/lit/ - Literature

>>18686928
Although the Nazis undoubtedly had a taste for high culture, I’m not sure that appreciating literary subtlety or ambiguity was their particular forté. It is difficult to believe that they appreciated Shylock as anything beyond the stereotypical portrayal of the evil Jewish money-lender. Or perhaps they did see beyond it, but they used it propagandistically anyway.

>>18687245
It's number 2.

>>18686928
No idea, but France and Germany banned Coriolanus for some time due to obvious reasons. Which is weird, because of the tragic ending, he is too "fit" for his own good.

>>18687245
lawl Nazis don't understand art at all

>>18687245
>Although the Nazis undoubtedly had a taste for high culture
explains their fascination with book burning

>>18687280
They did not, they only had one symbolic book burning

>Wouldn't this play made people sympathize for the kikes or stuff?

Shylock fucks about and finds out. He deserves no sympathy.

>>18687291
Still, they banned a bunch of shit.

>>18687291
>People still say we are against learning even though we only burned a giant pile of books once!

>>18687302
Any regime/state bans a bunch of shit, including our current.
>>18687325
It was symbolic, retard.

>>18687337
I don't think there are banned books in Brazil. Not sure about the US.

>>18687302
What did they ban?

>>18687346
There are definitely banned books in the US, mostly to do with weapon/explosive manufacturing.

>>18687346
America outsources its censorship to the private sector in order to get around the First Amendment. Being banned from Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, and Google searches is effectively state censorship as the FBI works in concert with the Jewish ADL to "advise" Jewish run corporations on which people and materials to suppress.

>>18686928
The Nazi intellectual elite, like all intellectual elites everywhere for all time, understood how stupid and unsophisticated the average peasant is and used that to their advantage. This isn't complicated.

>>18687337
>Hmm yes we DID burn books, but uhm, it was symbolic so...what was my point again?

>>18687350
I don't know, Marxism and shit.

>>18687513
The most famous Nazi book burning was of Jewish books promoting transsexualism.

Don't believe me? Believe the Jews.

https://www.hmd.org.uk/resource/6-may-1933-looting-of-the-institute-of-sexology/

>>18687557
I don't care, any kind of book banning is stupid.

>>18687498
The point was that "muh nazis burned books all the time" is a meme

>>18687563
Name me any regime in history that did not ban books

>>18687576
And that makes it less retarded? People also stick to all kind of stupid superstitions since forever. So that might be a good thing, right?

>>18687599
>And that makes it less retarded?
No, but it makes you more retarded for seething at one regime in particular. What are you going to do about books getting banned?
>People also stick to all kind of stupid superstitions since forever. So that might be a good thing, right?
Yes, unironically.

>>18687563
Then let's make sure every grade school library has copies of The International Jew, On the Jews and Their Lies, The Culture of Critique, Mein Kampf, and The Turner Diaries.

>>18686928
Nazis were pretty shallow in terms of culture, certain works were chosen as acceptable based on superficial understanding. They massively promoted Wagner simpler due to him not liking jews, nothing to do with the actual artistry.

>>18687245
I would bet they just saw a jewish stereotype and accepted it based on that. The "Hath not a Jew eyes?" speech probably went over their heads.

>>18687608
What are you on? There are no banned book in Brazil, anon. And even so, I don't give a shit to fucking law concerning book banning, if I want to read it, I'll find a way to read it, I don't care. It is not like I'm scared of the state or anything, the worst thing they can do is to kill you, I'm not scared of dying.

>>18687568
They did burn books, and the fact that they did so for symbolic purposes only serves to highlight the movement's "appreciation for high culture"

>>18687649
>no banned book in Brazil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_governments
>Happy New Year (1975)
>Banned in Brazil
Too bad anon
>And even so, I don't give a shit to fucking law concerning book banning, if I want to read it, I'll find a way to read it, I don't care. It is not like I'm scared of the state or anything, the worst thing they can do is to kill you, I'm not scared of dying.
Wow you're so badass, why are you crying about it in this thread then you faggot?

>>18687619
Being banned and not leaving them for children are very different things, anon. Read some Kant and consider the concept of enlightenment, if someone is able to think alone, there is no reason to be scared about whatever it will happen if they put their hands on book x or y. While I do enjoy reading Mishima, I don't think children should get anywhere near it. Not even teenagers.

