I just read Leo Strauss' lecture on German Nihilism and

File: 1441906024522.gif (997KB, 500x270px) Image search: [Google]

997KB, 500x270px

He did not only describe the nazis but also 4chan. Damn.

File: IMG_6919.jpg (48KB, 567x450px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 567x450px

Like I needed another reason to love the Krauts.

File: 1e08aa.gif (2KB, 50x50px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 50x50px

>>9698703

I'm pretty sure 4chan does not fit into achieving the sublime through seriousness and awareness of sacrifice.

File: 1491543638059.jpg (97KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 540x540px

>2017
>morals

>>9698764
Well, /pol/ at least, insofar as they will the destruction of modern civilisation. The process by which they do this is highly irrationalised.

>It was this prospect [the prospect of communism, t. anon] at least as much as the desperate present, which led to nihilism. The prospect of a pacified planet, without rulers and ruled, of a planetary society devoted to production and consumption only, to the production and consumption of spiritual as well as material merchandise, was positively horrifying to quite a few very intelligent and very decent, if very young, Germans. They did not object to that prospect because they were worrying about their own economic and social position; for certainly in that respect they had no longer anything to lose. Nor did they object to it for religious reasons; for, as one of their spokesmen (E. Jünger) said, they knew* that they were the* sons and grandsons and great-grandsons of godless men. What they hated, was the very prospect of a world in which everyone would be happy and satisfied, in which everyone would have his little pleasure by day and his little pleasure by night, a world in which no great heart could beat and no great soul could breathe, a world without real, unmetaphoric, sacrifice, i.e. a world without blood, sweat, and tears. What to the communists appeared to be the fulfilment of the dream of mankind, appeared to those young Germans as the greatest debasement of humanity, as the coming of the end of humanity, as the arrival of the latest man. They did not really know, and thus they were unable to express in a tolerably clear language, what they desired to put in the place of the present world and its allegedly necessary future or sequel: the only thing of which they were absolutely certain was that the present world and all the potentialities of the present world as such, must be destroyed in order to prevent the otherwise necessary coming of the communist final order: literally anything, the nothing* the chaos, the jungle, the Wild West, the Hobbian state of nature, seemed to them infinitely better than the communist- anarchist-pacifist future.8

pretty damn woke if you ask me

where to start with Strauss? I've been meaning to get a copy of Persecution and the Art of Writing.

>>9698838
OP here. I'd like to ask the same thing. I was just researching about political nihilism in general and came across his lecture which struck me as very insightful.

File: Society-of-the-spectacle.jpg (71KB, 466x600px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 466x600px

>Only life in such a tense atmosphere, only a life which is based on constant awareness of the sacrifices* to which it owes its existence, and of the necessity, the duty of sacrifice of life and all worldly goods, is truly human: the sublime is unknown to the open society." The societies of the West which claim to aspire toward the open society, actually are closed societies in a state of disintegration: their moral value, their respectability, depends entirely on their still being closed societies.

>>9698873
Reminds me more of Heidegger tbqh.

>>9698838
persecution is the only strauss i've read and it's mind-blowing

>>9698936
true. all roads lead to Being

>>9698974
checking this out now. and holy shit you're right

>>9698936
Heidegger influenced like 99% of 20th century philosophy

>>9699022
too bad he was wrong though (bad for 20th century philosophy, that is)

>>9699027
bitch, you didn't even read Heidegger

>>9699041
bitch, you didn't even read strauss' critique of heidegger

check mate

Genuinely can't tell if this is supposed to be a critique

>>9699062
It is. Strauss is opposed to the destruction of civilisation German nihilism aims to achieve.

>>9699074
Can you post a passage from the part of the lecture where he presents his critique?

>>9699084
I find his critique not very convincing because he amalgamates his critique largely dwells on associating German nihilism with German nazism and German militarism. His main criticism which I find convincing is that German nihilism has nothing to propose in lieu of the civilisation it aims to destroy.

