Are you guys trying to turn me into a cuck? I'm serious.

>>8885093
cucking is the basis of western culture, deal with it

Are there any un-cucked writers?

This thread is Kafkaesque

>Iliad: Agamemnon's brother gets cucked and goes to war
>Odyssey: Odysseus is in danger of getting cucked the whole time
More like start with the cucks.

>>8885093
>very end
What? He's worrying about Blazes cucking him hard from early on.
Anyways cucking is fun and serves as a good metaphor for all sorts of things in daily life.

>>8885093
>>8885098

The intuition is unfortunately dead on though I think. I mean, this rings true even at the very beginning of western lit (The Odyssey).

Looking at that earliest couplet of outings that set the standard going on, I can't help but feel that in each (The Iliad and Odyssey), you can't help but bifurcate it into the stages of a man's life.

>When you're young, wrathful, fighting, wanting glory, pussy hunting
The Iliad

>When you're older, an adult pulled away toward anything but the place you want to be, working, and (if you fit or seek the confines of what we now call the "traditional" family) always in the back of your mind afraid that our universal biological impulses will wreck it all
The Odyssey

>>8885167
Kek

I have thought of exactly the same thing, and I'm looking for books that look on the strong things in life, not the boohoo cuck things.

It's the mans fault anyways to get cucked, too weak to be a man, and if there is no man (mentally), there is high changes to cuckenings because of the nature of women and the nature of things. Ofc there are rare expectations and women with selfconciousness, but those are needles in the haystack.

>>8885093
Masculine anxiety has been a crucial element of western literature at least since the creation mythos. When a writer tells a story involving men and women that also seeks to uncover some aspect of l'humaine condition, this subject will be approached in some way, in some cases more explicitly than others. Humans are social and sexual creatures, and also existential creatures. Think of Adam and Eve. They live without shame or sin in the Garden of Eden until Eve partakes of the fruit. This is her sin, but Adam sins before he ever eats. His sin is his concern with Eve's opinion of him instead of God's. His fear is that Eve should die alone, leaving him alone; that Eve should suffer alone, leaving him to suffer alone as well; that Eve should sin alone, leaving him to live virtuous, but again, alone. And so he bites as well. Like Eve, Adam is relegated to a world of suffering, death, sin, mayhem, torture, labour (of one of two kinds), fear, darkness, despair, anxiety, and terror, but this is a good thing: God would not allow it otherwise. In this instance of sin, Adam becomes human, capable of genuine worship, genius works of art, true love, feats of strength and unconquerable will. His life is imbued with meaning. But his sin also leaves him self-conscious.

Think of stories about men devoid of the presence of women. Moby Dick, for example. This is a story of animalistic man. Queequeg is not self-conscious. Ahab is not self-conscious. Ishmael is not self-conscious. Nor is Starbuck, Stubbs, nor Pip, nor Daggoo, nor any other member of the crew. It's positively Nietzschean in its rendition of man. Also think about Blood Meridian, a bit darker than Melville's masterpiece, but in many ways the same story. The men are not concerned at all with their atrocities, they are not even questioned, until in Chapter 18, Sarah Borginnis arrives. She is not sexualized, not even attractive, yet, the only named woman in the story is the only figure who makes these characters feel any sense of shame or guilt.

When you read cuckoldry in so many of the great stories of western literature, from the Illiad to Ulysses, what you are reading is the feminine reaffirming masculine subjectivity. Without at least a hint of this interplay, some small anxiety at the very least, man cannot truly be man.

In some sense, the neofascistic fascination with cuckoldry is a rejection of human nature and human freedom in favour of those most animalistic traits. Those (men) predisposed to the slavishness of this rigidly and profoundly hierarchical social structure seek a way to strip themselves of their anxiety. When man is free from his self-consciousness and anxiety, he frees himself from woman and from free will. Instead, meaning must be found within the structure that perpetuates the hierarchy, usually within the individual or the cabal at the very top of the ladder, but also in the goals of those faux-übermenschen.

>>8885251

Sheeet man, what have you been reading? That's bretty good

>>8885309

>Sharpening his pen for Ulysses

kek'd hard

>>8885093
are there any Literature that are completely unrelated to cuckoldry?

>>8885363
Learn proper English.

>>8885367
not a Literature i've ever heard of

>>8885367
> Thinking language actually exists

There! Are! No! Rules!

>>8885271
Lately? Don DeLillo, Hume, and Gerard Manley Hopkins, but I don't think any of those authors/philosophers/poets are particularly concerned with what I was talking about in >>8885251

>>8885251
nice

>>8885093
The message of all of these books is not to be a cuck. So quite the opposite.

>>8885363
Book of the New Sun. Wait, fuck. Severian cucks his dead grandad.

>>8885389
Yes there are rules you illiterate sea-cucumber. Descriptivism doesn't mean write like a fucking spastic, it means that so long as language is mutually-intelligible, it's language -- and the same language at that. Language is also heavily contextual. There is formal academic English, AAVE, Scots, the Queen's English, my own Canuckistani dialect, medical jargon, Jamaican patois, RP, various pidgins, Saxe-Ænglisch. All of these are English, but none of them are meant to be used in the same context. Shit, some of them aren't even mutually intelligible.

>>8885363

This anon's meaning was more or less clear, but on a forum specifically set aside for the discussion of literature, we can afford to be snobs about formal grammar. His schizophrenic capitalization and lack of coherent tense makes his post a pain to read. He deserves the flagellation. I've seen better communication from a gibbon.

But hey, at least he's asking a question. It's not a particularly insightful question, but he's trying to learn. I can't say the same for you.

>>8885433
>His schizophrenic capitalization and lack of coherent tense makes his post a pain to read.
it's called stream of consciousness you pleb

>>8885363
i don't remember any cucking in storm of steel

>>8885435
Woolf is stream-of-consciousness. The word you're looking for is illiteracy.

>>8885457
you just don't GET it kid

>>8885439

See the relevant section of >>8885251

>In some sense, the neofascistic fascination with cuckoldry is a rejection of human nature and human freedom in favour of those most animalistic traits. Those (men) predisposed to the slavishness of this rigidly and profoundly hierarchical social structure seek a way to strip themselves of their anxiety. When man is free from his self-consciousness and anxiety, he frees himself from woman and from free will. Instead, meaning must be found within the structure that perpetuates the hierarchy, usually within the individual or the cabal at the very top of the ladder, but also in the goals of those faux-übermenschen.

>>8885251
I really like it when I see somebody put legitimate effort into a post on /lit/
Good job

File: troll.jpg (46KB, 570x509px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 570x509px

>>8885460
No, I get it, I just don't care. Pretending to be retarded is still being retarded.

>>8885498
>he didn't GET it
all i did was replace "books" with "Literature" because the name of this board is Literature and not books

was that so hard

>>8885518
Awwwww. You're not pretending. Now I feel bad.

>>8885545
there's nothing retarded about using language in new and creative ways

>>8885093
I didnt get that out of the sun also rises. But then again the wors cuck has become a meme so i might not really know what youre talking about. Never read anna karenina tho

>>8885363
If there is, it misses an essential part of the human condition.

>>8885093
excellent meme thread to be honest

>>8885251
Not bad. What about women? Most classical renditions of Eve give us a female narcissus who prefers her own image to Adam. Is her life imbued with meaning?

File: image.jpg (66KB, 323x500px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 323x500px

>>8885093
I deeply recommend you this novel

Authors are often fags. Wouldn't surprise me if there's also a bunch of cucks.

>>8885093
great thread desu

I'm just gonna go ahead and say that "being cucked" is something like being powerless or impotent. Like when you come up against an insurmountable limit, you're being cucked. So like, everything that is about an individual is about these limits, because every individual is limited. It doesn't have to make you feel helpless necessarily, literature is (in one sense) just about discovering the limits that every individual will inevitably face.

If you don't want to read cuck stuff, do what the far right has always done: don't read anything that isn't either totally literal in its aesthetics or is completely ideologically driven.

is it better to have loved and been cucked than to have never loved at all?

>>8885251
Wow, a thoughtful post on /lit/. Been weeks since I've seen one desu.

>>8885661
Perhaps it's because last semester I focused quite heavily on him, but Milton's Paradise Lost presents us with an inextricably human Eve. Take this passage from Book VIII:

Under his forming hands a creature grew,
Manlike, but different sex, so lovely fair,
That what seemed fair in all the world, seemed now
Mean, or in her summed up, in her contained
And in her looks, which from that time infused
Sweetness into my heart, unfelt before,
And into all things from her air inspired
The spirit of love and amorous delight.
She disappeared, and left me dark.

(470-478; please continue reading past 484)*

The passage is too long for me to quote in its entirety, so I settled for a few representative lines. Eve is more beautiful than Adam, and recognizes her own beauty. She requires divine command to bring her to her husband. This would seem to affirm your idea of a "female narcissus." However, when we read the next Canto, dealing entirely with the Fall, Eve, in her newly fallen state, is concerned with her relationship to Adam more than she is about her impending death.

Now, one distinction between female subjectivity and male subjectivity that we can draw is that Adam is deeply self-conscious prior to his sin (". . . and left me dark.) while Eve does not experience her moment of self-consciousness until after the Fall. Even still, Milton was writing in the birth-throes of the Enlightenment, and he was caught between gender-radical egalitarianist groups such as the Levellers and Quakers, while gender-radical hyper-hierarchism was the dominant force. What I mean to say here is that Milton is weird when it comes to gender.

Now let's read a less obvious but more-representative-of-the-main-vein-of-Western-literature instance of the myth of the Fall of Man -- Macbeth. Shakespeare's depiction of Lady Macbeth as Eve has her less concerned with her own appearance and wellbeing than with an almost Homeric idealization of historical remembrance. Lady Macbeth places extreme priority on her husband's legacy and position -- while it's true that she, as a woman, does gain some power from her advanced position (historically speaking, more than Shakespeare gives her credit for), it's not nearly enough to justify itself as the sole motivator for her actions throughout the play. There's a reason why all my professors through my undergrad described Macbeth and his wife as having the only good marriage in all of Shakespeare's works.

(1/2)

>>8885817
(2/2)
However, these are instances of female subjectivity represented through the lens of a masculine author. While we can cast all sorts of aspersions on the feminist project (especially here), I don't think that it's unreasonable to expect that male writers will take a different view of woman than will, well, women. Unfortunately for the answer to this question then, women have only been writing for the last 250 years (with some obvious exceptions, though I don't think that Hymn to Athena gives us much to work with here), and women have only been writing in quantity comparable to men for the last 100 years or less. Our pool of literature from feminine sources is thus less full than our pool of literature from the masculine.

Now, for almost its entire history, women's literature (by which I mean literature written by women for both men and women) has been closely tied to the feminist project, and a major aspect of the feminist literary program is to draw hard distinctions between the experiences of men and those of women. Women must then be represented as women. They cannot be represented as human, or as universalized in any way. This is a sad by-product of feminist literature -- the particularization of women -- but sadder for us is that it obscures the answer to the question of Eve's existence.

