
Ok, recapturing, your point was that people judge antisemitic authors because they produced caricatures of jews somewhat like those used by the nazis, so they're indirectly responsible or something, which is a bad way of looking at the issue and people shouldn't do that, right? This seems to be your position.

And if the criticism of antisemitic authors worked that way, you'd be coreect, it would be pretty dumb. However, I think there's a much more straightforward reason to crticize antisemitic authors, and it has nothing to do with caricatures and their role, whatever that may be. Antisemitic authors are revolting to us because those people, whose works we may apprechiate, shared a mindset with genocidal murderers. No one is blaming them for playing any part in the distrubution of the ideas that led to pogroms, and later the holocaust, they blame them for believing in them.

>> No.6575880

>>6575847
that wouldn't be murder, retard. seriously, can you be stupid somewhere else? I would appreciate that.

>> No.6575930

>>6575880
So murdering Hitler would have been wrong? Technically illegal and prosecutable in Germany at the time, for yes, murder.

Guess what: state definitions of killings are not always valid.

>> No.6575933

>>6575880
It would be murder if you didn't have concrete evidence, but knew they would do it.

>> No.6575978

>>6575770
This has not been answered apparently.

>>6575762
BCE is actually some Jewish trick to get people to forget Christ.
The same way some of them invented another symbol just to avoid + in arithmetic.
The same way they refused to sign with a cross on US registries but used a circle (kikel in Yiddish, hence the nickname kike).

>> No.6576070

>>6575872
>your point was that people judge antisemitic authors because they produced caricatures of jews somewhat like those used by the nazis
No. My point is that people judge then differently after the Holocaust, not necessarily that there is a connection to particular Nazi portrayals of Jews. It's quite possible that that 'school' of 'art' died out post-Nuremberg. If so, then the style of caricature that people object to is slightly different from the style they objected to pre-Nuremberg, simply because no one makes those kinds of caricatures anymore.

You're reading things into my claim that aren't there.

>Antisemitic authors are revolting to us because those people, whose works we may apprechiate, shared a mindset with genocidal murderers. No one is blaming them for playing any part in the distrubution of the ideas that led to pogroms, and later the holocaust, they blame them for believing in them.

I completely agree.

>> No.6576074

>>6576070
I should add that my agreement stems from the fact that Zionism and conscientiousness towards Jews gained *DISCURSIVE WEIGHT* after the Holocaust, an aspect of my argument you've failed to mention every time you've addressed it.

>> No.6576084

>Ezra Pound
>Mark Twain
>Voltaire
>Celine
>HL Mencken
>Shakespeare
No, OP, it's impossible.

>> No.6576089

>>6575353

Are there any other Nabe readers on /lit/? Au Regale des Vermines had my sides soaring out the window

>> No.6576098

I think what a lot of people are missing in this thread is that although pre-WWII having a racist/homophobic/misogynistic genius author is sort of granted, we now know much more about the causes or prejudice and about genetics, societies affects on behaviour etc.

Great modern authors are unlikely to be anti-Semitic, just as great modern authors are unlikely to believe the world is flat, or be extremely religious.

If you are too dumb to see past an outdated prejudice and move with the times, you probably won't be a great writer.

Note probably.

>> No.6576101

>>6574962
Nietzsche believed the antisemitic theories though, he just didn't dislike the Jews themselves. But you're right, all these geniuses, known for questioning society, magically turned to blithering idiots when they disagreed with you.

>> No.6576117
File: 15 KB, 206x226, 1397595279699.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6576117

>>6574772
you're equating being scared of wolves to being racist?

yeah that makes sense...

>> No.6576122

>>6576117
Yes, he's saying both fears are irrational beliefs

>> No.6576130
File: 60 KB, 500x632, 1371928957506.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6576130

>>6574741

Cicero wrote: "The Jews belong to a dark and repulsive force. One knows how numerous this clique is, how they stick together and what power they exercise through their unions. They are a nation of rascals and deceivers."

Voltaire calls Jews "our masters and our enemies ... whom we detest ... the most abominable people in the world."