>Rauschning operates on somewhat safer ground when he stresses the Nazis' lack of any settled aims. He understands then by German nihilism the "permanent revolution of sheer destruction" for the sake of destruction, a "revolution for its own sake" (248). He stresses the "aimlessness" of the Nazis; he says that they have no program except action; that they replace doctrine by tactics (75); he calls their revolution "a revolution without a doctrine" (55); he speaks of the "total rejection" by the Nazis "of any sort of doctrine" (56). This appears to be an exaggeration. For elsewhere Rauschning says: "One thing National Socialism is not: a doctrine or philosophy. Yet it has a philosophy." (23). Or: "the fight against Judaism, while it is beyond question a central element not only in material con siderations, but in those of cultural policy, is part of the party doctrine" (22).21 Their anti-Jewish policy does seem to be taken seriously by the Nazis. But even if it were true, that no single point of the original party program or party doctrine had a more than provisional and tactical meaning, we still should be at a loss to understand a party, a government, a State not merely without a program or doctrine but without any aims. For it seems hard to conceive how any human being can act without having an aim. John Dillinger probably had no program, but he doubtless had an aim. In other words: Rauschning has not considered carefully enough the difference between program and aim. If he defines nihilism as a political movement without aims, then he defines a nonentity; if he defines nihilism as a political movement without a program or doctrine, then he would have to call all opportunists nihilists, which would be too uncharitable to be true.22 As a matter of fact, Rauschning does not always deny that the Nazis have aims: "a permanent revolution of sheer destruction by means of which a dic tatorship of brute force maintains itself in power" (xif). Here, Rauschning states the aim of the Nazis: that aim is their power; they do not destroy in order to destroy, but in order to maintain themselves in power.23 Now, to keep themselves in power, they depend, to a certain extent, on their ability to make their subjects, the Germans, happy, on their ability to satisfy the needs of the Ger mans. This means, as matters stand, that, in order to maintain themselves in power, they must embark upon a policy of aggression, a policy directed toward world-dominion.

1/2

File: at_last_i_truly_see.png (11KB, 447x378px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 447x378px

>>9699084
>>9699145
Then again I feel like I partake in this special German nihilism, so who am I to criticise my critic?

>Rauschning corrects his remark about the aimlessness of the Nazis by saying "the German aims are indefinite to-day only because they are infinite" (275). Their "goal" is "the world-wide totalitarian empire" (58). They have not only aims, their aims form even a hierarchy leading up to a principal aim: "the principal aim, the redistribution of the world" (229). German nihilism, as described by Rauschning, is then the aspiration to world-dominion exercised by the Germans who are dominated in their turn by a German elite; that aspiration becomes nihilistic, because it uses any means to achieve its end and thus de stroys everything which makes life worth living for any decent or intelligent being. However low an opinion we may have of the Nazis, I am inclined to believe that they desire German world-dominion not merely as a means for keeping themselves in power, but that they derive, so to speak, a disinterested pleasure from the prospect of that glamorous goal "Germany ruling the world

2/2

>>9699151
>>9699145
Strauss was Jewish. Not to go full /pol/ but you have to realize that his objections are existential, and not solely rooted in logos.

>>9699151
>>9699145
Thanks

>>9698873
Can /lit/ ever stop sucking Debord's cock?

>>9698809
>/pol/
>destroying modern civilization
lol that's why U.S. economy is doing better under Trump right

>>9699177
It's probably a little bit of war propaganda too. the text was published in 1941. Strauss and Carl Schmitt (which he mentions as one of the idea givers of German nihilism) corresponded with and influenced each other and were something like friends in the post-War order.

I think his analysis of German nihilism is valid. The description he gave in the first post was even sympathetic if you ask me. What he formulates is a valid critique of (a fully) open society and a defense of morality.

So the motivation of German nihilism is valid but not its expression through aimless violence.

>>9698809
/pol/ doesn't want to destroy modern civilization, they just want to be shielded from the disadvantages that go along with it more or less necessarily

>>9699225
What are happenings all about? It's the constant longing for the Ernstfall Strauss described in the OP.

>>9699177
Strauss was initially somewhat sympathetic to Hitler and thought the antisemitism was just a ploy to get votes.

>>9699059
Strauss studied under Heidegger for a semester. So the influence is there even if he ultimately makes a critique

All of the assertions of this Nihilism so called as described in OP are to me completely dependent upon structurally western assumptions such as "greatness" "seriousness" et cetera and their antipodes. I am not saying this as a die-hard deconstructionist either I am just a little amused by the lack of rigor in this kind of argument. But that is the point of Straus' analysis which is not sympathetic as far as I can tell; it points out the internal contradictions of the Nihilists' position.