However, a few notable pieces of writing have swum against the current of normative feminist discourse (mainly thanks to intersectionality and the third-wave): I'd list Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's Americanah, Zadie Smith's White Teeth, and Beloved by Toni Morrison as examples of texts primarily from a female perspective (although they all take a male perspective at some point or another) which, from that perspective, deal with the same sort of anxiety dealt with by Leopold Bloom, Menelaus, or Adam (or at least something quite like it). I also don't think it's a coincidence that all of the authors I've listed here are *black* women. I don't think that white women in Europe or America have yet reached the stage where they can freely attach themselves to l'humaine condition in their writing, at least without some serious reaction (though Plath and O'Connor come very close).

So, to answer the question "Is [Eve's] life imbued with meaning?"

When written by men: probably not, although it varies.

When written by women: usually not, unless they can free themselves of the constraints of feminist discourse.


*Taken from the Kerrigan, Rumrich, Fallon edition of the poem.

Truly cuckoldry is the thinking man's fetish/revulsion.

>>8885251
I don't know if you're a regular, but if you aren't will you please stay with us here, or at least post more? You improve /lit/ :)

>>8885905
I'm a semi-regular. I never make my own top-level posts and only contribute when I feel I have something unique to add to the conversation. Thanks though.

>>8885167
i'm fucking dead

>>8885098
Christian theology is grounded in a cuckolding.

>>8885363
Hemingway

>>8885167
Achilles also gets cucked by Agamemnon

>>8885251
Garbage post. Kill yourself pseud, you'll always be a pleb.

>>8886250
He declared that he never fucked her though, even though it's the natural thing for mankind, men and women joined.

>>8885545
Shut the fuck up you useless piece of trash. People like you make me sick. Go swallow your dad's cum you fucking pathetic faggot.

do you mean instinct?

File: 1477193371781.jpg (71KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 633x758px

>>8885251
>TFW someone actually makes a good /lit/ post and I'm too dumb to understand it

So are you saying the interest in being cucked is a natural result of how men today are rejecting the historical societal structure? The bit at the end made it sound like the true man simply accepts the burden of his reality, and seeks to deal with it anyway?

Meaning the cuck tries to escape the reality by having another man take it on for him, because the woman would no longer have to affirm his subjective masculinity?
To be man is to be stoic?

>>8885671
>Authors are often fags
so, that's why, for the love of God, i can't seem to make myself write anything.
time to find good dick, i guess.
>oh but >KEK
well, time to find a good dick, and then have that penetrate some other guy's ass. i hope that makes me a great writer.

>>8885798
nothing beats cucking someone.

>>8886373
>>KEK
i wrote c.uck, not k.ek.

>liberal sjw mods don't want to allow such words to be posted here now.
fascism, anyone?

>>8885202
You'd be fun at parties.

>>8885251
Jerk-off.

File: 868676528628.png (853KB, 615x1018px) Image search: [Google]

853KB, 615x1018px

>>8886352
>i dont understand it
>its good

this is how people become cucks, they rotelearn things given accolades by jewish tastemakers who want to wipe out whites

>>8886403
>You must understand something in able to appreciate it

Lol I hope you don't seriously beeleive that.

Regardless, I wasn't saying I agree with him, I simply wanted to see what he meant, and from there conclude if I agreed or not. I have not exactly spent my time contemplating the perspective of cucks, and therefore have yet to have any opinion

Don't fucking assume so much

>>8885251
this is spot on. driving force of man is to procreate and the fear of his validity of procreation being stifled by another who would do so in his place. that would explain a lot of the breakdown of this generation, what with birth control becoming more and more prevalent, the aspect of procreation is less of a necessity in the social mind, giving rise to a type of male less intent on matrimonial interests, and more on petty hobbies that never require the type of striving invention that brings sustenance to a family. i really like your analysis of moby dick, and really never noticed the lack of women in the book, (aside from the chowder lady in the beginning).

there's really nothing left to be said about the topic, you've addressed it so well. it's a shame you didn't leave a bit for discussion.

>>8885661
is this a seed question to give you an excuse to post this:>>8885817 >>8885820 ?

>>8885093
You didn't know Bloom was getting cucked until the very end?

must have been quite a twist

File: milo buys it.png (113KB, 495x425px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 495x425px

>>8885251
No one is gonna respond to this? Fine take it from a /pol/ack:

>In some sense, the neofascistic fascination with cuckoldry is a rejection of human nature and human freedom in favour of those most animalistic traits. Those (men) predisposed to the slavishness of this rigidly and profoundly hierarchical social structure seek a way to strip themselves of their anxiety. When man is free from his self-consciousness and anxiety, he frees himself from woman and from free will. Instead, meaning must be found within the structure that perpetuates the hierarchy, usually within the individual or the cabal at the very top of the ladder, but also in the goals of those faux-übermenschen.

>human freedom
>free will

The problem with this argument is these things don't exist. We are machines. We are our brains and our brains are complex systems that are structurally similar to the animals we see around us. Just because we evolved some extra neural networking doesn't mean we're any different. We are animals. Yet you use the term animalistic like it's a bad thing.

Neofascism embraces the natural world, the natural order of things. Things that work in harmony with and work like the natural world do work better. It's the same reason why the design of the needle tip is based off the mouth of the mosquito. It's why our bloated consumerist society creates so much mental illness. It's why all the fad diets come and go but paleo works for everyone who uses it.

Your ideology is a fad diet.

Get over it.

>>8886318

is you being sick something that shakes the world? is supposed to affect me from all the way over there? I'd recommend a healthy dose of being the pathetic faggot you project for 500.

>>8886422
>post-cuck era refutations
get over yourself, aftermath man. you're resting on a chair made of the shackles cast off by men restricted by feminimity.
>we are machines
>we are animals

well, which are we, anon?

File: trump 1985.jpg (96KB, 1440x809px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1440x809px

>>8886429
>well, which are we, anon?

I was using those terms to illustrate a point. Ultimately there is no distinction between animals and machines. There is no magical difference between the logical and natural processes that make an animal work and the logical processes that make a machine work.

>>8886422
>>8886438
>free will doesn't exist
>we are animals and machines and there is no difference between animals and machines
wow you're quite possibly both autistic and stupid.

>>8886438
then why do we have a word for either instead of just one word for both of them? why is there a distinction in our language, (at least in terms of specificity, not necessarily the definitions themselves) between animals and machines, if there is no ultimate difference? besides, on what grounds are logic and nature even remotely the same? are all things that are natural by definition logical?

File: 1481983111805m.jpg (139KB, 884x1024px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 884x1024px

>>8886429
>>8886444
Brilliant discussion, top tier rhetoric like this is what keeps me coming back to /lit/ time and again.

>>8886448
>what is an analogy

I did not know you could functionally operate on so little brain power. Tell me, what is it like?

>>8886456
>top tier rhetoric
you mean like we're both animals and machines and there's no difference between animals and machines?
you have this gigantic fucking blind spot of stupidity that you're unwilling to address with yourself and to engage with you on the basis that you're not a total moron would be a disservice to anybody with a handful of brain cells.
>>8886460
oh so it's an analogy now. lmao you're a classic retard.

File: race.jpg (137KB, 644x644px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 644x644px

>>8886444

>free will doesn't exist

Yea it doesn't. Your mind makes your decisions before "you" become conscious of them. There is no "you". The "conscious mind" and the subconscious are one in the same. This has been hinted at (some say proven) with developments in neuroscience and the data keeps pouring out every day.

>we are animals and machines and there is no difference between animals and machines

The only difference between animals and machines is once a machine becomes complex enough it can be considered an animal. Viruses appear to be living yet they aren't classified under the animal kingdom because they're too "simplistic" in their structure. The distinction exists only in complexity.

>>8886448

>why do we have a word for either instead of just one word for both of them? why is there a distinction in our language, (at least in terms of specificity, not necessarily the definitions themselves) between animals and machines, if there is no ultimate difference?

Okay David Foster Wallace fan boy, what if I told you our language developed in a time period where the extent of what a machine could do was keeping wooden carts rolling?

>besides, on what grounds are logic and nature even remotely the same? are all things that are natural by definition logical?

I'm using the term logic a little too loosely. A computer (a machine) is at it's core little bits of electricity traveling around and interacting in a really complex way to make the text on your screen. The human brain (and the "animal" brain) is at it's core a series of small electrical pulses interacting in a really complex way to make your fingers move the way they're about to when you type your response.

>>8885251
Good post, however I disagree about the last paragraph, the goal of fascism and national socialism isn't to blindly worship the hierarchy and the system for its own sake, or to supplement some lost "free-will", the goal is to imbue a healthy respect for the natural order (which is hierarchical), and to use said hierarchy and order to build and maintain prosperous human societies, which should be, in part, free from the anxieties you mentioned.

The neofascistic ideologies' fixation with cuckoldry is a natural human response to the unwanted possibility of being not only bereft of progeny, but to the even more unwanted possibility of rearing others' yourself. The disdain that such people feel for cuckoldry is very easy to understand because it is in defiance with the biological imperative to reproduce, and it goes against the imposed social order of such societies. And although, these ideologies respect and revere the natural, they follow it as scripture, they weren't hippies after all, this would explain the disdain for the animalistic side that humans posses, and its efforts to suppress it by discipline, training and by counter-balancing the need to indulge in base activities against proper actions which should benefit society rather than one's self.

>>8886473
they don't follow it as scripture.

>>8885093
>The first time I came here I said I wanted to read the great Russian novelists. I was told, "Read Anna Karenina. It's the finest Russian novel there is." I read it. It's about a guy who gets cucked.
I was going to say read the brothers karamazov but come to think of it there's actually a logt of cucking in it too.

i guess women and unrequited love are just pretty ubiquitous motives for men, and this comes out in their most personally crafted and powerful artistic expression.

>>8886422
his post had nothing to do with ideology

Your post is like a reacting to the discussion of the divine by saying hurr durr, God doesn't exist

Get over yourself.

>>8886473
>and to use said hierarchy and order to build and maintain prosperous human societies, which should be, in part, free from the anxieties you mentioned.

I would say that no hierarchy is free from stress

File: black crime.png (1MB, 616x5370px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 616x5370px

>>8886481
>his post had nothing to do with ideology

he commented on neofascism. Why are you surprised a neofascist commented back? I get it's a great post and everything but you can't misrepresent people and expect them to take it up the ass.

By the sound of it you've been taking it up the ass for a long time. Wake up white man.

>>8886468
>your mind isn't you
lmao.
>simple lifeforms are machines
please stop embarrassing yourself.

>>8886489
lol did a black guy fuck your girlfriend or smash your face in?

>>8886488
I didn't imply that it was, it was free from stress of the "lower" kind, such as is my wife getting railed by the milkman, and more concerned with stress of the "higher" kind, such as is my work going to better my country etc. I mean, in theory at least.

>>8885251
You think this qualifies as a smart post? It's just your average pseud babble enriched by a plethora of loanwords.

>>8886489
weak should suffer amiright eh?

>>8885093
No meme answer: cheating is a top source of drama, of course it's featured in a lot of stories.

>>8886492
>your mind isn't you

That's not even what I'm saying.

>>8886494
lol did a white guy fuck your girlfriend or smash your face in?

>>8886499
>weak should suffer amiright eh?

a simplistic view of the natural world and order of things might lead you to conclude this. but a more natural environment for humans means one closer to our evolutionary roots, which means a more tribal environment. i think you'll find compassion comes much more naturally when you can identify with the sufferer. We have people in a globalized world yet we expect them to be compassionate to those their primal brain initially identifies as a member of the enemy tribe.