>>18687656
I never said they didn't, I just said the meme that nazis made a habit of burning books is retarded, they acted no different from any other regime apart from that symbplic book burning

>>18687661
That was during the military dictatorship, that ended 30 years ago. The author of that book gave an interview in a government funded television not long ago. Anon, I live in fucking Brazil, unless that is your area of study of some shit in uni I doubt that you would know more shit about it than me.

>>18687670
I'm sorry for you anon, I understand there's no need to ban books when your population is either illiterate or too poor to buy books, that works too

>>18687666
The fact that a symbol of their movement was literally burning books is all you need to know about their appreciation of learning and high culture. No all regimes are not the same, the Nazi one was explicitly anti-intellectual and anti-art.

>>18687568
Banning is as bad as burning

>>18687681
KEK butt hurt. Well, considering /lit/ standards my country is more free than yours.

>>18687662
> I don't think children should get anywhere near it. Not even teenagers.
That's the thing though. The book burnings were done by teenagers and students clearing out their school/university of degenerate Marxist/trans propaganda.

>>18687683
>Books about trannies are now appreciation of learning and high culture
Alright degenerate retard
>the Nazi one was explicitly anti-intellectual and anti-art.
You are retarded. There's more then enough things to criticize the nazi regime over but this is not it. Stop falling for propaganda.
>>18687693
As we've established, every regime with literate population bans books. Why do you seethe about this one in particular?

>>18687706
You are supposed to know what the fuck you are doing on university.

>>18687696
That's quite a low bar

>>18687715
Then we should close as good as all western universities. At least the nazis knew very well what they were doing.

>>18687720
Well, I'm chilling in the sun, shitposting on /lit/ and I can read anything that I feel like. What else could I want?

>>18687726
Why? They knew shit. They were a bunch of superstitious retards.

>>18687713
The regime was anti-intellectual. Book burning, book banning, suppressing criticism of the regime, rejection of Einstein's theory because he was a jew, rejection of Darwinian science.

>>18686928
>Wouldn't this play made people sympathize for the kikes or stuff?
In a play were a Jew tries to take a literal pound of flesh from a Christian? This is basically blood libel in play form.

>>18687760
KEK do Shakespeare unironically?

>>18687754
The regime was against certain forms of intellectual life. Namely, all forms that did not fit into their program. But that is something different from being "anti-intellectual" against everything.

>>18687773
It is against the regular definition of it. Mental masturbation in an echo chamber hardly seems intellectual to me.

>>18687781
And it is the most ironicized definition ever. The 'intellectual' in a high seat at tower made of amethyst.

>>18687773
Yes they didn't burn every book and didn't ban every work of art. But they banned enough books and artworks to classify both their regime and their ideology as effectively anti-intellectual. They even put one of their henchmen to attend Heidegger's lectures to make sure he wouldn't criticize their shit regime.

>>18687266
Coinciding with the Entartete Kunst exhibition, the Grosse deutsche Kunstausstellung (Great German art exhibition) made its premiere amid much pageantry. This exhibition, held at the palatial Haus der deutschen Kunst (House of German Art), displayed the work of officially approved artists such as Arno Breker and Adolf Wissel. At the end of four months Entartete Kunst had attracted over two million visitors, nearly three and a half times the number that visited the nearby Grosse deutsche Kunstausstellung.[40]

>>18687280
Trans science books are only good as combustible

>>18688041
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_banned_in_Nazi_Germany
They banned a good deal more than "trans science books"

>>18687741
>>18687754
Are you claiming any regime currently isn't a bunch of superstitious retards? Or are you one of those "but muh science" faggots? In that case you should know a lot of post war science was based off of stolen nazi science.
People are just as superstitious as ever, proven by you for falling for propaganda.

>>18688093
They are less superstitious than the nazis. What are you even talking about?

>>18688104
No they're not, you only say that because you've fallen for the "muh science" propaganda meme.
Look at how people (and governments, scientists etc) act with regarding to the "pandemic" and you have your answer. They're acting like the end of the world is nigh and only blind faith in science™ can save us. They believe whatever the people on TV tell them. You're no better than any people of any regime in the past.

>>18688093
Nazis are bad, mkay?