>>9699258
Civilisation is in itself a western concept and anybody willing to discuss it must work with "structurally western assumptions".

>>9699265
No I don't think civilization is western. I think the ancient Egyptians had a concept of civilization. Maybe it goes back even further. Civilization is an aristocratic concept. Meaning that to make all people serve or resemble the aristocracy is to civilize.

>>9699226
They weren't really friends but they did respect and influence each other. You can see a lot of Schmitt in Strauss' critique of liberalism and Schmitt re-wrote some of his works after Strauss' criticisms.

Schmitt wrote a letter of recommendation to the Rockefeller foundation for Strauss' grant and this helped him get out of Germany.

>>9698693
leo strauss is a GOAT jew
i would have vouched for him on the day of the rope

>>9699274
Maybe but in that context what matters is our definition of civilization because it's the rejection of contemporary civilisation by contemporary men. Strauss decidedly speaks of "modern civilisation" most of the time. Not that Strauss didn't account for your view as well:

>If nihilism is the rejection of the principles of civilisation as such, and if civilisation is based on recognition of the fact that the subject of civilisation is man as man, every interpretation of science and morals in terms of races, or of nations, or of cultures, is strictly speaking nihilistic. Whoever accepts the idea of a Nordic or German or Faustic science, e.g., rejects eo ipso the idea of science. Different "cultures" may have produced different types of "science"; but only one of them can be true, can be science.** The nihilist implication of the nationalist interpretation of science in particular can be described somewhat differently in the following terms. Civilisation is inseparable from learning, from the desire to learn from anyone who can teach us something worthwhile. The nationalist interpretation of science or philosophy implies that we cannot really learn anything worthwhile from people who do not belong to our nation or our culture. The few Greeks whom we usually have in mind when we speak of the Greeks, were distinguished from the barbarians, so to speak exclusively by their willingness to learn even from barbarians; whereas the barbarian, the non- Greek barbarian as well as the Greek barbarian, believes that all his questions are solved by, or on the basis of, his ancestral tradition

>>9699276
That's nice.

You can find the complete essay here btw:

http://www.interpretationjournal.com/backissues/Vol_26-3.pdf

Anyone have the Strauss neocon philosophy thread for a few days ago?

>>9698838
I'm going to St. John's.
That's about as close to MUH PLATO WE WUZ PHILOSOPHERS N SHEIT as you can get.

>>9701051
bumped for interest

File: 1490654888053.png (273KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 450x450px

>>9698693
>Only life in such a tense atmosphere, only a life which is based on constant awareness of the sacrifices* to which it owes its existence, and of the necessity, the duty of sacrifice of life and all worldly goods, is truly human: the sublime is unknown to the open society." The societies of the West which claim to aspire toward the open society, actually are closed societies in a state of disintegration: their moral value, their respectability, depends entirely on their still being closed societies.
>it's a beta clings to his spook of devotion towards society episode
haaaahahahaahahahahahhahaahhaahhaah

>>9701938
But what if devotion towards society egoistically pleases me? Checkmate stirnerites.

>>9701874
Thanks. It also had some good talk of Carl Schmitt. There is a similar thread active right now, I just wish I knew the context of the other thread I saw previously.

File: lenin.jpg (37KB, 350x424px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 350x424px

>>9701973
Schmitt is a personal favourite of mine. I would be happy if we could discuss him at greater lengths.

>>9702023
I'd love to hear what you have to say about his works.

>>9702120
I like to read his definition of the political in conjunction with Gramsci's theory of cultural hegemony.

Schmitt sees the political as a dividing force. In the political struggle you have friend and foe fighting for control of the political entity. In our contemporary case, this is a democracy. Democracies have innate drive towards homogenisation as Schmitt notes once again. Ergo the winner of the political struggle enforces his policies upon the loser. Interpreted in a wider societal frame (here I rely on Gramsci), the winner enforces social standards on the loser. Now liberal democracy usually mitigates that by protecting the rights of the loser, right? Fair enough.

