/lit/ - Literature

>>16108460
Read Heidegger.
>Heidegger: If I may answer briefly, and perhaps clumsily, but after long reflection: philosophy will be unable to effect any immediate change in the current state of the world. This is true not only of philosophy but of all purely human reflection and endeavor. Only a god can save us. The only possibility available to us is that by thinknig and poetizing we prepare a readiness for the appearance of a god, or for the absence of a god in [our] decline, insofar as in view of the absent god we are in a state of decline.
>SPIEGEL: Is there a correlation between your thinking and the emergence of this god? Is there here in your view a causal connection? Do you feel that we can bring a god forth by our thinking?
>Heidegger: We can not bring him forth by our thinking. At best we can awaken a readiness to wait [for him].
>SPIEGEL: But can we help?
>Heidegger: The first help might be the readying of this readiness. It is not through man that the world can be what it is and how it is -- but also not without man. In my view, this goes together with the fact that what I call "Being" (that long traditional, highly ambiguous, now worn-out word) has need of man in order that its revelation, its appearance as truth, and its [various] forms may come to pass. The essence of technicity I see in what I call "pos-ure" (Ge-Sull), an often ridiculed and perhaps awkward expression. To say that pos-ure holds sway means that man is posed, enjoined and challenged by a power that becomes manifest in the essence of technicity -- a power that man himself does not control. Thought asks no more than this: that it help us achieve this insight. Philosophy is at an end.

>Heidegger: If we take as framework for the correlation of art, poetry and philosophy the "culture business" -- then the comparison you make is valid. But if not only the "business" character is open to question but also the meaning of "culture," then reflection upon such questionable matters falls, too, within the area of responsibility of thought, whose own distressed condition is not easily thought through. But the greatest need of thought consists in this, that today, so far as I can see, there is still no thinker speaking who is "great" enough to bring thought immediately and in clearly defined form before the heart of the matter [seine Sache] and thereby [set it] on its way. For us today, the greatness of what is to be thought is [all] too great. Perhaps the best we can do is strive to break a passage through it -- along narrow paths that do not stretch too far.

>>16108460
the second part is simply wrong because Xi Jinping will lead the glorious Han race to absolute victory and save the world from faggots, niggers, and other undesirables

>>16108460
You need to buy or make a tiger saddle. Once you have the saddle, you’ll need to capture and train a tiger so that you can ride it. Once you are able to ride the tiger, ride into the public square and the fascists will come to you.

>>16108460
>So what now?
Nazgoth

>needing "movements"
Ultimate pseud midwit herd follower trait. You're just yourself, buddy. Sorry, there's no epic LARP faction to join that will solve all of your anxiety about purpose and destiny or whatever. This anxiety is insoluble anyway, which is why fascism manifests as a suicidal behavior.

Hezbollah is the only worthy modern movement.

>>16108858
>which is why fascism manifests as a suicidal behavior.
Debord, Mark Fisher, and Baudrillard were perhaps the most insightful Marxists to ever live, and two of them killed themselves, and the third advocated for terrorism.

>>16108870
This nigga knows what's up

>>16108858
>I AM AN INDIVIDUAL
>I AM AN INDIVIDUAL
>ME THOUGHTS BE MY OWN

Evola was a LARPer who wanted be be a knight of the round table but lacked the discipline for Christian chivalry. Give your soul to God, then worry about finding a movement.

>>16108884
you sound really mad, bro. Like I said, no one is going to save you by taking you into their world conquering brotherhood for philosopher poet warriors, and you are neither going to invent one. The more you force it, the angrier and sadder you're going to get. The more you obsess over a lost object that you never had, and never existed, the worse you'll feel. So why do it?

Even if you convinced yourself to fight for a particular movement, anything that threatens the system has long been thoroughly infiltrated to ensure it's either defamated or nullified.

What's left to do in this scenario is to strive towards living a simpler life, it'll make you stronger while simultaneously doing what an individual can to harm the system.

>>16108460
Find peace.