>>18688093
>Are you claiming any regime currently isn't a bunch of superstitious retards?
Which is why totalitarian regimes that give complete power to "superstitious retards" to ban any books they don't like always turn out to be anti-intellectual in practice, if not in principle.

>>18688123
No better or worse than any other regime including our current western one.

>>18688129
So you agree our current totalitarian regime is just as bad? Good, I was worried you had fallen for the propaganda that it's never been better or freeer than now.

>>18687713
>i-it's da trannies!
>Fyodor Dostoyevsky
>Leo Tolstoy
>Victor Hugo
>Ernest Hemingway
>James Joyce

>>18688121
I'm ok, anon. I don't know what you are talking about. Just look at that shit, eugenics, phrenology and some other weird retardation just because without any reason. That is what happens in a crisis, people get desperate, don't know what to do and end up listening to anyone. The main difference is that now science got way better, and there isn't as much room for charlatanism as it used to be.

>>18686928
Nazis didn’t fully like the merchant of Venice. They had a lot of it censored like when the Jewish women marries the Italian was removed. They also had Charles dickens Oliver Twist censored since one Aryan character is portrayed as being equally or just as evil as a Jew.

>>18688151
I'm sorry but you think eugenics was restricted to the nazis? Then you're very naive or very misinformed, it's never been practiced more than now.
>That is what happens in a crisis, people get desperate, don't know what to do and end up listening to anyone.
So just like today?
>The main difference is that now science got way better, and there isn't as much room for charlatanism as it used to be.
You have no idea what you're talking about. This is nothing more than blind belief. peer reviewed science is a fraud. It's not better than it used to be.

>>18688156
Also the nazis had lots of Handal’s music censored or changed since it mentioned Jews too much.

>>18688168
>So just like today?
That was exactly what I was saying.
>You have no idea what you're talking about. This is nothing more than blind belief. peer reviewed science is a fraud. It's not better than it used to be.
Yes, sure, that is definitely the reason why old scientific bs are still a thing.

>>18688205
>That was exactly what I was saying.
Okay, then stop claiming today we're better than the nazis were. We're not and we never were.
>Yes, sure, that is definitely the reason why old scientific bs are still a thing.
Once you start following the money behind science you'll see. Research is bought by multinationals, outcomes fabricated, undesirable outcomes discarded, scientists with the wrong opinions blacklisted. Stop believing the propaganda.

>>18688134
I don't know in what country you live in. There is no totalitarian Western country, neither of which have censorship and suppression of inquiry anywhere near that of Nazi Germany.

>>18686928
That play is entirely unsympathetic to the jews. You're thinking of the movie.

>>18688412
You fell for the propaganda. Read this book >>18688223
The fact that you can't see the prison bars doesn't mean you're not in a prison

>>18686928
>dude...you were supposed to feel bad for the heckin jewerino
This is possibly the most hamfisted brainlet take i've ever heard. If you managed to find any sympathy for Shylock you're a weird psycho.

>>18688485
Do you have any actual points to make aside from triumphatically asserting propositions? What Western country is "totalitarian" or suppresses inquiry to the extend Nazi Germany did?

>>18688223
>Once you start following the money behind science you'll see. Research is bought by multinationals, outcomes fabricated, undesirable outcomes discarded, scientists with the wrong opinions blacklisted. Stop believing the propaganda.
It might be, but still, it doesn't last long. Look at how tobacco industry stands today. Are you that stupid or just LARPing this shit?

>>18688516
>it doesn't last long
It's lasted for more than a century and doesn't seem to be ending any time soon given what we see with the "pandemic". That it shifts here and there like you mentioned with tobacco doesn't mean shit, just look at medical science which is a huge fraud.
>>18688503
Any? Ellul explains how western regimes took the workings of propaganda from the nazis and soviets and improved upon them. Just because you're not physically detained doesn't mean you're free in any way. Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia just didn't try to hide it.