Most political systems are divided between conservatives and progressives (be they liberals or socialists). Conservatives are proponents of the status quo and do not necessarily strive to actively enact socially or morally revolutionary policies, if they act they react (hence their opponents deem them reactionary). They want society to stay like it is. Because of this, they become constant losers of society. Every time the progressives get their turn, they enact more and more progressive policies. In the short run, this does not matter because the hegemonic forces that control social culture (news companies, entertainment, etc.) usually prepare these changes and increase social tolerance in the populace.

However, this unequal struggle between conservatives and progressives will eventually escalate if the forces of cultural hegemony can no longer manufacture social consensus. Too rapid changes (e.g. migration crisis in Europe, Obama era policies) cause a conservative backlash that cannot properly express itself (because it lacks cultural hegemony that would otherwise give it the necessary vocabulary) and then turns into what Strauss described in the opening post, >>9698693.

I feel like the reason so many liberals call Trump a fascist is because they notice the similarities between the German nihilists and the disgruntled Republican voter base which is motivated by similar existential concerns about preserving a closed society.

>>9702947
great post, my man

>>9702947
Is Schmitt's Nomos of the Earth worth a purchase?

>>9702972
Thanks man. I feel like I should pursue these thoughts further. The only way to prevent this development is in my opinion to stop the desintegration of our closed societies and maintain them in a semi-open style. I think Eastern European societies like Poland, Hungary or the Czech Republic are exemplary for such a state of affairs.

How to achieve this? I don't know yet. The question is also whether or not one thinks this desirable

>>9703000
I only read passages in university but I'd recommend it if you are a sturdy reader. There are a lot of insights to be had.

>>9703032
Do you think you and perhaps some of /lit/s other Schmitt scholars could compose some charts and reading guides for his work, along with some appropriate secondary source readings?

>>9703382
I would but I am not knowledgable enough. I haven't read all of Schmitt's works. In any case start with his Definition of the Political though.

>>9703664
I figured at the very least an ongoing thread like this or perhaps the sharing of sources could use combined knowledge of his various works in order to help provide a good reference for those interested in developing his ideas further, or just those who want to know where to start with such texts and scholarship.

>>9703782
I'd be interested in this as well.

>>9703382
Balakrishnan has a good book covering almost all of Schmitt's work. Alain de Benoist also has a good book covering Schmitt vs neocons.

There's a great lecture on youtube about Schmitt and his critique of parliamentarism.

I don't know how to photoshop. Sorry.

>>9706121
Thanks. Still would be nice to have regular threads on this or at least a google doc or something similar.

There's a reason Eden is described as a walled garden.

File: 1491479080578.jpg (535KB, 2000x1125px) Image search: [Google]

535KB, 2000x1125px

>>9698764
>I'm pretty sure 4chan does not fit into achieving the sublime through seriousness and awareness of sacrifice.
You've clearly never been to r9k.

>>9707612
>tfw my identity has progressively become more and more defined against the normative other as I've spent years languishing on this site
>tfw we literally forego friends, familial feeling, sexual intimacy, even the prospect of happiness itself as a rebellion against the every-man's thralldom understood as so pervasive and pernicious the proof of which is one's preferred escapism here, where exile and the state of outcast are modern virtues in a modern landscape ruled by degeneracy and stupidity
People truly seldom appreciate the weight of the "normie"

>>9699230
>What are happenings all about?
Boredom.
>>9699230
>It's the constant longing for the Ernstfall Strauss described in the OP.
The trouble this and many intellectuals is they read depth and intent where there is none.

>>9699320
there can be no higher praise

>>9698769
>implying the nature and demand of deontology isn't timeless

>>9709025
this

>>9708461
OP here. I am happy that this thread has piqued the interest of so many /lit/izens.

>>9707666
>people truly seldom appreciate the weight of the "normie"

ding ding

>>9707666
>the normative other
isn't this an oxymoron

>>9711048
Big Other

File: 1027423672.webm (2MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x480px

>>9698764
Saint Elliot died for our sins.

>>9710985
Thanks. I honestly fascinated by the history and philosophy that exists behind right wing thought/ideology. I was the one who posted above about guides and reading lists for Schmitt, Strauss, and perhaps others.

>>9712007
I am*

File: sight.jpg (66KB, 600x719px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 600x719px

I can summerize all of that in a single alt-right eceleb retweet.

>>9712090
Sure. Whole thread right here everyone.