>>8886496
>going to work and serving my country is more important than my wife getting railed by the milkman
spoken like a true nationalist
>>8886498
>anything i'm too stupid to get is pseud babble

>>8886511
but i'm not the one chain-posting pics about how whites are bad? lmao which one was it buddy?

>>8886511
>Your mind makes your decisions before "you" become conscious of them. There is no "you".
that is what you're saying.

File: okcupid stats.png (34KB, 602x558px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 602x558px

>>8886517
My obsession with the negro stems from my fascination about how easy it is to convince their women to have sex with me

Why is that niggers always insist people are racist because they got "out-manned". Don't you understand your race's brutality coincides with it's failures?

>>8885093
Othello doesn't get cucked though.He just gets insanely paranoid and jealous and ruins his life because someone convinces him he is. Hey maybe there's a lesson in that for you after all.

File: town.png (183KB, 540x710px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 540x710px

>>8886518
I put "you" in parentheses because I'm using the word in a very abstract way. The point I went on to make is that "you" and your mind are one in the same.

>>8886521
i can only imagine what kind of loser would save pics like that lmao which one it was buddy xD

File: africa peace corp.png (769KB, 1032x2291px) Image search: [Google]

769KB, 1032x2291px

>>8886527
>xD

Kill yourself nigger.

Hate image related.

>>8886529
T R I G G E R E D

97 replies to this thread? you guys are fucking sick

>>8886522
Othello fucked Iago's wife.

File: reactionary.png (87KB, 1868x245px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1868x245px

>>8886532
Just using your chimpout/"trolling" to spread more redpills to passerbys. Give me another simplistic reply boy.

>>8886541
really though, genuine curiousity. did tyrone smash your face in or fuck your gf? XD

>>8886514
>What is reading comprehension.

My point was, society would be established in a form where the nuclear family was king, where philandering is looked down upon, where adulterers would not be allowed to exist in society, where the CONCERN of whether or not your wife was railed by the milkman wouldn't exist BECAUSE in such society this would, ideally, not happen, and you, therefore would be able to focus on what REALLY mattered.

And in this day and age, no one really gives any fuck to anything other than themselves and their own egos, coupled with the way society is structured, you have the perfect recipe for cuckoldry, and all the relevant psychological harm it brings, making women whores and men cucks, and they all endlessly shift the blame to the other, and meanwhile nothing gets done, and the western world is stuck in a depraved state. But none of that matters because >muh individualism, being the specialest of special snowflakes is the height of achievement.

>>8886549
so who's going to stop your wife from getting railed by the milkman? the state?
lmao nationalism.

>>8885817
Wait were you the same guy who suggested book Vlll to someone about a week ago?
I remember your writing style, you mind if i converse with you per email? I am interested in you.

>>8886560
>Your brain on liberalism.

The same machinery that is now used to force rampant individualism, miscegenation, impropriety, hedonism etc. SOCIAL CONFORMITY. It is idiots like you, who cannot comprehend anything other than the present moment and your own thoughts.

You forget that society USED to work like this, adultery happened but it was looked down upon, divorce happened but it was discouraged, to put it lightly. No one's saying that things were perfect in the past, they won't ever be perfect, but the point is to fall back on rational, natural premises for the way society should function, not this contrived mess that we now call "western culture" where people neglect their biological needs, where it doesn't matter if you're a man , woman or anything in between, as long as you go to work, take your pills and don't make shake the boat. Now I know this would seem ironic to your limited mind, you will say that fascism is the exact thing I'm describing, this is seemingly true, HOWEVER, fascism and nationalism use these means for the protection of ones PEOPLE, people that are outcasts in such societies are outcasts for a reason, because they harm the natural order of things. But now, saying that trannies are mentally ill, that its idiotic for women to not give birth and focus on "careers", that its bad for wildly different cultures and races to mingle in a single country is BAD, you are the social outcast, society has done a complete 180, the values that used to be taken for granted as pillars of a healthy society, are now touted as values that would harm or destroy society. We are literally living in the twilight zone...

>>8886579
so that's a yes?
lmao nationalism.

>>8886549
>no one really gives any fuck to anything other than themselves and their own egos
It's always been like this. Always.

>>8886590
>No arguments.

Throwing in the towel I guess?

>>8886579
>miscegenation
Stopped reading there.
Go back to your containment board, retard.

>>8886592
that is an argument, you're just too daft to see it. much like how you'd be too daft to notice the milkman banging your lady lmao.

>>8886591
People have always had their own interests in mind, but it used to be that these interests included one's own family and close friends. Now its just a rat-race where everyone and anyone would fuck you over for a leg up on the social ladder. People haven't always been like this, one needs to read the stories of history where people who risked their lives for the common good were revered, but only in today's society do people revere and glorify the ego to such an extent. Just look at college campuses where its all basically a social signalling pageant where people try to out virtue one another for social status, sacrificing millennia of cultural achievement, their own kind and their families for what amounts to societal brownie points.

>>8886593
I'll just dismiss entire notions and concepts like the erudite that I am, I will also dismiss entire concepts and ways of thought that are taboo and go against the common consensus like the freethinker that I am...

I'm sure Orwell couldn't quite imagine to what extent his story would prove correct.

>>8886606
>I'll just dismiss entire notions and concepts like the erudite that I am, I will also dismiss entire concepts and ways of thought that are taboo and go against the common consensus like the freethinker that I am...
If I'm in a middle of a scientific argument and someone says the Earth is flat I'm going to think he's an idiot. Same logic applies to your post.

>>8886615
The only difference being is that flat earth is a theory that implies the earth is flat. Whereas miscegenation is a term that DESCRIBES the mixing of races, which implies nothing other than the fact that there are different human races and/or species? Is the thought that human beings who evolved independently from each other for countless millennia to share different biological traits that difficult for you to grasp?

>>8886352
My final paragraph was not so much an attempt to draw a distinction between fascists and men (fascist men are really just men); rather it was an effort to explain why contemporary men predisposed to fascism have taken up the motif of cuckoldry in an attempt to silence their opposition. Humans are overcome with a really quite severe anxiety, and this anxiety, at least in men, can mainly be attributed to our relationship with women. Sexual rejection is, after all, the worst rejection of all -- worse even than murder -- it tells the rejected "You don't deserve to have a legacy. Your delicate existence must be contained, as a contagion." What could cause a man to feel more vulnerable and alone than that? Across the entire anthropological history of Homo sapiens (no citation on this, I'm quoting from memory, so allow me to be incorrect if I am so), of fifty billion males to have ever lived, less than half have gone on to procreate. Comparatively, more than 95% of fertile females have had at least one child. The male anxiety here is not unwarranted.

The man who creates his own meaning, or who follows God, or who wallows in existential despair moves to acknowledge the possibility that he will be rejected. He allows himself to be self-conscious. There is no meaning without the possibility. If one is required for him to live, then one must be created for him. This is where his interest in fascist movements is piqued. A National Socialist, or a National Bolshevik, or a Falangist, or even one of those following Le Pen, Trump, Putin, or the Golden Dawn (let's not lie to ourselves about these figures: even if Trump himself falls short of a full Mussolini, the centre of his movement begs to differ) does not need to question his place, his role, his meaning.

Of course, none of this actually protects him from being cuckolded in anyway. But the *feeling* of security is there, and for the fascist this is all that matters. This is probably best expanded on in my response to >>8886473 here:

Following closely Nick Land in his article for the Daily Caller, "The F Word," the sole common superficial characteristic of fascism is the 20th Century war economy. That state of total war is what really unites all the fascist movements. I take it that if we were to seek to define Marxism, we shouldn't ask Ayn Rand but Marx or Althusser, and if we were to define Christianity, we'd sooner ask C.S. Lewis than Richard Dawkins. Likewise, we should ask a fascist (or something rather close to a fascist) to define his fascism for us. While Land more closely identifies with the alt-right than with fascism, I figure he's probably somewhat smarter than you (no offence, this is more of a complement to him than an insult in your direction), and the differences between the two movements are superficial and historical, rather than ideological or structural.

(1/5)

>>8886644
(2/5)

>>8886352
My final paragraph was not so much an attempt to draw a distinction between fascists and men (fascist men are really just men); rather it was an effort to explain why contemporary men predisposed to fascism have taken up the motif of cuckoldry in an attempt to silence their opposition. Humans are overcome with a really quite severe anxiety, and this anxiety, at least in men, can mainly be attributed to our relationship with women. Sexual rejection is, after all, the worst rejection of all -- worse even than murder -- it tells the rejected "You don't deserve to have a legacy. Your delicate existence must be contained, as a contagion." What could cause a man to feel more vulnerable and alone than that? Across the entire anthropological history of Homo sapiens (no citation on this, I'm quoting from memory, so allow me to be incorrect if I am so), of fifty billion males to have ever lived, less than half have gone on to procreate. Comparatively, more than 95% of fertile females have had at least one child. The male anxiety here is not unwarranted.

Of course, none of this actually protects him from being cuckolded in anyway. But the *feeling* of security is there, and for the fascist this is all that matters. This is probably best expanded on in my response to >>8886473 here:

Following closely Nick Land in his article for the Daily Caller, "The F Word," the sole common superficial characteristic of fascism is the 20th Century war economy. That state of total war is what really unites all the fascist movements. I take it that if we were to seek to define Marxism, we shouldn't ask Ayn Rand but Marx or Althusser, and if we were to define Christianity, we'd sooner ask C.S. Lewis than Richard Dawkins. Likewise, we should ask a fascist (or something rather close to a fascist) to define his fascism for us. While Land more closely identifies with the alt-right than with fascism, I figure he's probably somewhat smarter than you (no offence, this is more of a complement to him than an insult in your direction), and the differences between the two movements are superficial and historical, rather than ideological or structural.

Prior to industrialization, total mobilization in a time of war was impossible, inconceivable, even. It's unsurprising, I think, that the major fascist leaders of the 20th Century were therefore born on the battlefields of the first fifth of the century: Hitler faced gas and infantry attacks at Ypres, on the Somme, and at Passchendale, Mussolini fought at the Isonzo; Tojo in Russo-Japan, Sino-Japan, and WWI; Philippe Petén commanded at Verdun; and Franco earned his stripes both in the Caribbean against the Americans and in Morocco against the Bedou. These men, whether they won or lost their engagements, felt in full the power of an entire nation efficiently organized toward a singular purpose.

>>8886646
(3/5)

If we misguidedly define fascism as we do in the western "democracies", then we simply define the æsthetic fluff of only Hitler's Germany: racism, antisemitism, eugenics, and so on. Mussolini didn't like Jews, but he wasn't so vicious as Hitler. And Franco was practically a racial egalitarian: his state saved more Jews during the early years of the Shoah than did all the liberal western democracies combined, exempting Switzerland. Tojo didn't give a damn what a Jew was: his xenophobia extended toward all foreigners, especially the Chinese. No, racism is not an integral part of fascism, although it's common within the ideologies. I won't even begin to address the Soviet criticism of fascism as "capitalism in crisis," which is so blatantly incoherent as to give me a headache.

Of course, immediately following World War II, fascism became the newest dirty word in the West. It became synonymous with evil, and the victors, given the opportunity to write history, could frame anything they liked as fascism Luckily for anyone a shade darker than birdshit, they chose to associate it with racism. But this obscures a darker purpose.

