/lit/ - Literature

>>23087851
Devious and Evil Sadler pilled.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcxNSF6C_0k

Occult
https://www.youtube.com/@TheModernHermeticist/videos
https://www.youtube.com/@abbasalchemist/videos
https://www.youtube.com/@hermitixpodcast/videos
https://www.youtube.com/@glitchbottle/videos
https://www.youtube.com/@damienechols8091/streams
https://www.youtube.com/@TheEsotericaChannel/videos
https://www.youtube.com/@PaulWestonGlastonbury/videos
https://www.youtube.com/@FoolishFishBooks

>>22675701
As the apostate pinko Whitaker Chambers put it,
>“It [Communism] is not new. It is, in fact, man's second oldest faith. Its promise was whispered in the first days of the Creation under the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil: "Ye shall be as gods." It is the great alternative faith of mankind. Like all great faiths, its force derives from a simple vision. Other ages have had great visions. They have always been different versions of the same vision: the vision of God and man's relationship to God. The Communist vision is the vision of Man without God.
It is the vision of man's mind displacing God as the creative intelligence of the world. It is the vision of man's liberated mind, by the sole force of its rational intelligence, redirecting man's destiny and reorganizing man's life and the world. It is the vision of man, once more the central figure of the Creation, not because God made man in his image, but because man's mind makes him the most intelligent of the animals. Copernicus and his successors displaced man as the central fact of the universe by proving that the earth was not the central star of the universe. Communism restores man to his sovereignty by the simple method of denying God.”

Finding oneself at the ass end of millennia of natural selection without the consolation of the eternal and the good is quite the embarrassment. Why not rectify it with full bore nihilism gussied up in sweet nothings--

>>22488586
>t. the The Road thread

>>22208471
>You're still retarded for being liberal.
You decided that I am a liberal only because I'm calling out Dugin's bullshit and not kissing his ass, like you do? Why should you even kiss his ass - only because he's le hecking based and trad? That's just stupid.
And how being a liberal is more retarded than being a right-wing? It's all the same to me. It's all the same to Putin, too. You have no idea about real political ideology of Russia.
>You don't understand that the West will only accept one Russia - one that doesn't exist.
The entire political elite of Russia have their offspring getting education in USA.

>>20772104
>>20772685
Stirner. Stirner can't replace Nietzsche as Nietzsche discusses more ideas across his work, but Stirner does cover a number of Nietzsche's major ideas in a completely different style. For example the way Stirner described the french revolution is similar to Nietzsche's view of it and Nietzsche's slave revolt in morality. Although it didn't necessarily incorporate the ideas about resentment like Nietzsche did (although it did discuss power simply shifting hands without any kind of real moral justification, and about how the common people wanted power), but regardless, the ways that Stirner's perspective differs seem to nonetheless incorporate other major ideas found in Nietzsche's works. For example Stirner believed that Christianity and Protestantism led to the dominion of ideas like liberty and justice over a person's sensual experience of the world, and hence even though resentment is a smaller focus in Stirner's work, the idea that conscience is trained and used to manipulate people is still the same-- "This tearing apart of man into 'natural impulse' and 'conscience' (inner populace and inner police) is what constitutes the Protestant. The reason of the bible (in place of the catholic 'reason of the church') ranks as sacred, and this feeling and consciousness that the word of the bible is sacred is called - conscience".

>>19847040
nice spooks, nerd

>He didn't torrent it

>>19322109
>race
on October 31st no less

Is Stirner a meme or is egoism a legitimate "political" philosophy?

>>18019520
Aristotle is my property now, I wont submit my mental prowess to the agony of reading the whole of Politics when I can just take what I need for my own ends.

>spent whole work day reading, learning Spanish, and not doing a single iota of work

does anyone else do this?

>>16442369
>You are NOT above the law.

>>16191732
>being an anti-semmite

>>15959372
>>15959383
>>15959393
>grandstanding because you smoke cigs

this is some /pol/ tier retardation

>>15820196
>2 of those things are food
>the other one is emotional support from a friend group

For these gains you have paid nearly all of your out of pocket money as well as most of your time

Now if you had to redo it and start again, would you give up 20 years of your life to these systems for these minor moments of reciprocity?

>>15689934
I understand some of it, I'm not going to be like these other troglodytes who pretend to know everything he says because it's literally impossible

There are tons of passages that are just incomprehensible to read

>Yes, “if men were what they should be, could be, if all men were rational, all loved each other as brothers,” then it would be a paradisiacal life. All right, men are as they should be, can be. What should they be? Surely not more than they can be! And what can they be? Not more, again, than they — can, than they have the competence, the force, to be. But this they really are, because what they are not they are incapable of being; for to be capable means — really to be. One is not capable for anything that one really is not; one is not capable of anything that one does not really do. Could a man blinded by cataracts see? Oh, yes, if he had his cataracts successfully removed. But now he cannot see because he does not see. Possibility and reality always coincide. One can do nothing that one does not, as one does nothing that one cannot.

Explain this one
All I see is man and capable

>>15505626
reminder that equality = humanism = christianism = slave morality

why do leftist "anarchists" think this is a valid and intelligent argument against anarchocapitalism?
>"an"cap is not anarchism because you need the state to enforce private property rights
this argument, if taken to its logical conclusion, works equally well as an argument against all rights in existence including those that leftist "anarchists" hold so dear like the right of woman to own her body, right to life etc. all those rights are universally agreed on and yet it is necessary for a state to exist and enforce them. to say that "principle X is not anarchism because it is necessary to have a state to enforce it" is trivially true insofar as all laws must be maintained by force, including the putative good ones like the ones listed above. there is literally no way out of it, pure and honest anarchism would be a variation of Hobbes' bellum omnium contra omnes, even an anarchist commune would need some principles to regulate social life and an entity designed to enforce them. I can agree and admit that ancapism is not real anarchism, but so would have to pretty much every leftist "anarchist" in the world. anarchism is either a Hobbesian state of nature or some radical form of democracy but then it's no longer anarchism, it's simply democracy taken to its radical conclusion

>>15431642
>Why do normies do this, are these people, as Nietzsche would put it, subhuman?
Yes