>>9712090

Has anyone ever contested this? I mean, its clearly easy to summarize in meme format, but is there a counter-argument?

>>9712781
what about:
all men are weak, but they flourish when they are bound by high social cohesion
social cohesion brings development
that same development then tears down social cohesion until people become too individualistic and therefore decadent
then the society slowly goes into a decay phase

strong men seems like a dumb and extremely simplified thing to say

>>9712781
It oversimplifies things into "strong vs weak" and "good vs bad", and perhaps an argument about time not being cyclical?

I don't disagree with the general point it's making but those are two ideas.

>>9712793

I was thinking of simplifying it into

all men have potential to be strong men > dire conditions require men to be strong for survival > eras in time that have more difficult conditions will by necessity eliminate those who cannot survive > the men who survived build great civilizations and nations > their immediate sons oversee/respect them > their grandsons take it for granted > their great grand-children will be the ones first introduced to the next great struggle > their great-great grandchildren become the next strong generation

Is there a sensible counter argument for this, within the realm of social theory? From an evolutionary perspective, its obvious, but we've gone and flipped a bitch on evolution, haven't we?

File: 1425828348101.jpg (24KB, 381x442px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 381x442px

>>9698693
The claim that the open society is immoral or amoral is actually interesting. I've thought about the same thing with regards to the incessant cries for equality politically too.

I mean, I don't want to psychoanalyze too much, but it seems to me that the howls for equality in every corner of society is an attempt to annihilate value and difference between people, and that it's not necessarily a well-meaning ideal.

Everyone knows that when you value something, you devalue something else, which makes it hard then to actually see the value in equality because it aims to make everyone valuable regardless of any criterion of value.

How much of the cries of equality is actually nihilistic resentment? Seems hard to separate the people who want to "pull the great down" from the people who want to "help the weak up".

>>9712821
that is basically a less autistic version of the meme picture

id say that when societies become cozy and due to "better" and safer lifestyle, those who are supposed to die survive, there is accumulated a large number of people unfit to exist and by a collapse of the society that has kept them alive nature merely balances out by killing the weak off

>>9712828
the saddest part is that when you say that they call you a right wing fascist and when you say you want to "help the weak up" they call you a left wing hippie communist

and im just a poor old distributist

>>9712844
Ideologues of any stripe are in general not possible to talk to. They usually just scream their slogans in your face.

>>9712869
whats fascinating that despite myself being very traditional i can connect and relate 100 times better with normalfag commoner leftist voters than with rightist ones who are usually stuck up and way more ideological

>>9712881
For me it usually depends where they are socio-economically.

Middle-class and rich people who have ideological infatuations are just flat out annoying by definition.

>>9698809
He makes nihilism sound amazing.

>>9707940
No, that is straight /pol/. Boredom wouldn't demand a specific narrative or the passionate desire for a systemic crisis that would affect the individual.

Strauss was proto-Neocon garbage

>>9699258
he directly gives examples of what constitutes ernstfallen. War, swearing allegiance to a flag, etc. Perhaps talking about "seriousness" is dependent on a western assumption (though i think it's debatable whether its a fundamental part of the human experience), but using the objective experiences of war and loyalty to a larger group as reference points is completely valid and rigorous

>>9701938
>it's a stirnerite deliberately doesnt think and just posts shit unoriginal memes episode
getting bored of this one

>>9699274
Ancient Egyptians were Europeans. Early on, entirely; later, only the leadership; even later, none, which is why it stopped being a functional civilization and became a semitic wasteland.

Here's how it works:
>Europeans create civilization
>jews enter
>subvert host society to take power
>open the gates to their Arab cousins
>civilization falls or semites are expelled and try again at a later point in time.

Voila. It's a pattern you see over and over.

>>9713344
wow what a great nugget of wisdom
>>9713551
wew lad

>>9712844
>distributist
I like you. Do you have reading suggestions on distributism?

>>9712828
>muh red scare

>>9698693
Describes my feelings pretty well desu - does he suggest a remedy to such thinking?

>>9714887
Not sure if I'm correct but I know Strauss sort of advocates shilling a unifying myth that the leaders don't necessarily themselves believe but is nonetheless constructive for society.

He's got some idiosyncratic and controversial readings of Plato and Maimonides which work into this.