To some extent or another, every nation participating to any actively involved degree in the Second World War had to adopt some significant aspect of fascism, and those most intimately involved -- the United Kingdom, the United States, Free France, Canada, Australia, less-so Yugoslavia, questionably the USSR (a fascinating question in and of itself), and undeniably Nationalist China -- adopted fascism to such an extent that these nations became politically indistinguishable from their adversaries. Now, of course, we Canadians never killed all the Jews -- we simply turned the boats around -- but the more crucial structures of society, government, militarized civilian life, etc. all became distinctly fascist. We herded foreigners into concentration camps; dissent was quashed, often with summary executions; books were burned; allegiances were demanded; religious services, texts, and iconography were either bowdlerized or reappropriated to serve the designs of the state; a vast network of intelligence services, secret police, military tribunals, and industrial concerns all working together in concert for a single goal. And (unsurprisingly) nobody dissented for even a second. There was a goal that required sacrifice, and that sacrifice was undertaken gleefully.

One reason for the glee was that the sacrifice was a movement from the uncomfortable, unstructured, radically free reality into the rigid hierarchy of Mackenzie-King, or Churchill, or Roosevelt, whether or not (definitely whether, rather than not) these leaders actually desired to sit atop their pyramids. This is because of the undeniable fact that, and I apologize for all-caps here: FASCISM IS BEAUTIFUL.

>>8886647
(4/5)

What Mussolini and Hitler, and Churchill too, discovered on the battlefields of Europe was the glorious sensation that is belonging. Belonging to a machine. Being another cog, another wheel, another synapse or transistor or length of wire in the great machine toward the great cause. What is a fascist without a cause? What is a fascist without "Purify the German race" or "Restore the glory of the Roman Empire" or "We shall overcome" or "We shall go to the moon" or "Make America great again"?

To summarize: the goal of fascism is not to imbue a respect for the natural order. Fascists aren't Jedi. Fascism qua fascism has goals intentionally vague, arbitrary, and as unachievable for its minions as satiation is for Tantalus. For those in power, power is the motivator. For those under that power, to serve is their motivation. There is nothing natural about that order. Man is not born under anybody's foot. Even those seemingly natural orders: parent to child, teacher to student, dominant lover to submissive lover are so transparently artificial as to defy the natural order itself, and while all human relations do admittedly collapse into a power dynamic, this dynamic is too chaotic and interlocked for any natural hierarchy to form, save in the smallest and most simplified packs and herds.

Even if all that were true: I wasn't stating the goals of fascism, but rather *why* certain individuals seem drawn toward it.

>>8886422
Yes, humans are animals. But we are also more than animals. Perhaps you are a rat who relies only on his basest instincts, shitting where it eats, licking its own festering wounds, eating its own young, blindly humping everything warm and wet until it's as revolting as you are. I have, at minimum, an illusion of choice (and even the denial of real choice is broadly questionable). This is sufficient cause for me to embrace my anxious, mortal state. But go on believing that you'll never die, that your wife isn't being railed by three black men behind your back. You lose all meaning, and gain only a false sense of security.

Your bizarre appeal to "the natural order of things" is so misguided it's hilarious. Here: >>8886438, you fail to distinguish between animals and machines, arguing that animals are merely complex, biological machines. Well then, what distinction can you possibly draw between the natural and the artificial? Nothing, under your cretinous metaphysic, is more natural than thirty big black Muslim dicks sliding in and out of your puckered little cucky boipussy. Go wallow in a tar pit and leave civilization to do its own thing.

God, you even suck at your own ideology.

>>8886648
(5/5)

>>8886418
Thanks. I would, however, argue against your generational analysis. Ancient Romans quite commonly used contraceptives, and Silphium actually went extinct around 250 B.C. I wouldn't attribute any sort of generational breakdown or generalized malaise to Republican Rome, although then again I'm not an ancient demographer. The recent drop in birth rates in developed nations is mainly attributable to class, social, economic, educational, religious, and medical reasons rather than contraceptives, which are a tool to avoid pregnancy, just like celibacy was two-hundred years ago. I don't think that modern youth are any less plagued by the anxiety of disappearance traceable in literature from Homer to today than was any previous generation. They still feel the sting of rejection, the horror of isolation, the inevitability of death, the inherent meaninglessness of life, the only cure for which is found, for (to use Marx' phrase) the scrofulous masses, in progeny. Low birth rates are more indicative of broader generational gaps (parents are getting older) and smaller families (thanks to reduced infant mortality), than of a revulsion to procreation.

Fun fact: the word "pregnant" (according to Chamber's Dictionary of Etymology) first appears in English in Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde. Back then, it only meant "imbued with meaning".

>>8886646
Whoops, accidentally repeated a couple of paragraphs. My bad.

>>8885251

>This is a story of animalistic man. Queequeg is not self-conscious. Ahab is not self-conscious. Ishmael is not self-conscious.

Yeah no, I don't buy it. I don't see any compelling case that the feminine is necessary for the affirmation of masculine subjectivity at all.

I think all these people today obsessed with cuckolding (whether it's actual cheating or a consensual act played out as a fetish) are disgustingly pathetic and insecure.

>>8886690
thank you for being one of the real persons alive

>>8886648
You're on spot, anon. Very good post

>>8885817
>Eve is more beautiful than Adam

If you put a man and a woman side-by-side with no make-up or any other accessories, it is clear men as a gender are better looking than women. And I'm not even homosexual.

>>8885093
>And every single book you guys told me to read turned out to be a cuck book.
Yeah, welcome to modernist literature.

Protip: everything they recommend is pure shite.

>>8885251
>Also think about Blood Meridian, a bit darker than Melville's masterpiece, but in many ways the same story.
People who quote that godawful Yale lecture should be tarred, feathered, burned alive, exhumed and shot and burned again. I'm wishing you a painful death right now, anon.

>>8885363
>are there any Literature that are completely unrelated to cuckoldry?
'Lord of the Rings'.

>>8886775
Sauron puts his entire being into the ring.
Ring gets destroyed by a pair of little hobbits who sneak back-door into his house.

It's basically about midgets fucking your wife while you're in your very home.

>>8886593
>Stopped reading there.
Crimethink averted! Good goy!

>>8886761
oh fuck off

>>8886806
t. grill

>>8885251
This post goes rapidly downhill as soon as you call Ishmael un self-conscious
Stick to the little leagues kid

>>8886812
actually not

but I can only guess that you are so ugly and awkward that u cant get anyone interested in you so you made up this idea of girls being ugly anyway
really a way to deal with your problems

>>8886422
This is embarressing
>/pol/ "intellectuals"

>>8886817
you have yet alot to venture my friend

>>8886817
>girls being ugly anyway
kek... reminds me of kindergarten - "girls have cooties eww..." hahahaha
fucking kid.

File: 1477521374321.jpg (47KB, 599x546px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 599x546px

>>8886761
>And I'm not even homosexual.

File: 1449437062766.gif (145KB, 680x846px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 680x846px

>>8886648
Brainlet from earlier, thanks for responding.

I think I've got it, too be anxious and insecure is the natural state, so lamenting about that state in literature is what the OP was complaining about, so you responded about fascism being unnatural, and that it uses that natural insecurity against us to paralyze us.

So this moves away from literature, but what do you consider then to be the reason behind the growth of cuckold pornography?

If an insecurity of sexual potency is the problem, why would modern men want to literally see that insecurity being played out on a screen? Its their inner most anxiety?

In your opinion, what makes a man a good man? Is it he accepts his insecurity, or does he try to resolve it some how? I say all this an average college student who grew up with my dad in the picture much. You're posts really messed up what was a placid evening for me, and I'm introspecting on an almost painful level.

Thanks in advance

>>8886821
thats doubtful, but you can try to enlighten me

>>8885905
Jesus christ don't you want to gift him gold too? This isn't reddit. Go back.

>>8886836
in addition to ass?
won't that be just a tad too much?

>>8886761
You're right.

>>8886831
Piggybacking off this anon.

You mentioned here
>>8886647 that fascism is beautiful. If it is beautiful, then why is it so unnatural, what about it is so attractive? Could you expound on "beautiful"?

>>8885363
Starship Troopers
Seven Pillars of Wisdom
Anabasis
Heart of Darkness
Homage to Catalonia

Christianity, the foundation of the west, is literally built on letting others have a "tiny" temporal victory, while Christ comes to judge them later

>captcha: publisher
Lit plz no bully

>>8886824
Reminder to you, that I have never stated anywhere that girls would be ugly. Do not put your words in other peoples mouth. Maybe you are projecting?

I was just defending the other man who has seen the truth. The post about Adam being more beautiful was not mine. If I would picture Adam more beautiful, that is not stating that Eve is ugly.

You must be from America, or have a low IQ, or be mentally ruptured because your tier of presumption is absolutely untermensch shit tier. Or maybe you just do not have ambition or devotion in life/ or are low test.

Perhaps you might be underaged, who knows. How the hell did you end up here?

Your style of discussing things reminds me of kindergarten.

>>8887031
i'm sorry for your reading comprehension.

>You must be from America, or have a low IQ
>or be mentally ruptured
>Or maybe you just do not have ambition or devotion in life/
>or are low test.
neither.

i literally made that post in assent to your post, but i guess even when you are right, you have no confidence in yourself and thus assume that the only response you will be getting back would be in opposition to your viewpoint.

would suck to be you, kid.

>>8887048
>don't take it personal kiddo
I'm sensing some euphoria

>>8886817
I mean let's be honest. If you place a man next to a woman viewed from the same angle while they are in the same most neutral posture and naked with nothing applied to their skin... There is no doubt that the man is the better looking of the two. Even features women love to accentuate like long delicate eyelashes and the way eyebrows angle and are consistent in texture...those features by default are actually already present in the man to a higher degree than in a woman. In the great irony of nature, while man has undoubtedly a more functional, robust, and aesthetic appearance overall, he ALSO beats the woman in delicate subtle ornaments.

File: 1479770412211.png (73KB, 1545x422px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1545x422px

>>8887048
*teleports behind u* phh *kid*

What non-coinfidence in myself? What are you talking about? I have all that I need. Why are you trying to go so personal, since the start? I answered for you in your style, but as we know that does not work. Never step in the underlevels.

Maybe you have not witnessed male beauty, never admired your body in the mirror? That was one thing that made me find it along others and since then my life has been enhanced. The beauty in men is so much vivid than in women. Platonic beauty.

This happened to me even before I read this memepost.

File: B E Y O N D P O L I T I C S.jpg (187KB, 1240x826px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1240x826px

>>8885251

>When a writer tells a story involving men and women that also seeks to uncover some aspect of l'humaine condition
>l'humaine condition

Stop needlessly using French to affect some sort of intellectual air.

>Humans are social and sexual creatures, and also existential creatures.

[Citation needed]

Humans are, in fact, entirely plastic. Utopians like to emphasize that Humans, past and present, are "more alike than different" as ol' Maya Angelou once famously said. In point of fact, I believe the opposite to be true. The man of 6000 years ago would have very little in common with the man of today, beyond their basic needs. When you say "Humans", what you really mean is "Human Nature" - which as a concept we should really be relegating to the dustbin of history. Those who invoke this kind of thing are afflicted with the old, Platonic affliction - a longing for permanence. Heraclitus was right, however - all is flux, humanity and its nature included.