>>16108581
its so funny that it worked

>>16108858
>which is why fascism manifests as a suicidal behavior.
That Virilio's quote is the ultimate pleb filter. Did you, at least, know that the postmodern humanists who memed that phrase were so fucking scared of their own ontology, that had to (((shut down themselves))) with it? (Also that suicidal behavior is part of NatSoc, not Fascism)
I agree that "movements", as identity structures, are cringe; but any political praxis need that kind of violence, since human personas are worthless

>>16108487
This, except unironically.

>>16108904
>he thinks the grail is christian
but i do agree that god is eternal and uncreated and gods actual religion is closer to the primordial tradition then the bible

>>16108487
I am really very curious how he would have reacted to Deleuze. How he would have dismissed him anyhow, but I know almost nothing of Deleuze so it is just a curiosity at this point.

Robert Taber - War of the Flea

>>16108904
fisher king = fallen dominator (king)

>>16108874
Not him but the way I see it, both fascism and marxism can be suicidal. Though it would be incorrect to say they are suicidal ideologies. More like self destructing ideologies.

Also terrorism isn't self destructive, it's just destructive and sometimes destruction is necessary. Not that I condone terrorism, that's just the rationale behind it.

essential

>>16108460
Forge those movements yourself. Stay stalwart in your position and don't succumb to bullshit ideologies like Duginism or >>16108535 Chink shit. Essentially, be the change you want to see in the world.

Wait you had to read an entire book to figure that out

>>16109056
K but you won't be allowed to live a simpler life as the people who hate you close the walls in on you.

>>16108858
I thought fascism is genocidal behavior...

>>16108460
>there’s no modern movements worth fighting for

Come on, man!

>>16108487
>No solution
>Except god

Dropped

>>16108487
>emergence of a god
Was Heidegger pagang?

>>16110322
Really more of a Catholic, or definitely Christian in that when he said "God has always been with me" he believes the Christian God's true nature he has found, at least up to that point. Paganism is about as far away from his conception as possible.

>>16108858
Holy based

>>16110278
I'm ridin' with Biden

>>16110254
based

>>16110329
Heidegger wasn't a catholic at all. What exactly his divinities are is very elusive, but its clear that he was a deep relativist with a strong affinity for Homer's gods.

Here is my read-through of Tiger, Part 1...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK87is-69MU

Part 2 and 3 are done, I'm now recording Part 4. Each of the 8 "Parts" are divided up into smaller Chapters. Was thinking I would post them 3 days apart

>>16108858
Only a pseud midwit is unable to realize that one can direct energies towards a movement without having a strawman belief that it would solve all their personal issues or whatever bleating faux-psychoanalysis you can conjure up. Go ahead and be at the mercy of the status quo, at least you'd be too free-thinking to take part in a movement.

>>16110441
Are you the author of the original Iron Pill webcomic? Either way, cool vid i'll check it out.

>>16108460
Now prepare for a war.
Facism is essentially herd mentality to fight against extreme threats.
Hitler was forced into a war not the other way around.
Thats why communist hate facism with all its might.
Its because its a counter revolutionary movement that institutes a revolution to fight off anything and everything that poses a threat.
Extreme social discontent and subversion inevitably spawn a last stand where everything is hyper productive and innovative like the nazi Germany. Elites in america are aware of this. Thats why they want to make a minority out of whites. Because they know the last stand is coming and that last stand will be crushed and villainized just like the nazi Germany.

>>16110524
>Are you the author of the original Iron Pill webcomic?

Lol, no. I will clarify that in my channel description right now. I'm just a huge fan of the original comics since way back... They are what initially sparked my curiosity for Evola's works.

>>16108460
Nothing. It's over.

>>16110441
nice i will listen to it at some point was interested in the evola meme

>>16108874
Baudri wasn't a marxist though and did he really advocate terrorism??

>>16110682
The creator of the original webcomic apparently killed himself

>>16111139
Sad to hear that... His memes really had an impact on my life.

>>16108460
you ride the fucking tiger nigger

>>16108487
Recommended works by Heidi?

>>16108870
Based.

>>16108535
China and their cheap soulless Western knockoffs.

>>16108460
>So what now?