>>9714947
That's sounds essentially like Brave New World but with a pseudoreligious twist (which, as he described, I am completely opposed to). I respect the man's diagnosis, but he doesn't offer anything else to people looking to reintegrate into normie society

>>9714454
I'm also curious.

>>9698693
This is really, really good stuff.

>>9716017
No, it's not. It's typical jewing, calling other people's nations closed societies for being resistant to jewish interests that want to open those societies up to exploitation and ruin.

"Nihilism" was to German philosophy what postmodernism is to current western philosophy -- both are representative of the social decay caused by long periods of jewish cultural influence.

>>9716048
Then what do you propose we do oh wise one?

>>9716527
Export the problem to Israel.

>>9714887
He advocates tyrants ruling over us and the free-minded philosophers to go into hiding and form esoteric groups.

>>9716048
Strauss is referencing Henri Bergson's concept of open society, not Popper's

>>9717852
Tell me more about Bergson's concept of open society?

>>9716048
>Thinks Strauss wants to open societies to relativism and decay

Your dread of the Jew has blinded you to ideas which would be helpful to know.

>>9719026
Jews are not creative and enlightened thinkers like Europeans are; they are rigid desert semites who are subversive and authoritarian thinkers.

The reason I know so much about jews is precisely because I have studied them. I know how they think and operate. The exact opposite of what you said is true, so you have no point here.

>>9718937
>There is the closed morality, whose religion is static, and there is the open morality, whose religion is dynamic. Closed morality and static religion are concerned with social cohesion. Nature has made certain species evolve in such a way that the individuals in these species cannot exist on their own. They are fragile and require the support of a community. One quickly thinks of bees, and Bergson, of course, refers to them. We can see again that there are bodily needs which must be satisfied. The force of these needs is the source of the closed morality. Because of these needs, there is a rigidity to the rules of closed moralities. Kant's moral philosophy has its source in such needs. The survival of the community requires that there be strict obedience: the categorical imperative. Yet, although Kant's categorical imperative is supposed to be universal, it is not, according to Bergson. It is limited and particular. Closed morality really concerns the survival of a society, my society. Therefore, it always excludes other societies. Indeed, for Bergson, closed morality is always concerned with war. And static religion, the religion of closed morality, is based on what Bergson calls the “fabulation function.” The fabulation function is a particular function of the imagination that creates “voluntary hallucinations.” The fabulation function takes our sense that there is a presence watching over us and invents images of gods. These images then insure strict obedience to the closed morality. In short, they insure social cohesion.

1/2

>>9718937
>>9719100
>But, there is another kind of morality and religion, according to Bergson. The open morality and dynamic religion are concerned with creativity and progress. They are not concerned with social cohesion, and thus Bergson calls this morality “open” because it includes everyone. The open morality is genuinely universal and it aims at peace. It aims at an “open society.” The source of the open morality is what Bergson calls “creative emotions.” The difference between creative emotions and normal emotions consists in this: in normal emotions, we first have a representation which causes the feeling (I see my friend and then I feel happy); in creative emotion, we first have the emotion which then creates representations. So, Bergson gives us the example of the joy of a musician who, on the basis of emotion, creates a symphony, and who then produces representations of the music in the score. We can see here that Bergson has also finally explained how the leap of an intuition happens. The creative emotion makes one unstable and throws one out of the habitual mode of intelligence, which is directed at needs. Indeed, in The Two Sources, Bergson compares creative emotions to unstable mental states as those found in the mad. But what he really has in mind is mystical experience. For Bergson, however, mystical experience is not simply a disequilibrium. Genuine mystical experience must result in action; it cannot remain simple contemplation of God. This association of creative emotions with mystical experience means that, for Bergson, dynamic religion is mystical. Indeed, dynamic religion, because it is always creative, cannot be associated with any particular organized set of doctrines. A religion with organized – and rigid — doctrines is always static.

2/2

So as far as I can tell, Bergson does not exclude or prefer the closed to the open society. He rather notes that the closed and the open society are different aspects of society in general.

>>9719079
>t. grew up in middle America and has literally never met a jew in his entire life

>>9719123
I grew up around many jews and even had my own jewish girl fan club in HS. And I've known and worked around them since. Anuddah swing and a miss, Schlomo.