>They live without shame or sin in the Garden of Eden until Eve partakes of the fruit. This is her sin, but Adam sins before he ever eats.

This can only be entertained if you ignore the context.

Was Adam not the captain of his own ship and soul? There is nothing in the story to suggest that Adam was any less responsible than Eve. You're making the same mistake as all those Medieval theologians - imposing their own interpretation upon a Biblical story for their own ends. In their case, it was down a longing for their misogyny to be justified - in your case, it is down to a longing for 'man' to be defined chiefly, if not only in opposition to 'woman.' All very dialectical, but it ultimately implies there is no such thing as "Man-in-Himself" - which is absurd when you consider that Adam was the original "Man-in-Himself", for a time at least, until Eve.

>It's positively Nietzschean in its rendition of man.

Please explain what you mean by this - particularly when one considers the fact that Nietzsche praises introspection - that is, self-consciousness.

>When man is free from his self-consciousness and anxiety, he frees himself from woman and from free will.

Please explain how man can possibly have "free will" in your alternative - where he forever subservient to woman, and his every action carried out with her in mind.

>>8887071
>Why are you trying to go so personal, since the start?
i'm an entirely new anon.
so, technically you got personal with me first.

>memepost
you excel in making those, kudos.

>>8886644
>>8886644
>>8886646
>>8886647
>>8886648
>>8886649
Really interesting stuff. Do you have some lit recommendations for a noob like who wants to read more about this?

>>8885251
>the neofascistic fascination with cuckoldry is a rejection of human nature and human freedom in favour of those most animalistic traits.

No, it's the amusement at people unwilling to stand for their values. Regarding structure, "fascists" are the only ones these days speaking explicitly about what is wanted in societal structure. There is no worship of it, only recognition that any group of people wishing to accomplish some goal must have a hierarchy as humans are not a hivemind. You also assume these structures are not to the benefit of women either, and such things as monogamy exist solely to placate men, and not to guarantee women protection as well. What we see is a complete obsession with the sexual and your projections. But realize not all of us raise sexuality as the unum necessarium of life. It is important, no doubt, but it is not the only thing.

>>8886647

And here we see the awful effect of Marxism on the minds of this generation. Anything that makes demands of man is "fascist" and "unfree" and other bad sounding adjectives, and followers of "fascism" are those to strong enough to face this "radically free" world. Yet the critic does not see in this freedom the fascist has as much right to impose his will as he does to do anything else. For what reason ought the authoritarian not wish to impose himself on the world? And why is it bad that he should find those that agree with him? We get no answer, other than accusations of "anxiety". Well, one might reframe that as the fascist has convictions, and he wishes to defend them.

If being "free" demands that I disengage from any goal or wish lest I accidentally subjugate the world pursuing it, then I really do not see the point of being free. It sounds like death.

>>8887073
>The man of 6000 years ago would have very little in common with the man of today, beyond their basic needs.

What do you consider "basic needs"?

>>8887280

Food, warmth, shelter, water, etc. Their very basic, physiological needs.

>157 replies
>not a single mention of roger mexico getting cucked in gravitys rainbow

>>8887290
I guess I'd have to disagree with that part of your post, then. Even if we read something as ancient as the Iliad & Odyssey we see that we have far more in common with those people than just our basic needs. The idea of stripping vanquished bodies of their armor to attain glory is alien to us, but that desire for glory isn't; Achilles' wrath at being dishonored by Agamemnon isn't alien to us, nor is the tender recollection of love for our family, and so on. I think that things like these are common throughout all cultures regardless of time, with the chief differences being the way you express or obtain these things, but at their core they represent a commonality for desire of love, friendship, glory, etc.

>>8887201
>>8887248
The alt right is so embarrassing

>No, it's the amusement at people unwilling to stand for their values.
Which values do you refer to? And where do they come from?

>Regarding structure, "fascists" are the only ones these days speaking explicitly about what is wanted in societal structure.
Why is fascists between ""? Do Marxist also not pretend to speak about what is wanted in 'societal structure'?

>There is no worship of it, only recognition that any group of people wishing to accomplish some goal must have a hierarchy as humans are not a hivemind.
Are fascists the only ones recognizing you need a hierarchy to accomplish something?

>You also assume these structures are not to the benefit of women either, and such things as monogamy exist solely to placate men, and not to guarantee women protection as well.
No arguments given.

>What we see is a complete obsession with the sexual and your projections.
How does this follow from anything you have written?

>But realize not all of us raise sexuality as the unum necessarium of life. It is important, no doubt, but it is not the only thing.
Where did the anon you replied to say that? Obvious strawman

>>8887248
This posts does not make any sense either

>>8887330
So when we have something in common with something that was written in the Illiad & Odyssee, this means that those commonalities have been around forever for all people? You need to find better arguments, man.

>>8887340
Not him, but using le alt-right boogeyman makes you look like a mouthbreating Reddit sheep.

>>8887351
That's not what I said.

>>8887340
>Which values do you refer to? And where do they come from?

Any values. I do not care where they come from. My issue is you seem very confused about what is needed to actually assert values. Any structure you do not like is "fascist" even though you have not defined this. Or actually argued why "neofacistic" obsession with cuckoldry is derived from sexual anxiety. You have only brushed broadly about formal structures doing things you do not like. You speak with contempt about the ideas of demanding allegiance, having goals, or asserting ones values. Whether it is going to the moon or exterminating Jews you speak of them both with utter disdain.This reveals you to be a small pathetic man to afraid to stand for anything, so you hide behind post-modern distancing and offer only criticism, but no real solution on how to order society. Of course you would not, for if you did it would leave you vulnerable to critique, for you have no real values, or goals, and wish to drag everyone down with you.

>>8887352
Not him, but using le mouthbreating (sic) Reddit sheep boogeyman makes you look like an alt right

>>8887364
I'm a part of what some people call the "alt-right" and it feels punk as fuck. It feels like an actual counter culture, or rebellion against the PC culture that dominates American colleges.

>>8887360
I was not the well-spoken fellow you refer to, but just some guy trying to call you out on your vagueness and lack of good arguments

>>8887374

He was not specific either, so it is hard to be specific in return.

File: Identity politics intensifies.png (91KB, 694x616px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 694x616px

>>8887369

Now you know how Lefties/Liberals felt for the past 40-60 years.

We'll see if you guys last that long without becoming the mainstream/establishment again.

>>8887369
>PC
another vague boogeyman that's hard to define

>>8885251

grow up

>>8887386

The point is to become the establishment again. Their arguments are not predicated on being the underdog.

>>8887392

Yes, but I was referring to the poster's specific punk/counter culture/rebellious feelings.

Those feelings are directly tied to being the underdog, regardless of the aims of whatever phenomenon/movement/etc is giving him these feelings.

>>8887405

Those feelings will probably be replaced by the ecstasy of stamping on ones enemies like it so often is with revolutionaries.

>>8885251
>bold claims: the post

You need to prove your assertions, not merely state them.

>>8887447

he can do whatever he wants

>>8886831
Ollo, bumping i n hopes the anon from before sees

Nietzsche is all a man needs in life

>>8885093
Love triangles make for good plot and that's really all there's to it

>>8886831
Yes, you've pretty much got the core of it. What is the reason behind the growth of cuckold pornography? The same reason why pornographic representations of sadomasochism, coprophagia, incest, anal intercourse, homosexuality, or any other even vaguely sexual activity have become more prevalent: it's become cheaper to produce, easier to distribute, and less shameful to consume.

Why would an insecure individual want to see that anxiety played out on a screen? I'm afraid I haven't read nearly enough relevant Freud, Jung, Lacan, Alain-Miller, Kristeva, Kinsey, Saunders, Ghebard, de Sade, Sadger, von Krafft-Ebing, or dirty novellas to offer an educated and/or comprehensive response, but I'd wager it's a form of sadomasochism (even within the most liberal circles, where these acts are even expected). In the case of fascists who partake in this fantasy -- and they seem to be in far greater quantity than liberals, Marxists, libertarians, anarchists, paleoconservatives, et al* -- I would guess that they feel so secure against cuckolding that they feel unthreatened even while reliving the fantasy. Of course, this is wildly speculative.

*This is just a passing observation. I have no statistics to back this up. However, given that the majority of cuckold-pornography that stains my screen while I'm looking for more God-fearing perversity feeds off the fantasy of black or Muslim men impregnating (willing or no) white women (at least those films produced in North America and Europe), those watching these films are more likely to be A. cucks and B. far right and xenophobic.

>>8886846
Beautiful and natural are not the same categories. While many natural things are beautiful and many beautiful things are natural (sunsets, flowers, landscapes, pretty girls, butterflies, the Grand Canyon), it's also true that many unnatural things are beautiful and many beautiful things are unnatural (cathedrals, paintings, symphonies, rockets) , and also that many hideous things are natural and many natural things are hideous (dogshit, bloated and burst corpses, ratfucks, the aftermath of a wildfire). Fascism can be both beautiful and unnatural.

And in terms of its æsthetic fluff, fascism is a fantastic way to capture the zeitgeist of its time and place. The NSDAP knew full well the principles of good design (who can say that Swastika or the double sæwelō wasn't designed by a genius? It rivals the cross in branding-power) -- Mussolini as well was fully in tune with the æsthetic norms of 1930s Italy. Trump's campaign is garish, tacky, and kitschy, but American æsthetics have always been so (even their flag looks like a patriotic child wanted his country's ensign to look like candy).

(1/4)

>>8889061
(2/4)

That said, you've made the same mistake as a few others here (many of them Nazis who think that I'm calling their beliefs unnatural because they need to latch onto any perceived misjudgement in order to justify their ideology. I'm in no way saying that fascism is unnatural. Rather, I'm saying that it's a reaction against the natural order of things. I suppose perhaps the hierarchies of fascism are unnatural, but that's the only element that is: its bigotry, its motivations, these are all perfectly natural. But that's beside the point: what makes fascism beautiful -- by which I mean what makes fascism attractive in the same way a flower attracts bees -- is that it provides an escape from the morbid insecurity that pervades all human existence.

>>8887073
Its okay to have never read Montaigne, but please don't delight in the fact as though it makes you some intellectual.

You're even citing Nietzsche left and right, which tells me you've never read him. Your insistence that humans are *entirely* plastic, such that mankind is no longer social, sexual, and existential, only works if we grant ourselves a case of a man who never dies, lives hermetically forever, and has no urge to reproduce. Such a man has never lived and never will. These are fundamental aspects of human experience.

Your comments on Adam and Eve indicate no familiarity with either the first chapters of Genesis, nor with subsequent reimaginings of the myth, a la morality plays and Milton. Perhaps your familiarity with the story comes from cartoons and a vague familiarity with the myth.

When I commented on the characters in Moby Dick being "positively Nietzschean," I was referring to the second chapter of "On the Genealogy of Morals," in which Nietzsche discusses how a creature capable of making promises came to be. In this work he explicitly denigrates self-consciousness as resulting in a man indebted to the past and therefore living for others rather than for himself. (See also: the Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life). Self-consciousness, in Nietzsche's works, has nothing to do with introspection. This is an idea you've pulled out of your magician's hat. You're a worse reader of Nietzsche than his sister. It's clear that in every work you reference, you've either not read the work in question, or have read it so badly as to have somehow made progress in exactly the wrong direction.