Either ride the tiger, or unwind Evola's error and join the Holy Roman Church.

>>16108487
>>16108487
I wrote a number of long posts in the other thread, basically rough notes attempting to clarify the problem we face in terms of thinking and the possible return of a god/eternal laws. There is certainly some parallel to what Heidegger is saying here, and one of the questions that I have been asking lately, and what those posts work towards, is to what extent nihilism and technology relate, and if we are at the point where the Last Man (in the Junger sense rather than Nietzsche's) has appeared. Obviously there is some disagreement between Heidegger and Junger and ultimately I think an exploration of this may give some answers.
If you're interested the most relevant posts are the last two (although you would have to know that I am discussing the conflict of states as in Plato's Theory of Forms, the significance of this being that it provides an alternative theory to the current left/right thinking, and in particular deterritorialisation theory which the right is unwisely beginning to subscribe to.)
>>16113468

>>16114650
I will try to keep this somewhat short.
Although this should be obvious, it is worthwhile to remember that the question of technology does not begin and end with Heidegger, even if it appears as though he monopolised the discourse. Against the Aristotelian we can look to Plato's comments on Daedalus and see that, at least in terms of thinking, one can go beyond the limits of the sun and the sea. There are also popular movements which are essentially an attempt to escape enframing. This speaks to what FG Junger said of impoverishment, and where the loss of time and the wealth of being is lost there will be what amounts to a revolutionary situation, or at least a deep sense that spirit can no longer only struggle against spiritlessness.

It is worth pointing out here, at the outset, that along with technology there is also a powerful force of law, one that, at least in relation to Germany and the West, may be understood as the causal event of perpetual war, occupations, and the devastating mobilisation of technology. There is also the current crisis of the Western legal ground, and the migrants make it clear that there is a force threatening the West that is at least as powerful as technology. If it was technology that built the new western man then it is law that threatens to destroy him.

I think it would be useful to consider Carl Schmitt's writings as the true origin of the question of technology. For him, technology is a means of neutralisation, effectively a simultaneous force of democratisation and centralisation as the friend-enemy distinction establishes itself within the new order. Set against the leftist analysis of deterritorialisation, which is formed as an economic-libidinal, we see a question of law, power, and eternal forces opposed to the mundane and psychological. It should be obvious which is of a greater force and poses greater risks, but to clarify I will say that economics is almost entirely a technical question, a bourgeois relation to time and formation of the appearance of simple life amidst the devastation of technology. Think of the rationing of comforts during war, the covering and windows and lights with blankets to hide from the enemy, and you will have a better understanding of modern economics than any textbook can give you.

>>16114655
2
What does this all mean? Schmitt's understanding was that only a strong politics could master technology. The crisis of neutralisation essentially re-situates the friend-enemy distinction, the technology which began as a neutralising force begins to turn inwards becoming itself an internal threat - that which exists outside of Europe is no longer seen as a threat when compared to the internal threats. This was a major factor in the World Wars, although not the only one and perhaps not even the greatest. However, it highlights how incredible material forces can still give way beneath the strength of the elemental, of eternal and even forgotten laws. Junger said that if you lined up all of the weaponry of the wars and fired on a single target it would not be as destructive as these immaterial laws. If we are enframed then it is because of something much more powerful than technology, this becomes clear when we realise how the devastating aspects of technology are only rivalled by an equal force of peace. And this speaks to the contradiction at the heart of the modern question.

Tocqueville's theory of democratising war may be helpful to understand this: where the professional military is abandoned and antiwar sentiments become law the military must grow immeasurably. Due to the lowered fighting potential greater numbers are required to defend the same amount of territory. The same law most certainly holds for technology, the loss of specialised skill in the creation of technology necessitates its development by an ever greater work force. Evidence for this exists in the great number of worthless jobs, the frustrating nature of organisation and low competence in most jobsites, the democratisation of knowledge in which no single person understands the whole of a project, and the leveling of even brilliant minds to what are essentially concerns of the lowest worker. Loss of efficiency is as responsible for the immeasurable increase in work as that of technical perfection. This also undermines the idea of a total law of economy, anyone reading Marx's Falling Rate of Profits should be reminded how even the workers want to save their workload.