File: e46ec6850f5f521916880b0e48d69a46.jpg (47KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 640x640px

>>9719079

>>9719157
>Is a Jew

>>9719110
Thanks. Loving this thread.

File: 1498028994262.jpg (23KB, 344x588px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 344x588px

>>9719157
>and even had my own jewish girl fan club in HS
Sometimes I get so angry other people don't accept my made up accusations against arbitrary ethnic groups I'm forced to look inward at my own many shortcomings as a human being. Not often though.

>>9719814
Since you are trying to advance the notion that jews are the following...
>arbitrary ethnic group
I suspect your shortcomings are many.

There's no excuse for whites not educating themselves about jewish behavior.

>>9719157
Kek

>7 days old bread
wev

>>9722097
Feels good man

>>9722097
>People actually wanting to further their knowledge more extensively

>>9722470
it does

b

>>9726540
...ump?

>>9698693
who is this a spurdo of?

>>9698809

Problem: that communist utopia was not inevitable, and will never occur. Perhaps this is only abundantly clear to those of us who can see the end of the Cold War. All attempts at pacifist international utopia are, in fact, doomed to throw the successful into the Hobbesian wilderness of the subhuman.

Which brings the second problem, the fact that witnessing a near-utopian western world collapse into a British, nasty, and short primordial dystopia, seems thus far insufficient to inspire a healthily closed society to reform. The soul is successfully extinguished to pave the way for utopia, but the inevitable failure of utopia to materialize does not rekindle it.

Perhaps a generation must be born into dystopia to escape the decadence of their parents.

>>9727332
>British

Freudian slip, *brutish

>>9727332
I don't disagree, but it's important to note that the only people disposed to fall prey to these universalist, morality-based utopian ideals are white people. Others are too tribal, unintelligent, or borglike. This weakness in whites has also been routinely exploited by jews, who have designed or disproportionately advanced the aforementioned systems (Christianity, communism, liberalism).

>Perhaps a generation must be born into dystopia to escape the decadence of their parents
This is happening now. The boomers will go down in history as the generation that ruined western civilization by adopting post-Christian liberalism and giving away their childrens' birthright to third worlders because the jews who took over their culture in the post-WWII era severed them from their past and manipulated them into believing they were building a multicultural global utopia ... the illusion of which is finally starting to crash as they bow out and leave their children enslaved to mammon and outnumbered by savages. It's gonna be a bumpy ride. It's imperative to remove the jew.

>>9712090
>ironmeme

>>9727665
Meme replication at work.

>>9701938
>>9701966
I think these two shitposts represent one of the biggest questions of our time and I'd unironically like someone to talk to about it.

I look down on those who devote themselves to a collective just to compensate but then the alternative seems to be a disintegrating nation and everyone-for-themselves.

>>9712793
>>9712090
I never saw "strong men" as a matter of superiority or elitism - to me it says quite clearly that everyone has the same potential to be "strong" and it's only the time we live in that decides whether we behave as strong or weak men. So I don't think that's any criticism, although I agree otherwise and I don't think anyone has ever countered the point.

It's just in human nature to only tolerate as much hardship and lack of freedom as we absolutely have to and hence always miss the sweet spot that'd allow us to live both without heated toilet seats and without absolute chaos.

>>9698809
lol no all pol tries to do is overcoming their insecurities from watching to much bbc porn by telling each other how much better they are cause they voted for an orange idiot

>>9728967
>Surely the other side will see the superiority of my ways if I just grossly misrepresent their views and motives and add some namecalling for good measure

>>9728977
>grossly misrepresent
>every second thread is about why white woman are trash for liking black men

>>9728983
I checked the catalog. There are 202 threads. 0 of them do what you allege. 5 of them are trolls posting a picture of interracial porn along with "umad whitey how can you even compete" - which judging by your post sounds a lot like something you'd do.

But who cares, keep on thinking you're on the righteous side.

File: 1940235495.jpg (373KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 1920x1080px

>>9707612
I smiled at this good humoredly until it started to sink in with how deeply I understand r9k as opposed to regular people. That we are irregular and double down on our otherness as a total rejection of the normality enjoyed by the rest of the world. Maybe there really is something to 'our' brand of autism, a nobility maybe...