>>8887201
You mean the amusement (read: rage) at people unwilling to stand for YOUR values. Those who fascists call "cucks" see no issue in letting immigrants into their country and have no qualms with miscegenation.

(2/4)

>>8889061
(3/4)

Further, your goals can never be accomplished within the rigid social structures of fascism unless those goals are exactly conducive to the goal or goals of the hierarchy itself. This is what differentiates the fascist hierarchy from other pyramidal social structures (such as capitalism or the church). An individual, free of any social obligation, is free to accomplish all goals, but he's also unable to do so, since he lacks the capital, the material, the social connections to do so. Fascism situates itself at the other end of the spectrum, where any individual, as part of a rigid social hierarchy, has more capacity to accomplish his goals than in any other structure. The structure is so efficient and singular in purpose that any goal that is physically possible can be accomplished with ease. However, those individuals are not free to pursue their goals in any capacity. This is why the Nazis burned art and literature that had nothing to do with their ideology -- it simply didn't contribute to the grander project.

Hitler, of course, would have avoided killing any Jews if he could. The Holocaust cost men, material, time, space, and other resources that could have been put to work in more constructive efforts. There was nothing that really differentiated the Holocaust from any other pogrom, save its industrial scale. Hitler, like any other antisemite in power, had Jews in his territory and wanted them gone. He made a number of efforts to expel them in the style of Titus, but when that territory included most of Europe, and all other nations were unwilling to accept Jews that weren't scientists or billionaires, a genocide was bound to take place.

The mere existence of Jews on German soil posed no real risk to Hitler's Reich. Only, their existence indicated some roadblock to that goal of the purification and dominance of German bloodlines. Because their most basic goals were not conducive to the teleology of the vast machine, they had to be excised as one removes a squeaky wheel or broken cog. The same fate awaited homosexuals, Catholic priests, artists, intellectuals, gypsies, Marxists, anarchists, scientists, and generally anybody whose designs did not align with the dominant aim of the ideology at large.

The rest of my response to you ties in nicely to the first paragraph of my response to >>8887248

Being free does not demand that you disengage with any goal or wish. It demands that you disengage with any goal or wish that is not your own. This is basic fucking common sense.

(3/4)

>>8889073
1. Why do you think I'm a Marxist? 2. What's wrong with Marxism? [I mean, what isn't? But I'd still like to hear your demented thoughts]. 3. You have many demands made of you. Question whether those demands are for you or for some narcissist in power. 4. Impose yourself all you want on the world. Make the world your bitch. Just make it *your* bitch. Impose *yourself*. If you make the world somebody else's bitch, then, funny story: you're the bitch. If your convictions are not your own, you have none.

>>8887447
Well, that's mighty helpful of you, to point out which bold claims were not substantiated. Would you like me to reframe my statements in predicate logic? Tell me, should I cite my sources in MLA or Chicago-Turabian? Perhaps you're one of those APA freaks.

4chan is not a monograph, nor a peer-reviewed journal, and I'm not going to go through the laborious process of demonstrating the perfect validity of everything I say. This is a forum for discussion. If you have a specific contention with any of my assertions, then by all means, indicate exactly what it is you disagree with, and I'll craft an abusive and dismissive response.

>>8885251
la condition humaine
You fucking pseud. If you want to sound smart, at least use the correct grammar.

>>8886831
I watch cuckold porn. I also watch domination fetish porn. I think both obsessions stem from phobias. I am extremely reactionary to abuse of power which I experienced often in my youth. I also am married and in love. I don't have any reason in particular to fear that she will betray me but trust is scary.

>>8889078
>you have a specific contention with any of my assertions, then by all means, indicate exactly what it is you disagree with, and I'll craft an abusive and dismissive response
are you as insufferable a prick in real life as you try to appear on anonymous online forums?

>>8889071
>>You mean the amusement (read: rage) at people unwilling to stand for YOUR values. Those who fascists call "cucks" see no issue in letting immigrants into their country and have no qualms with miscegenation.

No I mean any values. They are very pliable. I have no qualms with someone who honestly disagrees with me. Yet this is not what we see for these "cucks" . We see opportunism and fickleness. They may have some value they are being loyal too, but they certainly are not revealing it.

Also, I would like to know what you definition if fascism is. It appears you are moving beyond mere economic structure and assuming something much greater. But if that is the case I would like to know who these neofascists are. Because it certainly seems like reference to the alt right but if you actually examine the ideas of the alt right you will find that it does not fit neatly into such a cast. In fact it is relatively heterogeneous, each in it for there own cause. There is no trickery of slavery, but mutual benefit to the parties, and quite explicitly so. There is nowhere else you can find eco-fascists, monarchists, NRx, and other fringe groups working together.

Reading through the rest of your response I actually think there is not so much disagreement if you would be more clear in your terms and be less inflammatory. If you could be more good willed this would be more interesting.

>>8889115

I must say, while his observations on cuckoldry and the resulting 'anxiety of disappearance' seem sharply on point, the resulting text appears a vomitorium of recently-read, only partially digested thoughts

bump

this si a nice thread

>>8887655
t. him

>>8885251
>Adam sins before he ever eats. His sin is his concern with Eve's opinion of him instead of God's. His fear ...
>But his sin also leaves him self-conscious.

So which is it?

>>8885093
they're trying to turn you into a fourierist it's the first step to socialism

>>8889102
Now that's good arguing! You should post more on here, friend.

>>8889520
I thought he meant now Adam was conscious of his ability to fail, as he had fallen.


As in, now Adam knows he is short of perfection, and has just proven it well. It is both fear of being alone and consciousness of himself

>>8885309
Wooooooooow

this is the most hilarious lit thread in a long while

>>8889699
Yeah, it's pretty much this one guy writing long, detailed, philosophical & psychoanalytical & historical & literary posts analyzing the centrality of cuckoldry to Western society and why alt-righters are so obsessed with calling people cucks. Needs screenshots.

>>8889588
There's no textual evidence for this view.

>>8889078
>3. You have many demands made of you. Question whether those demands are for you or for some narcissist in power. 4. Impose yourself all you want on the world. Make the world your bitch. Just make it *your* bitch. Impose *yourself*. If you make the world somebody else's bitch, then, funny story: you're the bitch. If your convictions are not your own, you have none.

Historically, what happens when you refuse to "be somebody else's bitch"? Well, if your tribe refuses to submit to a king, then your tribe gets conquered by a neighboring tribe with a king, and you end up being their bitch instead. Or not being their bitch, because they've already killed you and enslaved your women. Conversely, one can be confident that their king won't kill his subjects and keep all their women for himself (yes, there were kings who had harems or concubines, but this was a vast minority of the realm's women) because this is a good way to invite a rebellion.

I get what you're saying here. You're insinuating that someone proverbially bending the knee to authority is a "cuck" himself. But the hypothetical individual who is the master of himself and the slave of none doesn't exist. An individual who only associates with individuals out of their own free will and dissolves the association when it is no longer convenient is merely a subject of a very weak society that is at risk of being conquered by a stronger society. And one cannot expect any mercy from the strong. In the ancient world slavery was one's fate. In the modern world it's genocide.

I disagree that the weight of one's convictions depends on whether they're "one's own", whatever that means.

>>8889073
>Being free does not demand that you disengage with any goal or wish. It demands that you disengage with any goal or wish that is not your own. This is basic fucking common sense.

What do you consider a "goal that is your own"? Whether it benefits you? Whether it's something you came up with yourself? Whether you can choose otherwise?

>>8889817
>But the hypothetical individual who is the master of himself and the slave of none doesn't exist.
*Except the sovereign. But I am assuming neither you or I are anywhere close to attaining this sovereignty.

File: 1448753389003.jpg (12KB, 236x230px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 236x230px

>>8889061
Thanks senpai, masochism sounds right.

From my studies masochism would be closely linked with the escapism that fascist thinking tries to bring to combat the anxieties of being man.

However, one thing I've yet to see you say is your opinion on what man should do?

As man is plagued with his insecurities, is the best response stoicism?

How does one combat the tendency to flee his anxiety in the form of cuckoldry, to shirk his manliness for fear of being impotent, unfit?

Obviously if you had a perfect answer people would be buying your new book, but I'd at least like to hear your thoughts.


I'd imagine it would be to accept you are fallible and imperfect, but I don't know where one would go from there

>>8886466
Get the fuck over yourself, dude. You've never heard the phrase Machinery of Nature? You know exactly what that anon is saying, stop playing dumb to make him look bad and actually have a fucking conversation. Or, please, go and fucking kys.

im sorry for my lame english.
>>8889071
>who never dies, lives hermetically forever, and has no urge to reproduce

this are problems of life, (of animal life maybe) (born, reproduce, die)
what make human condition is the answers to this problems (mental answers). and nobody knows the answers we will give to all this in the future. (or maybe we will have another scale of problems)
we can make ourselves believe whatever we want to believe.

>no longer social, sexual and existential

this can happen. basically anybody shouldn´t have the right to say what is being human. (in a way that is a fascist thing, like you said. giving some kind of false security in the anxious insecurity of life, an anxious insecurity where the concept of "human" is included)
human condition is a meme.

>>8889073

>Being free does not demand that you disengage with any goal or wish. It demands that you disengage with any goal or wish that is not your own. This is basic fucking common sense

your appeal to common sense surprise me from somebody so meticulous in her previous posts. who is your own?. being free (totally free) is disengage with any goal or wish. other forms of being free are a messy and conceptual mixture of freedom and autoslavery and acceptance of autoslavery. you can not make a concept like freedom (who relays totally on something being not free) and think at the same time that have no sense to imagine free (conceptually) determined things because is bad for you. ).

you are better explaining your terms (very good i say, almost brilliant) than answer to another,. (its just an observation. or maybe you are just tired)
sorry for my fucking english, i hope you understand a little. (even in my language i am shit at explaining)

File: horseshoe is real.jpg (122KB, 1200x525px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1200x525px

>it's a marxist spouts endless lines of garbage hoping that he can convince /lit/ he is well-read whilst dropping agenda bombs with the goal of converting the duller readers

thankfully a few of us can recognize you are a prig and have called you out for it

you lost faggot

8 years

>>8886579
>>8886579

This is the only must-read post in the thread

File: 1438797016625.jpg (9KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 250x250px

>this thread

>>8889866
This image would make a far better point if the left opinion had the same rational as the right
Current pic makes them look like another strawman

>>8889887
>left
>rational

furthermore:

>left
>rationale

>>8889892
I just read >>8889866 and realized what type of person im talking to lmao nevermind

File: realty has a liberal bias.png (111KB, 787x450px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 787x450px

>>8889904

>>8887340
>The alt right is so embarrassing

The irony... Not the person you replied to, but this whole thread I've been saying how the people that disagree about fascism and national socialism can't see anything past themselves and prior to it, and here you come in attributing a philosophical discussion about a movement that started in 1919 to the "alt-right".

>>8889079
"Je propose une vie basse et sans lustre: c'est tout un; on attache aussi bien toute la philosophie morale à une vie populaire et privée, que à une vie de plus riche estoffe: chaque homme porte la forme entiére de L'HUMAINE CONDITION."

-- Michel de Montaigne, from chapter 2, book 3 of Essais (although I'm quoting from Auerbach's Mimesis rather than from the primary text, so any mistakes are Auerbach's own.) The capitalization is my own embellishment. When discussing these streams of thought, I think it best to maintain the syntactic structure originally used. It would be bizarre to contend with "the violence of the divine" when discussing Benjamin or with "the visible which is ineluctably modal" when discussing Joyce with pseuds.