Seneca called the Jews the "most accursed nation"

George Bernard Shaw said: "This is the real enemy, the invader from the East, the Druze, the ruffian, the oriental parasite; in a word: the Jew"

Immanuel Kant said of the Jews: They are “immoral and vile” and "They are a nation of swindlers."

The real question is 'Is it possible to be a literary genius without being anti-semitic?'

>> No.6576142

>>6576122
that's idiotic because fear of wolves isn't irrational.

see. now you look stupid too.

>> No.6576160

>>6576130
>that pic
My sides

>> No.6576165

>>6576142
>fear of wolves isn't irrational.

More people die to deer than to wolves anon

Are you afraid of deer?

>> No.6576167

>>6576117
I was equating them with aspects of being a great writer. Someone could just as easily say "This person's fear of wolves reflects an element of his psyche that I find disturbing, or I feel that it has an otherwise negative impact on the story" in the same way one could say the same thing but with the word "wolves" replaced with the word "Jews."

In other words, It might just be that the choice to brj g up wolves or Jews at a certain point in a story doesn't make sense, and an antisemitic author who mentions Jews in the middle of a tender moment between love interests might-or also night not-be a good writer. It depends on the quality of the writing and the control of context, subtlety, and artistry (all of which are necessary in a good work of literature). Jews and wolves are accidental to that.

>> No.6576182

>>6574755
Dude, that's so noble of you. I bet the Jews are so grateful for your literary sacrifice.

>> No.6576193

>>6576182
One less dollar for the goyim!

>> No.6576251

>>6576165
if it's a buck that could gore me then I'd be equally afraid. but you're probably talking about in terms of car accidents which is idiotic and besides the point.

>>6576167
you don't have to explain about appreciating art and not the artist. I get it. I just think your comparison is dense. basically you're saying jews and wolves are interchangeable when talking about irrational fears.

so if a writer hates jews or wolves...it's "meh, it's all the same. just irrational fears anyways."

you must be on a higher intellectual plateau than myself to think like that.

>> No.6576253
File: 49 KB, 600x400, 1424711038381.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6576253

>>6575270

>> No.6576260

>>6576251
>basically you're saying jews and wolves are interchangeable when talking about irrational fears.
Are you saying there aren't rational reasons to be afraid of particular Jews? There are also reasons *not* to be afraid of wolves.

I am on a higher intellectual plane. I'm thinking; you're emoting.

>> No.6576276

>>6576260
>I'm thinking; you're emoting.

not emoting. just thinking in context of reality and how things relate to each other in reality.

you're thinking in words. I'm thinking of what those words represent. it's what you'll do more of when you're older.

>> No.6576307

>>6574741
It almost sounds like a requirement tbh.

>> No.6576343

>>6575770
Spot on mate

>> No.6576369

>>6576276
>I'm thinking of what those words represent.
I'm aware of the human toll of antisemitism, and my argument doesn't negate it. It's more of an elaboration on something you already thank than anything else. Of course I'm thinking about words; my claim is about-to capitalize and asterize it again-the *DISCURSIVE WEIGHT* of disapproval toward genocide, based on a more widespread awareness of what antisemitism reveals about a person, and because of 1) the horrifying truths it revealed about industrial society's ability to slaughter innocent and defenseless human beings and 2) the impact it had on the Jews as a people, and all the other groups it targeted.

Again, I'm talking about the way people treat the way people talk about Jews.
>reality
Are you implying that the state's manipulation of discourse isn't real?

>> No.6576370

>>6574741
Yeah, just look at Kafka

>> No.6576378

>>6576369
I think he might be a Jew.

>> No.6576388

>>6576378
I'm almost certain he is. That's no reason not to debate him. Jews are human beings capable of understanding other human beings' opinions. Or so I would hope.

>> No.6576394

>>6576378
What makes you say that?

>> No.6576402

>>6576394
Would you defend Jews?

>> No.6576406

>>6576402
To the same extent I'd defend Muslims; that is, insofar as they are human.

