/lit/ - Literature

Jesus, do you have to have a daily thread about a Frankfurt School heeb every day /lit/? Is it some kind of unwritten law?

>>4265756
I had you pegged as someone with at least your typical /lit/ liberal sophistry skills.

Unfortunately I was wrong, you quite literally just prattle away about absolutely nothing of consequence or relevance.

Good night.

>>4265726
>So it isn't the law that's the problem, since degenerates like you steer clear anyways.

No, the problem is that sans fear of the law, degenerates such as yourself can't control yourselves.

Fear does actually motivate people and act as a deterrent, believe it or not.

>leviathans

Everyone believes in leviathans because nobody actually believes in real pluralism since its completely unworkable. Especially in multiracial states (ever notice how the administration of multiracial states increasingly resembles that of a dysfunctional imperial administration?)

>>4265705
I do not normally use drugs as I am not a degenerate.

>>4265696
I'm not sure what your first question is meant to mean, it comes across as garbled.

>Are you afraid of the law?

No, that's the point. Nobody in western societies is afraid of the law.

>>4265682
>How about you regulate drug producers like you regulate big pharma, tobacco and alchohol and let people decide for themselves if they want drugs?

How about no?

Plenty of heroin addicts thought it was a good idea to initially start shooting up heroin. People need rules. Further to the point, people don't exist as completely atomized units, and one person's bad decisions invariably impact another, whether it's by making the neighborhood in which he lives a more unpleasant place to live, making others subsidize his direct negative externalities and so on.

>boring

lol, is this really what you've been reduced to?

Go join a SlutWalk or something.

>innocent as drugs

Believe it or not libfag, hard drugs ruin lives, regardless of how "pure" the substance involved is. Stupid Breaking Bad watching idiots. Every trafficker hanged in Sing is a thousand people saved from addiction. You may think it's a joke but the extent of opium addiction in China was so great in the 19th century it almost crippled the Qing state entirely.

>>4265677
The problem with equating liberalism with plutocracy is that it misses the central point of why liberalism is a bad ideology.

Liberalism leads to plutocracy, but that's almost incidental, since liberalism advocates mass electorates and universal franchises, and mass electorates are always easier to manipulate than a smaller electorate with more of a handle on realpolitik.

>individualism, egalitarianism (equality before the law), universalism and progressivism

Agreed with all except the last, it's just a marketing buzzword. Egalitarianism extends to more than just negative liberty (before the law) too and forms the justification for more invasive legislation.

I do love Metapedia though.

>>4265660
>it's just simple and simple solutions are for the simpleminded, it's a complex world

I think you're purposefully overcomplicating things as "criminologists" on the left often do.

Singapore's results speak for themselves. Even developing nations like China can manage their drug problem better than America and Europe can.

Perhaps we should have another roundtable discussion about how we need to put more money into education and building more "yourh centers" to counterract the problem though?

How about a 1 to 1 iPad scheme at your local school? That's sure to help!

>>4265558
I know of Dugin:
According to Dugin, the triumph of liberalism has been so definitive, in fact, that in the West it has ceased to be political, or ideological, and become a taken-for-granted practice. Westerners think in liberal terms by default, assuming that no sane, rational, educated person could think differently, accusing dissenters of being ideological, without realizing that their own assumptions have ideological origins.

The definitive triumph of liberalism has also meant that it is now so fully identified with modernity that it is difficult to separate the two, whereas control of modernity was once contested by political theory number one against political theories two and three. The advent of postmodernity, however, has marked the complete exhaustion of liberalism. It has nothing new to say, so it is reduced endlessly to recycle and reiterate itself.

>>4265605
Neuron 2001;32:537-551

>>4265629
Yeah, similarly I don't think I'd characterize myself as "extreme" but if that's the description they're going to apply to everyone who wants to limit net inflow to demographically insignificant numbers, then so be it, that's the line in the sand I'm happy to accept, and I think most white people agree with us rather than them.

>>4265591
You're approaching it from a leftist viewpoint. Radical rightists don't believe in the history as progress narrative so the concept of "10 point plans" is kind of irrelevant.

To be sure, there's a lot we could legally, making naturalization harder, lowering the quotas for settlement, making refugee status near-impossible to get like it is in Japan etc, but these go without saying, they don't really require le autist list.