I don't fault you though. You clearly have a better grasp of French than me. I hope this doesn't sound sarcastic. It's hard to gauge such things online in general. Moreso when I've been a snippy bitch all through the thread.

>>8889102
I promise you I'm not. But I have the flu, and I'm finding it difficult to sleep. I'm not having a very merry Christmas.

>>8889115
In your first non-green-text paragraph, you're going to need to be a bit more clear for me to grasp what you're trying to say. Most of what you're saying is either too vague for me to contend with or directly contradicts other statements of yours.

Regarding the rest of your comment: I don't think there's such a thing as a fascist economic structure. Most fascists agree with me. Most fascists tend toward something like a mixed economy, but there are individuals (such as Strasser) who are undoubtedly fascist yet advocate for socialism. Others who advocate for the praxeology and liberal markets of the Austrians.

It seems instead that fascists, in which I am grouping the Alt-Right, neo-Stuartists, falangists etc are connected more by affect than by any common theme, save hierarchy and autocracy. Really Land, Moldbug, Dugin, Linkola, and their ilk are participating in a conversation surrounding questions and concerns that only they have. They all have different ideas of society and economy. I don't think that Land is particularly xenophobic or racist, for example, and Moldbug has this amusing (laughable even) quaintness in his extreme reactionary monarchism. But just as socialists are connected by a certain common theme even though their prescriptions differ wildly, the same is true of fascists. However, the common thread of socialism is socio-economic, while the common thread of fascism is, I think, what I've been pursuing all through this thread -- one more rooted in an existential nightmare than in a concrete sociological, economic, or political theory.

(1/4)

>>8890198
(2/4)

Regarding my being inflammatory -- you're probably correct. However, I think you should understand my reluctance to rub shoulders with the extreme right wing. Even though I feel as though many concerns of the fascistic types are valid -- or at least come from a valid place -- there is a pathetic servility and broader social danger to fascism which I cannot overcome and which must be met with extremely prejudicial rhetoric. That rhetoric is heightened for the blog-spammy reasons stated in my previous responses to other posters above.

>>8889520
Adam's sin, symbolically, structurally, is the decision to become self-conscious -- to move away from God toward other people (Eve in particular).

>>8889817
When considering whether a goal is one's own, consider a number of things: 1. whether you benefit from those goals; 2. how you benefit from those goals; 3. why you have those goals; 4 how you achieve those goals. In any fascist, or even vaguely authoritarian society, the majority of people will benefit from the goals of the dictator or technocratic cabal in charge. Those who do not will be destroyed by the state. How those goals are achieved is a harsher issue. If those goals are achieved through simple labour, artistic achievement, scientific progress, philosophical discovery, exploration, spiritual enlightenment, the list goes on, then I can't fault your methodology. If, however, those goals are achieved through the denial of others goals and the stifling of others' will, then I must question whether these goals are worth having, and whether they are your own goals. The question of why is among the most pertinent. I would say "because I can" is the only legitimate answer, if those goals are self-originating. All answers to the question eventually collapse to this. If your goal is "provide food for my family," then that collapses to "keep my family alive and happy" and that collapses to "fulfil my desire to issue progeny," which collapses to "because I can." If your answer does not collapse to "because I can," then, I would argue, it's not your goal. If it's "because a foreign army will murder me" or "because the government will punish me" or "because I want to keep my job" and "because I can" is not collapsible from that answer, then your goal is not self-originating.

(2/4)

>>8890200
(3/4)

Finally 5. ask yourself how simple it would be to change your goals. In any society other than an unrestricted anarchy, there will always be some force which fights back against any change to the status quo, but in fascism, the goals you seek within the status quo cannot be changed on your own terms. For a citizen of a capitalist democracy, if you decided to do something wild and free, like give away all of your money and live as a monk, you could do that. When such pathways as "marrying somebody of a different skin colour" or "openly disagreeing with the government" are excluded as options, then even if you don't have any desire to engage in these activities, you must seriously question whether your own present goals are truly your goals, since you have such restricted ability to change your goals without incurring serious punishment.

Now, we don't live in tribes. We live in nations. The barbarians at the gates live across oceans, mountain ranges, fields, vales, forests, deserts, seas, and rivers. The ghoulish hordes of savages live in caves and jungles. Their capacity to harm me is nil. I face more danger from my own bedsheets, statistically.

Further, in an industrialized society, (that is, since the dawn of the 20th century), the single greatest threat to human life has been not from foreign agents, but from one's own government. Even the old caesars, kaisers, czars, and shahs did not limit their cruelties based on the wishes of their subjects. Their limits were the loyalty of their soldiers and their own debauchery.
All animosity toward me is not directed at me because of my mere existence. Muslims don't hate western, liberal Christians and the Jews of Israel because of Jesus Christ or Abraham. They hate the secular Judeo-Christian world because their own nations are brutalized by the oligarchies that control our own states. If left alone for a decade or two, the fire of Islamism would quickly burn out. The same is true of the dictators and warlords on the African continent, and those poor souls don't even have the organizational power to direct much more than a few harsh rebukes toward the West.

Now the current flamboyant megalomaniacs (such as Trump and le Pen) seem more isolationist than otherwise. This is a step forward from the foreign policy of the regimes of Obama and Sarkozy. However, this aggressive xenophobia is marked by a meme of purification (ten steps back in domestic policy) which seeks to ostracize and harass those who are deemed "impure" by some racist and uneducated standard, people including my friends, neighbours, and colleagues.

(3/4)

>>8890205
(4/4)

Switzerland is under no risk of being conquered. Nevertheless the Swiss accomplish great things (CERN), produce great minds (Saussure, Bernouli, Rorschach, Euler, Marat, Rousseau, Calvin, Jung), and live in wealth and luxury. Yet they've never been invaded since Napoleonic times, and even Bonaparte never raped and pillaged the Alps. It seems, in a time when there are no Mongol hordes or Hun invaders, save perhaps Russia and America (where the thread of fascism is far thicker than elsewhere), that we have no need for strongmen and bullies to cower behind like frightened lambs.

Besides, what good is a king when you have gunpowder? A king will confiscate your guns, conscript your sons, and antagonize the neighbouring kingdoms. Nobody puts you at a greater risk of genocide or slavery than a king. I'm sure many Germans, their sons dead in Bastogne and Kursk, their daughters raped and mutilated by the Russians, their wives picking through the corpses Jews and Poles at Treblinka in shame, their businesses looted, their homes burned, their necks garlanded with chicken-wire, had once believed that Hitler would protect them from the Russians.

>>8889835
I don't think these are questions I can answer for you. Any answer would be my own, and would thus be just as likely to work for you as anybody else's. Only your own answer will give you anything. I do suggest, however, that you read the dominant existential literature, religious and philosophical, fiction and nonfiction, from Ecclesiastes through Sartre. You'll likely lose more meanings than you'll gain, but those meanings you retain will be more meaningful. I'm sorry if this makes little sense.

>>8889857
To your first point, the human condition being found in capacity to provide answers rather than situations, I concede. It's a little nitpicky, but details matter.

To your second point, that man can avoid, at once, his social needs, sexuality, and the paradoxes of his existence, and further that there is no legitimate human condition, I disagree, and your first point disagrees as well. If, at some point in the future, humans, through some biological or technological mechanism, overcome our mortality, we will no longer be recognizably human.

Don't sweat your English. For what it's worth, you were quite clear for ESL.

>>8889866
Maybe I'm being conceited, but considering I'm the one in this thread spouting endless lines of garbage, I feel as though this is directed at me.

Why does every fascist seem to think that anything they don't understand is Marxism? I'm actively anti-Marxist in almost every conceivable way (economic, social, political, metaphysical . . .) but apparently I'm a Marxist because I don't want to gas the kikes. Not that you're worth responding to, but being lumped in with Marxists actually offends me, and I'm very butthurt right now.

(4/4)

>>8890200
>the decision to become self-conscious

What did he mean by this?

>>8890206
dayum this nigga schooling everyone ITT

>>8890248
If you've never once read an academic text or a quality essay he does seem pretty impressive.

>>8890256
I mean, if you're looking for academic rigour in a discussion on cucks on 4chan, you've made some poor life choices.

>>8890260
For someone already putting this much effort into cuck discussion I don't think it's unfair. I personally don't see the point in typing so much about cucks without including textual evidence or developed points.

>>8885251
this post is garbage what the fuck is up with this board lately?

>>8890200

1

I disagree with "because I can" as the underlying rationale for what makes a goal worthy (with the condition that it impinges no no other worthy goals). In the absence of struggle, most humans would be content with pushing a button that's wired into their brain that produces an orgasm. I'm not going to delude myself and say that I wouldn't do the same, assuming I had no friends, no spouse, no family, or no country that I could call my own. That's a behavior that lab rats engage in. To leave the masses alone to their devices (e.g., their addictions, consuming their plebeian entertainment) is to dehumanize them such that they are no better than rats. "Oh, but they have the right to do so, according to the human rights they possess!" you might say. Well, I don't care for "rights" in that sense. But I do care about human flourishing.

Sometimes a warrior does not wish to face the enemy, but his superior compels him to. And upon retrospection, he finds himself all the more the better for it, because in doing so he has managed to transcend himself and not disgrace himself with cowardice.

I'm not pushing for absolute blind obedience in the military (though I wouldn't mind a resurgence of the Prussian ideal in matters military as well as civil). A valid reason to refuse is because one is a conscientious objector, because one follows the higher reason of a Divine law, or has sworn a vow of nonviolence that he considers binding to himself (and therefore limits the scope of self-originating action in the future). But refusing to fight because one is a coward is the lowest reason one can give, even though it's a goal that wholly belongs to oneself. It's possible that one refuses to fight because they pity the enemy dying by their hand, but i'd wager that it's the former issue that's the prime reason. People adopt the cloak of pity and mercy not because it's the hard path, but because it's the easy path when to do otherwise is to admit one's cowardice.

>>8890205

2

>Now, we don't live in tribes. We live in nations. The barbarians at the gates live across oceans, mountain ranges, fields, vales, forests, deserts, seas, and rivers. The ghoulish hordes of savages live in caves and jungles. Their capacity to harm me is nil. I face more danger from my own bedsheets, statistically.

The modern barbarian is not the foreigner, but the domestic criminal. They're not "at the gates", but beyond them, in domestic land, when one makes a wrong turn on the street. That Western governments actively invite them in arouses a sense of betrayal for the subjects of such a government. That you feel more danger from your bedsheets than from being raped or killed by others is a sign that you must live a charmed life, insulated from poverty. Like I said before, people choose the easy path over the hard. It's possible that crime is statistically insignificant for you by virtue of living in a privileged locale, in which case you adopt a cloak of magnanimity in order that those self-serving reasons aren't nakedly displayed. Or it's possible that your worldview is something you arrived at on your own, "because you could". I'm not going to press that assumption but i'll leave the question hanging.

>I'm sure many Germans, their sons dead in Bastogne and Kursk, their daughters raped and mutilated by the Russians, their wives picking through the corpses Jews and Poles at Treblinka in shame, their businesses looted, their homes burned, their necks garlanded with chicken-wire, had once believed that Hitler would protect them from the Russians.