>> No.6576451

Nationalism is a spook. Antisemitism is ideology. Go back to /pol

>> No.6576479

>>6576451
Spooks are ideology. Ideology is a spook. Go back to reddit.

>> No.6576495

>>6575770
Underrated post

>> No.6576566

>>6576369
All I'm saying is that irrational fears are not created equal. In a purely intellectual context you it's easy to lump fears together. But how they manifest in the real physical world is totally different. I'm not going to debate why a fear of jews and a fear of wolved are different. The way these fears are intellectualized are different as plain as day and night. They're not the same just bc both are feared.

And to the other anon I'm korean but it's beside the point.

>> No.6576577

>>6575770
nabokov, joyce

>> No.6576582 [SPOILER] 
File: 130 KB, 500x514, 1432335217842.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6576582

>>6574741

ummm even jews become anti-semitic and self-hating if they are true geniuses.

example: Otto Weininger

>> No.6576604

>>6576566
>The way these fears are intellectualized are different as plain as day and night
I don't disagree. My claim wasn't about the way they're intellectualized, it was about their relationship to the quality of a writer. This is a purely intellectual exercise, I don't come to 4chan to cry about dead Jews.

>> No.6576610
File: 95 KB, 620x827, ayy priori.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6576610

>>6574933
>>6574937
how in g-d's name

>> No.6576807

>>6576142
are you saying the niggers who hang outside the grocery store across the street from my house aren't just as likely to jump me as wolves in their natural habitat?

>> No.6577676

>>6576807
That seems to be his point, yes.

>> No.6577699

>>6576117
Whenever someone says
"You're equating X to Y?"
or "you're comparing X to Y?"

It often means that that person is so low IQ that they cannot infer the similarity relevant to the logic of the situation being considered.

In this case the fact that a person is afraid of wolves or dislikes jews clearly in no way retrospectively makes that person's intellectual achievements less great.

>> No.6577707

>>6575110
Pound remorsed and regretted talking foul of the jews

>> No.6577774

>>6575792
how does it feel?

>> No.6577801

>>6576117

UGHHHHHH I HATE THIS LOGICAL FALLACY SOOOOOOOO MUCH! FUUUUUUUUUCK!

You're equating an analogy with identity. An analogy says X is like Y in certain respects. The law of identity says X is X. You're confusing the two. This is so common it blows my fucking mind, even smart people fall into it.

>> No.6578087

>>6575710
smirked, thank you again mr.dandan

>> No.6578290

>>6576098
>Great modern authors are unlikely to be anti-Semitic

Do you think this is true, or do you think it's possible that people are self-censoring now that being racist is the equivalent of worshipping the devil was in previous centuries. Maybe a great writer is currently on /pol/ letting off steam in ways that would be unthinkable in public.(very unlikely, but, how would you ever know?) People like to forget that Weimar Germany was very "progressive" in lots of ways right up until the Nazis took over and people seemed to switch over pretty quickly.

>> No.6578313
File: 6 KB, 225x225, 1432187977226.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6578313

Fuck judaism but that being said fuck all religions, im so tired of listening musulims and jews murdering children because of some stupid as fuck rules written by fishermen hundreds of years ago, you have a generational gap with 15 year olds and now youll tell me about life and destiny based on that?
Fuck you,

Jews have always been a mafia, and they fuck up the political system wherever they go, same as blacks, im against discrimination but i understand racism.

>> No.6578676

Bump

>> No.6578796

>>6578290
Most people completely neglect the mimetic influence of social behavior.
Besides, people ofen assume that after WWII anti-semitism stopped. But that's not even remotely true. Philo-semitism only became an established thing in the late 60s. Just look how Marlon Brando suddenly had to go on tv regretting his anti-semitism. Greatest piece of acting ever.
It's not like the last 40 years have been the greatest period of such lenght in litterature history either.

>> No.6579164

>>6574741
Literary genius yes
True genius no

>> No.6580520

>>6574937
Dude was senile and pathetic as fuck