>>4265595
>dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.

It seems fairly practical to summarily shoot drug dealers if your goal is to minimize hard drug use.

It seems fairly impractical to create a culture that glorifies them and a criminal justice system that makes incarceration the only recourse a judge has by contrast.

>pure emotion

Totally unlike the movement against white rule in South Africa, or the near-religious cult status that surrounds MLK and Mandela eh?

>>4265579
My interpretation of it may be subjective but beauty itself isn't.

You're just a contrarian gnat at this point.

>you are not very clever are you?

Because I don't accept the whole official narrative about conceptual art?

Why does liberals posture at pluralism and then demand complete acquiescence to their worldview, in many cases under threat of predator drones?

>>4265574
>95% of what the reactionary blogosphere produces are negative critiques.

It's more or less accepted amongst reactionaries that we stand for things like monarchy, aristocratic republicanism etc. There's little debate about this but if you want good illustrations of the sorts of systems we implicitly believe are the best you can read Polybius or Aristotle.

>>4265565
Singapore's a fiercely pragmatic state. It has mandatory execution for drug traffickers above a certain quantity, it comes down hard on petty crime, it de-unionizes publicly owned industry so that it doesn't become inefficient whilst guaranteeing unionized workers their own government built flats. It melds public ownership with private ownership through its sovereign wealth fund (Temasek Holdings) and so on.

Not sure what's romantic or whimsical about this, it's just fact. Singapore works well and it has been pissing off libs for decades now.

>>4265546
No, I'd certainly adopt a mediated approach. I preferred the old Kaiserreich to Hitler for example, even though aspects of NS are so damned seductive.

We need to defeat the left on an emotional level. Mainstream conservatism tried to fight it by conceding that it had "fairness" on its side but claiming what it set out to do was impractical. The problem with that outlook was that it gave up the ethical side of the argument to liberals and in turn meant conservatives lost their emotional energy (or what little they had, I don't really like conservatism).

You have to fight it at an emotional level to win people over. Even if it's just pointing out how goddamn ugly it is as an ideology. Leftist architecture, leftist art (from socialist realism to conceptualism) and so on are just repulsive.

This is because leftism is an aesthetically bankrupt movement, since it denies objective concepts of beauty.

Right wing architecture and art by contrast is beautiful, since it acknowledges the difference and hierarchy inherent in things and aims to use those to its advantage.

>>4265529
Even if we forget about political, ethical and metaphysical philosophy for a moment, a "pragmatic" system would be something like Singapore or China.

Certainly not Western liberal democracies. There's nothing "pragmatic" about ranking top or near top of the refugee claim acceptance rankings. Pragmatism would be to blow the boats out the water and send them to the bottom of the Med.

I find it frankly amazing you're even posturing at liberalism being a pragmatic ideology in the first place. Even an honest lib will admit just how much of his belief is driven by sheer emotion, that's why it's such a powerful ideology. It runs on two things that go with the grain of Western Civ: Reciprocal Altruism and Universalism.

>>4265497
That's an oversimplification. Slavic anti-semitism for example can be attributed in part to the Jewish role in the Ottoman slave trade.

>>4265488
I have sympathy for corporatism too. In both the way Gentile proposed it under fascism and the way it seems to be practiced in East Asia. You need to be prepared to crack down hard on both greedy managerial staff and union bullshittery under a corporatist system though, and I'm not sure the West has the balls to do it.

>Antifa thuggery thing

It is here too. The reconstitution of Trotsky's legacy into some kind of nice little peacenik to Stalin's brutishness is disgusting. Trotsky would have been worse than Stalin, anyone who has read anything about the two men knows that.

My main point is that the West is dominated by liberal thought to a degree that most Westerners don't even see liberal thought as something ideological anymore. They just see it as something that any right-thinking person would believe in by default.

>>4265461
Policy-wise or governmentally? For the latter I'm fond of the West's actual traditional modes of Government: Aristocratic Republics and Mediated Monarchies. For both, probably some kind of limited franchise which excludes people with no real future stake in the welfare of the country (childless people, reprobates etc)

>>4264566
>failure as a culture and as a country

Says the people who give us Miley Cyrus and think that half of all children being raised by single mothers is part of some kind of progressive transitional model of the family.