File: mfwsamefaggotry.webm (3MB, 872x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 872x360px

>>9722097
>>9722470
>>9723806

>>9729039

>that pic

anon with the 2007 level banter on deck. nice one, cornball.

>>9728958
Obviously a middle ground must be found. Neither the most ultra-individualist open society nor a totalitarian closed society is desirable. Rather we must find a workable synthesis. A semi-open society which exalts individuality and devotion to traditional community at the same time. I'd encourage you to read Jünger's later books Heliopolis and especially Eumeswil which explore the functioning of a Stirnerite individual that actively seeks to follow an authoritarian leader while maintaing its own integrity. Some sort of conservative anarchism, really.

>>9729033
No. There isn't nobility.
If /r9k/ spent half as much time blaming themselves for their personal failings and attempting to fix them rather than blaming women for not accepting their immature, obese, judgmental, hateful selves, maybe, just maybe, they would accomplish something slightly meaningful in their lives.

But they won't, they'll continue to sit around on their board, lubing up their circle jerk with their collective tears. How pathetic

>>9729431
>When you unironically parrot muh bootstraps without even realizing it

>>9727294
Read the fucking op, pleb.

>>9729336
Important to understand here though is that European societies are the only ones that really qualify as individualist -- other people aren't like that. Whites are under the incorrect assumption that non-whites want to be individualists just like them, but with the third world invasion happening now we are going to learn the hard way that other people act in their own ethnic interests, and that it's okay for us to do the same. This conflict will by the very laws of nature cause whites to begin acting in their collective interests to fight off the streaming hordes imploding the first world institutions only an individualist European society can build and maintain, but through this struggle we will hopefully realize that if we want to protect the individualist nature of our societies, we will have to do a better job of protecting our collective interests.

>>9729521
I disagree with that notion, partly on the grounds that individualism is not the same as the hyperindividualism of Western societies. You will find in every society of the world the tendency of humans to value and strive for some sort of self-fulfilment.

The only difference here is that non-Western societies by and large have this urge towards self-fulfilment more in harmony with the needs and demands of society at large.

The Japanese are a very good example. You have all these strange otakus, retired policemen who collect thousands of Hello kitty dolls, etc. etc. At the same time Japanese society (which is a society more closed than Western society) demands a very respectful and distanced field of human interaction. Acting improperly in one situation might not only disgrace you but your whole family. So here we find individuality that is turned inward.

Notwithstanding you are correct in your assessment that cross-cultural migration will necessarily create a space for misunderstanding and violence. Different cultures value different things but still this is just one aspect of many in modern society. Migration, globalization, hypercapitalism - all these forces interact with each other and push national societies to an ever increasing degree towards forced openness. There are accelerationist figures like Nick Land who cherish this development but only because they have a vision of the future that relies on the destruction of the past. If Western societies want to survive they must limit openness and retain some form of closedness or otherwise they will lose their distinguishing features in some sort of humanitarian universalism turned into a waking nightmare.

Holy shit it's still alive.

>>9698693
we should embrace nihilism
>Jünger writes: “the light flares up when the darkness is complete.”
>For Dostoevsky, “the prognosis is also optimistic; he
does not see in nihilism a final, deadly stage” but “a necessary stage,
intrinsic to a movement toward particular ends.”

damn

File: 1432798141.png (713KB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

713KB, 1440x900px

>>9729431
You're grossly mistaken, blaming others is purely recreational. A jape shared between fellow bondmen. We laugh at the desperation of our own predicament, at each other and make total caricature of redemption. That one can seriously suggest the teeming bed of self-hate that is r9k is deficient in inward consideration is proof of both their ignorance and readiness to speak on the matter.

>>9698693
I've come to regard anyone who uses the word nihilism as either childishly reductionistic or as wanking over ideas that have been out of fashion for 200 years.

>>9733141
Keep us posted.

>>9698809
>commoners want to have only gay sex, no kids or if they have any they are changing their sex and thus no way to breed, complete bias in academy, importing refugees who don't want to work and have sub 90 iq
>but its /pol/ as you can see who is againts this things and thus destroying western civilization

>>9733141
Unlike all those retards Strauss actually clarifies what he means by nihilism though.

>>9698873
accurate

>>9732730
>>9733103
Yeah.

>>9734828
It's not going anywhere though.

>>9735136
Just like your life then isn't it?