Well they lost, and such is the fate of losers. I'm sure that reason is of any consolation to those subject to the whims of the Germans. I suppose rather than fight, one should just roll over and give up then, because it would dampen the wrath of one's enemies? It's the best case if two equipowerful states do not fight. It's worse when two states fight. But it's the worst when one state does not fight the state fighting it, taking their chances with the mercy of the victor or the total helplessness before the victor. France ended up much better than Poland with a swift surrender, who would've ended up much better than a defeated Russia. I'm not going to touch on the moral valence that being an aggressor of war gives to how much citizens would blame their leader over the enemy. Nations are not people to which the morality of "aggression" over "self-defence" plays a prime role unlike individuals because the tension between the nations could be such that war becomes inevitable. It then becomes a question of choosing between attacking or being attacked.

>>8890365
>The modern barbarian is not the foreigner, but the domestic criminal. They're not "at the gates", but beyond them, in domestic land, when one makes a wrong turn on the street.
Funny because I live in the Netherlands where every year more immigrants enter, but every year crime declines. And extreme right wing ideologies are on the rise here, too.

>>8890200
all goals are collapsible to "because I can" though the only thing that varies is the chain-length

>>8890256
He is impressive for this shit infested board that once used to be good (like 10 years ago). On an imageboard which I hardly visit anymore, where everyone who disagrees is a 'cuck', I am happy to see that there are still people who put effort and thought in their posts, however in vain it might be.

>>8890268
>I personally don't see the point in typing so much about cucks without including textual evidence or developed points.
New on 4chan, I presume.

>>8890256
For a Japanese imageboard turned bastion of altrightism, actual intelligent debate is impressive now. Kind of like finding a flower on scorched earth.

File: Dumari.png (691KB, 1270x1000px) Image search: [Google]

691KB, 1270x1000px

>>8885309
>... a letter to him with the words "Dear Cuckold," with the helpful aim of sharpening his pen ...

>>8890387
Its funny that you think that this stat alone makes any difference. Considering how many states purposely omit and obfuscate crime stats, especially crimes concerning refugees and foreigners. I'm sure you can print out those declining crime stats and share them with the families who buried their relatives this christmas. It might console them.

>>8887369
The alt-right will never be some intellectual counterculture like the 'New Left' was in the 60s, because:

1. The alt-right does not even know what to believe in, they define themselves in what they are not. This vagueness makes it hard to intellectually define the 'alt-right'.
2. The alt-right mostly attracts uneducated people, so people who do not study in university

This alt right fad are just insecure young men who hid their racism for years and are not afraid to do so anymore because of Trump's election win. In 4 years, Trump will not be re-elected (because populists can never fulfill their promises) and they will go back to their caves.

>>8890387
That could be true, I'm not going to delude myself with statistics and claim that unrestrained immigration and refugee acceptance will make things even better. If you put Afghanistan into the Netherlands or Somalia into London, you get Afghanistan and Somalia. Sure, you might say, you also get a form of government by which we can turn these people into law abiding citizens! Well, the USA couldn't do shit in Afghanstan and Iraq trying to impose their liberal democracy on the people, and at the end of lots of guns at that, so i'm not going to expect otherwise in this case.

>>8890412
>Considering how many states purposely omit and obfuscate crime stats, especially crimes concerning refugees and foreigners.
Typical alt right conspiracy thinking. When the facts do not support your ideas, just make up some facts. Very post-truth, I like it.

>I'm sure you can print out those declining crime stats and share them with the families who buried their relatives this christmas. It might console them.
Cheap appeal to emotion. As if all those who hate immigrants have relatives who were murdered by immigrants.

>>8890418
Just saying, an "appeal to emotion" is only a logical fallacy when emotion is irrelevant. It shows the limits of your empathy when you say that emotion is irrelevant when dealing with grieving families.

>>8890415
>That could be true,
It is true.

> I'm not going to delude myself
Statistics cannot delude, that's why they are statistics.

>and claim that unrestrained immigration and refugee acceptance will make things even better.
I never claimed that. Also immigration is far from unrestrained. Very naive.

>If you put Afghanistan into the Netherlands or Somalia into London, you get Afghanistan and Somalia.
That is not how acculturation works. Also the percentage of muslims in European countries is 6% at best (you probably thought it was way higher, I forgive your stupidity)

>Well, the USA couldn't do shit in Afghanstan and Iraq trying to impose their liberal democracy on the people, and at the end of lots of guns at that, so i'm not going to expect otherwise in this case.
This does not make any sense.

>>8890420
I can understand voting Trump if your relative has been murdered by Latinos. But Trump received around 62 million votes and a tiny minority of them are relatives of murdered loved ones. Also if my brother was killed by a white man, should I hate all white men then and go full extreme SJW?

>>8890418
There are laws in France and western Europe where it is forbidden for news agencies to reveal the ethnicitiy and religion of criminals. What conspiracies?

>>8885251
Stop calling fascists insecure, you're gonna make them cry.

What's going on ITT

>>8886384
Lurk more

>>8890432
It is precisely this individualistic thinking that is the problem. You don't need to be burned to be wary of fire.

File: rainy_days_sunglasses.jpg (13KB, 300x279px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 300x279px

>>8890420
>racists talking about the limits of someone's empathy

File: 9a1.jpg (34KB, 552x800px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 552x800px

>>8885433
>being memed on this hard
get a load of this guy

>>8886549
The nuclear family is already a degraded form from the extended family.

>>8887073
>Humans are, in fact, entirely plastic

No. And no I won't bother arguing.

>>8885167
This is why /lit/ is the best board.

>>8889061
I don't have statistics either but the only open manifestation of cuckold certified fetishists we have seen till now was activists in favor of Clinton.

>>8890401
Still the best place on the internet.

>>8885215
>It's the mans fault anyways to get cucked
t. cuck

KEKCHAN
U
C
K
C
H
A
N

>>8885093

Read Madame Bovary next.

>>8888888

>>8885093


Nobody tries to turn you into a cuck, you already are one. That is why you always focus on this aspect. You spent too much time on this site and now your whole life is about avoiding to get cucked or even coming close to someone who was and all you search for, all you see, all you feel is the cuckolding.

You have been officially mind-cucked by 4chan.

>>8890999
chuckled

File: pepe hands.gif (1MB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 200x200px

>>8890206
>drones on about "racism" and "xenophobia"
>dude im not a marxist lmao
>even takes the time to capitalize each marxism like the good little numale he is

idk how shit ur life must be to write all this pseud trash on lit

>>8890205
>Muslims don't hate western, liberal Christians and the Jews of Israel because of Jesus Christ or Abraham. They hate the secular Judeo-Christian world because their own nations are brutalized by the oligarchies that control our own states. If left alone for a decade or two, the fire of Islamism would quickly burn out.

please get a trip so we can all filter you you fucking uneducated retard

Holy fuck, I came back here again from yesterday and this guy is still posting? How much speed is he taking?

Amphetamine posting, sheer and simple. Also incidentally some of the best I've seen on /lit/ in a while.

>>8890361
>I disagree with "because I can" as the underlying rationale for what makes a goal worthy (with the condition that it impinges no no other worthy goals). In the absence of struggle, most humans would be content with pushing a button that's wired into their brain that produces an orgasm. I'm not going to delude myself and say that I wouldn't do the same, assuming I had no friends, no spouse, no family, or no country that I could call my own. That's a behavior that lab rats engage in. To leave the masses alone to their devices (e.g., their addictions, consuming their plebeian entertainment) is to dehumanize them such that they are no better than rats. "Oh, but they have the right to do so, according to the human rights they possess!" you might say. Well, I don't care for "rights" in that sense. But I do care about human flourishing.
Wow, you call yourself an elitist when you still care enough about the sheep to want to make them better? Let them have their bread and circus, who cares. A few will naturally rise above it.

>>8886381
Is there any literature forum not infested by the filthy SJW scum?

>>8886815
This.

>>8885251
Hilariously bad post. Reread Moby Dick.

>>8885800
In most other boards you never see a single one ever.
First time I come here in months and I find this shit right away.

>>8889061
>those watching [cuck porn] are more likely to be far right and xenophobic.

This is easily and observably wrong. Not even going to take the time to explain why the rest of the embarrassing undergrad bilge you spilled all over this thread is wrong, as why it is wrong is obvious to anyone who doesn't live in their parents' basement.

/lit/ really needs to filter for IQ, or at least have a shaming mechanism in place to keep anons like you from posting demonstrably wrong diatribes.

Read The Thousand and One Nights.

>>8891785
Sorry that you felt threatened by my intelligence.

It's okay, my friend. Not everyone can type up quality posts.

>>8885363
My diary desu

/lit/ is dead

>>8890206

if you concede me that human condition is based on answers rather than situations you should understand that is based on conceptual answers. (maybe i dont understand you with this)
>To your second point, that man can avoid, at once, his social needs, sexuality, and the paradoxes of his existence
i dont say "at once", im not good at english, but what i want to say is the changes of perspective about what we make with social needs, sex and paradoxes of existence.
>through some biological or technological mechanism, overcome our mortality
this is what you dont understand of what i said.
i dont refer to a material change, i refer to a philosophical or conceptual or a malleable changes of perspectives of what means to be human. like we maybe overcome the conscience of our death, or little tiny changes that maybe result in that we dont understand us anymore as a group, or on the contrary we understand our place like a plant or something. i know is highly highly prospective and more in a imaginative way than in a serious and rigorous one, but i think human condition or human in general (and transhumanism as well, who focus suspiciously too much in material death ) is just a concept, and like a concept, should change through eras, changes that we dont fully grasp today. i dont know, maybe im wrong. (i refer to philosophical changes anyway, concepts about ourselves)

>be recognizably human
this is what i try to explain. you say this like it was something dramatic (maybe it was not your intention, maybe i am the only one who see this, it´s not your fault)
you are implying that if we are not recognizable human anymore we are totally different even in the most microscopic trace of skin that we will have. and i dont say this, what we understand of us today (included human condition) maybe have some part in future, but its not the whole deal. (and the meaning of an idea like human condition is being the whole deal referring to humans)
i think human condition and human concept is a peephole to understand who we are. if you are no recognizably human you are just not in the answers human give to this or that.

i know is extrasimple all what i said. maybe even bored because is not something we can instrumentalize or use like a conceptual or systematic tool thinking for today. is just that, maybe a stupid or almost sci fi or spiritual thinking.
thanks to all your answers, you seem like an intelligent cool guy.
i have too bad grades all my life to not sorry for my english again.

>>8885167
In the Aeneid Aeneas cucks the queen of Libya's husband so there's that.

>nick land is altright

jeez man just read his twitter

>>8885251
la condition humaine*

The Human Condition: A Story of Cucks

>>8892408
thank g-d

This entire thread is cancer, specially the unironical Fascist.

Die in a fire, fascist scum.

>>8885251
Jesus Christ, you're such an undescribable cuck it almost literally hurts.

File: smiling president.jpg (19KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 480x360px

>>8894518
8 years

>>8885093
Is Ulysses a good book or is it just one huge meme like everything else this guy writes?

All it takes for normies to gush over a poster is for someone to write out the opinions and beliefs of the normie with intellectual prose.

Easily tricked.

>>8895347
it's mostly meme.

>>8885159
It's a try-hard's attempt of farming (You)s