>>4264566
>I mean, honestly, beyond the bullshit and the rhetoric, do you seriously believe that the dominant ethnic groups of the different western nations are commiting some kind of ethnic/racial suicide?

Not him, but yes. That's what the demographics projections say. Short of significantly stricter immigration laws, these projections will eventually come to pass.

For my part, I don't want to be replaced by foreign races with foreign cultures on the soil my ancestors shed blood to defend.

You can wax lyrical about the importance of it all from a postcolonial perspective I suppose. Perhaps you'll even get a small Guardian column to pontificate.

>the broad political trayectory in South America, Africa, the middle east and the rest of Asia is a crawl towards liberal and progresssive values

No it isn't.

East Asia has the superficial trappings of liberalism, but the reality is that even in a place like Japan if it reverted to a Meiji-restoration like system, you'd see little public opposition to it.

Africa is just... Hopelessly dysfunction, and that's the more advanced states like SA and Botswana, let alone the less wealthy ones. As for the Middle East, didn't the so called "arab spring" teach you anything?

China is the real challenge, since it presents itself almost as a reborn Confucian state these days.

Chinese people may hate local officials, but they've got a lot of respect and admiration for the central leadership of the CCP.

Your historical materialism is so deluded it's actually sort of scary.

>As to Russia, yes, they are slowly sliding into fascism, but the again,

No, Russia is managed autocracy.

Fascism has a real definition, not just "people to the right I don't like", and Russia is not nearly corporatist enough at this stage to be considered fascist.

>The best the rest of the world can do to contain Russia's idiotic destructive tendencies is to give them some country as a sacrificial lamb for them to beat up

Ah. I can hardly contain all this tolerance for pluralism!

"They don't like public promotion of homosexuality, so they deserve to be destroyed as a nation state."

- White Liberal Americans, ladies and gentlemen!

You are aware that virtually none of Asia would tolerate what Russia is taking steps to oppose too, right? Why not go beat on China? Scared?

>>4265446
I'm not familiar enough with GD to know who is who, but there are some smart people behind the scenes who managed their ascent to "state within a state" (the environmental branch, welfare branch, the uniforms, going around helping people in dangerous, immigrant filled areas etc, it's all proactive, street politics).

>>4265405
>Egalitarianism dogma is certainly not part of liberalism so I find your statement entirely too vague.

Egalitarianism and liberalism are more than bedfellows, one is a constituent of the other.

>The modern left/right split is far more narrow than that and mostly relates to what form global liberalism should take, welfare statist or not.

What I describe is already extremely narrow.

The inability of the modern western mind to conceive of a worldview that doesn't prioritize the individual above all else and equality as the holiest of holies underscores this. Westerners lack even the language to articulate opposition to liberalism, since all of our political vernacular is tied up in language inherently flattering to it (progressivism, rights, freedom etc).

>That's the fundamental difference between real Liberals and American ones really.

What? There are plenty of internationalist leftards elsewhere. Internationalism was a Trotskyist concept. Note that Trotsky is kind of made into this foil figure to Stalin by modern Historians, even though had he taken over the SU he would probably have been a lot more brutal and destructive.

>Certainly, they aren't intrested in having countries anymore after all. There's nothing to truly gather around when the rest of the nation are essentially alien to your culture and people.

Agreed with this.

I'm guessing you're a classical liberal.

Try to read reactionary thought to understand why the radical right has an issue with classical liberalism and why we believe it was always going to lead inexorably to the kind of fucked up nonsense you see today.

>>4265372
Look, forget about your semantic distinctions and no true scotsman shit.

Liberalism is two things: 1) The belief in equality as a moral good 2) The belief in expanding an individual's agency as a moral good.

This is the modern "left/right" split. Both are still liberal. Both are totalitarian. Both want to drop bombs on other people for spurious reasons (just look at the vitriol your average American libfaggot feels for Russia these days) and both are weakening their country and ignoring the long game.

>>4265302
>and are funnily enough spearheading the western reactionary right wing

No they aren't. Outside of a couple of irrelevant Scandinavian states America is the most liberal state on Earth and what has given liberal ideology most of its action theater and energy over the past 60 years.

It's like asking a fish what water is like, I don't think you realize just how liberal the West is because you've been immersed in it from birth.