>>16114662
3
This is getting way too long so I should try get to a conclusion. In terms of Western law the Americans have ruled since the end of the World Wars. This does not simply mean that they are responsible for upholding the peace treaties (which include the occupation measures necessitated by territorial neutralisation) but also the Nomos of the West. This is equivalent to the pomerium of Rome, the law which upholds the central territory as opposed to that which is merely held or incurred upon. How the West relates to both internal and external threats is determined by this nomos. In short, the West has overstretched itself and in turn created great risk for the homeland, or has arguably even abandoned or corrupted its laws. This, again, becomes clear in the migrant crisis. At another level, we can see that America has made great mistakes in its diplomacy and perpetual war efforts. This would be far too difficult to get into in such a short space, but basically amounts to the levels of destruction necessary against the natural defenses of cities and what amounts to the necessity of permanent low-scale warfare as a means to control dynamic territory - or even cause it to become dynamic.

In turn, there are effectively Russian and Chinese incursions into the West, or at the very least the brilliant diplomacy of Russia has caused a massive loss of American transitional/dynamic territory and even weaknesses at home. This perpetual state of warfare develops alongside the antiwar sentiment, as I already discussed, to which the liberal sentiment feels the need to wage without victimising any of the common people in the territories that are attacked. This is a continual war of mobilising territory, and one in which, at least to the liberal humanist mind, there can be no victims. But of course what we are seeing in reality is a that the catastrophe occurs on multiple fronts: the people lose their homes in the war territory, as do the average citizens who must give way to whole new groups being mobilised for peace (this is essentially what the migrants are), the bombed territory loses its ability to govern and becomes little more than a buffer state, and the attacking country gains nothing (or in fact wastes immeasurable wealth).

Essentially, we have a situation in which a legal force has developed equal to that of the founding of the modern world and Western law - this is the event that both Schmitt and Junger marked as the end of the modern era. Even in technical terms this suggests that we are about to enter a great period in which new laws will be founded, but looking at the true consequences that will result from this one should see the potential for change at the deepest levels, in the elemental forces and our relation to eternal laws. In Heideggarian terms this would certainly amount to the return of gods.

do whatever u want

>>16114676
4
What is terrifying in this is that we certainly have not done the work to prepare for the type of thinking that would 'prepare a readiness for the gods'. We see that both the left and right are lost completely to the historical, to the point that they may still be stuck, at least metaphysically speaking, in the period of the neutralisation crisis (First World War or even earlier). The danger here is that we will see a great unloading of the technological rearmament that is equal to that period of time, one which returns people to the being of this new era, another founding era - or in Schmitt's terms the return to creation. This could also be understood as a return to the primordial warring gods rather than the triumph of the gods over the titans, as Junger hoped for.

However, despite the bleak outlook there is also great potential. Such an opposing force is necessary if the humanist era is to come to an end, and it is only through such an incredible level of violence (in the legal sense) that new laws may be founded - laws which have the potential to exist as something more than a transitional period. And this demands that we look back in a way that we do not make the mistakes of humanism, whether in the form of fascism, communism, or liberalism.

https://youtu.be/nkOiKy6sXfM

Part 2 is up on Youtube now, this is the longest of the 8 parts wit 9 chapters and over 3 hours long:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeTiWQc6xs4

>>16114686
Perhaps also worth mentioning that the defeatism of "Only a god can save us" is entirely Christian. Otherwise, it is secularist in the idea of religion being any sort of causal agent for the gods, which is also self-defeating.
Paganism demands some form of action, dealing with the pollution of one's territory and fighting against those who threaten it.

>>16108883
>>16108870
All hail the great sand people who answered the one true question

>>16108460
>>realize there’s no modern movements worth fighting for

There's your problem. Make your own movement. Decide to be happy in spite of everything and everyone around you. Delete your social media, stop watching the news. Eat good food. Exercise. Brush your teeth three times a day. In other words, chop wood and carry water.