>>18688535
You are confusing different issues by the use of inexact language. The question is of whether "our current totalitarian regime is just as bad (as Nazi Germany)", not whether we are "free" in some vague sense.
Totalitarianism is a specific kind of regime with distinguishable characteristics. A constitutional liberal democracy with separation of powers and civil and property rights cannot be totalitarian, no matter how dysfunctional.
Similarly there are various degrees to which a regime can ban various books, works of art and the like. Find me a Western country as aggressively censorious or "just as bad"as this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_banned_in_Nazi_Germany

>>18688734
We do not live in any sort of democracy, we live in a totaliitarian state that masks itself as a democracy. It's not dysfunctional, it's doing exactly what it was meant to do. You can only vote for those that are accepted by the system. You cannot change it from the inside. And what about "you'll own nothing and you'll be happy"? The mask is slowly coming off although most still will not see it.
>Find me a Western country as aggressively censorious or "just as bad"as this
The thing is that what Ellul proposes that if you condition people the right way, you won't need to ban certain books because people will censor themselves and not even feel the need to seek out censored books. If you want to be autistic about it then no, it's not totalitarian in the same sense, but it has the same end result although more easily attained since people feel that nothing is officially banned. So technically you're correct, effectively I'm correct.

>>18688772
>You can only vote for those that are accepted by the system.
This is called representative democracy.
>And what about "you'll own nothing and you'll be happy"?
It doesn't apply to any Western democracy, where you can own plenty of things.
So far you failed to give any reason for identifying any Western state as totalitarian, and I can only assume that you don't understand what totalitarianism is. Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/topic/totalitarianism
>Totalitarianism, form of government that theoretically permits no individual freedom and that seeks to subordinate all aspects of individual life to the authority of the state. Italian dictator Benito Mussolini coined the term totalitario in the early 1920s to characterize the new fascist state of Italy, which he further described as “all within the state, none outside the state, none against the state.” By the beginning of World War II, totalitarian had become synonymous with absolute and oppressive single-party government. Other modern examples of totalitarian states include the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler, the People’s Republic of China under Mao Zedong, and North Korea under the Kim dynasty.

>The thing is that what Ellul proposes that if you condition people the right way, you won't need to ban certain books because people will censor themselves and not even feel the need to seek out censored books. If you want to be autistic about it then no, it's not totalitarian in the same sense, but it has the same end result although more easily attained since people feel that nothing is officially banned. So technically you're correct, effectively I'm correct.
You are both technically and effectively incorrect. Social pressure is not as strong a deterrant as shooting or imprisoning someone, nor as oppressive. The only thing gained from your insistence that all states are equally oppressive because you can find oppressive elements in each is blinding yourself to all questions of degree.

>>18688855
>This is called representative democracy.
It's not about what it's called but about what it is. Effectively this "reprresentative democracy" is not a representative democracy since the will of the people does not matter, only that of the elite. You're being disingenuous here.
>It doesn't apply to any Western democracy, where you can own plenty of things.
For now, but the plan to eliminate this has been in the works for quite a while and will be institued within mere decades.
>So far you failed to give any reason for identifying any Western state as totalitarian
No, I have, you're just too blinded by propaganda to see it for what it is. You have been conditioned very well.
>Totalitarianism, form of government that theoretically permits no individual freedom and that seeks to subordinate all aspects of individual life to the authority of the state.
Sounds exactly like the current west, thanks for proving my point.
>Social pressure is not as strong a deterrant as shooting or imprisoning someone, nor as oppressive
You are wrong, it only seems that way because you have been conditioned to believe that. Read Ellul.
>The only thing gained from your insistence that all states are equally oppressive because you can find oppressive elements in each is blinding yourself to all questions of degree.
No you misunderstand, not all states are equally oppressive. The current west is more oppressive than most of the examples mentioned just because the overwhelming majority (including you) don't know you are being oppressed. Read Ellul.

>>18688535
What are you on? People are literally doing surgeries using robots. I even bought some stocks of it. That shit is insane.

>>18688957
And this proves what? That doesn't mean medicine as a whole is a huge scam

>>18688983
What kind of scam? What are you talking about? Life expectancy increased regardless of people's diet being fucking shit and their sedentary life styles.

>>18688983
Let me ask you something. Have you used any kind of drug (alcohol included) recently?

>>18686928
If you shove your prick in us, does our ass not bleed?

>>18688997
>What kind of scam?
Are you blind? The incentive is to keep people sick and sell them medicine, not to cure them
> Life expectancy increased regardless of people's diet being fucking shit and their sedentary life styles.
This proves my previous point. It's all about profit. The longer you can milk someone, the more profit you make.
>>18689002
No

>>18689014
Yes, of course it is all about profit, we live in fucking capitalism. Even /lit/ is about profit in case you haven't noticed. There are some charity, but it is mainly about profit, anon.

You should check yourself with a psychologist, not even joking. Tell those things to your near family members the same way you told me.

>>18689042
Capitalism is just the shell. But yes medicine is still a scam, the current "pandemic" proves it.
>You should check yourself with a psychologist, not even joking.
No thanks, schlomo. At least medicine can work, psychology is totally fraudulent.
>Tell those things to your near family members the same way you told me.
I have. What's your point?

>>18689060
What about the eradication of smallpox? Scarlet fever no longer being a thing?

>>18689060
I can't do anything for you, anon. But consider getting some meds, you might have some problems. The irony of all this is that you won't believe me and definitely not seek help. The world as a ready to consume bad joke. KEK

>>18689075
I'm not sure what you're getting at. I never claimed medicine doesn't work. I just claimed it is a huge scam. If we wanted to, we could have a population of superhumans. But there's more money to be made by keeping people sick and hooked on meds. Also that way they cannot revolt and will stay good little sheep. There's a reason they want to spread "democracy" all over the planet.

>>18689088
I used to be on meds and have been much better since I quit them, many such cases. You should quit them too and start living life the way it was meant to be. No artificial meds unless absolutely necessary, pure organic food, good books.

>>18688938
>It's not about what it's called but about what it is. Effectively this "reprresentative democracy" is not a representative democracy since the will of the people does not matter, only that of the elite. You're being disingenuous here.
You don't seem to understand the concept of "degrees". There is no historical state where the government perfectly expresses "the will of the people" (if we admit such a thing). Neither is there a historical state that is absolutely opprsseive so that no independent action is possible. So, again, the question is whether "our current totalitarian regime is just as bad (as Nazi Germany)", a claim that you failed to substantiate.
>For now, but the plan to eliminate this has been in the works for quite a while and will be institued within mere decades.
I take this is as a sign of delusion. If not, show me the forces working to end private property.
>No, I have, you're just too blinded by propaganda to see it for what it is. You have been conditioned very well.
What you did was state your position. What you didn't do is provide concrete examples of totalitarianism besides hinting at social pressures that exist in all historical societies.
>(Totalitarianism, form of government that theoretically permits no individual freedom and that seeks to subordinate all aspects of individual life to the authority of the state) Sounds exactly like the current west, thanks for proving my point.
No it does not prove your point. You simply stated your position once more. Find us the one party state and the lack of property rights.
>You are wrong, it only seems that way because you have been conditioned to believe that. Read Ellul.
The difference is that there are all kinds of people and groups that publicly espouse politically controversial views. Those views are not being expressed in regimes where doing so gets you killed or imprisoned. So no, social pressure is not as strong a deterrant as unleashing a police state on your ass.
>No you misunderstand, not all states are equally oppressive. The current west is more oppressive than most of the examples mentioned just because the overwhelming majority (including you) don't know you are being oppressed. Read Ellul.
Not knowing you are being "oppressed" in a vague, as of yet undefined sense, does not make the oppression worse than being actually oppressed by a totalitarian regime in the real concrete sense of the term. And the constant exhorts to read Ellul do a poor job destracting from your failure to substantiate your rather bold assertions.

>>18689155
Read Ellul.

>>18689173
I don't have to read anything. But here is what we find in his wikipedia page:
>Ellul identified himself as a Christian Anarchist. Ellul explained his view in this way: "By anarchy I mean first an absolute rejection of violence."[45] And, "... Jesus was not only a socialist but an anarchist – and I want to stress here that I regard anarchism as the fullest and most serious form of socialism."[46] For him, this meant that nation-states, as the primary sources of violence in the modern era, should neither be praised nor feared, but continually questioned and challenged.[47] For Ellul, human government is largely irrelevant in that the revelation of God contained in Scripture is sufficient and exclusive.
If that's the framework from which you operate, you are essentially judging all historical states using a non historical state as the measure. For those of us who as of yet are not convinced that such a state will ever exist, the exercise seem tedious and pointless. And it gives no reason to ignore factual differences between the degrees of political suppression perpetuated by actual regimes to focus on how they all fall sort of Ellul's ideal of "an absolute rejection of violence".

>>18689173
meds. NOw