/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15699953]

Today I watched a raven destroy a nest of robin chicks. It carried one chick off, chased by five robins. Three chicks were left on the ground below the nest, one with a broken wing. I sat in sorrow in what I witnessed, angry at myself for not getting outside and chasing the raven off sooner. I thought, "How could this raven be so evil?". But then I remembered all the worms I watched the robins feed to their chicks. Why was that not evil to me, but the raven's actions were?

[Anonymous No.15699963]

>>15699953
I fucking hate birds and don't understand why we tolerate them in our cities when we could just poison them.

[Anonymous No.15699976]

Birds rule, worms drool!

[Anonymous No.15699999]

In the whole vast dome of living nature there reigns an open violence. A kind of prescriptive fury which arms all the creatures to their common doom: as soon as you leave the inanimate kingdom you find the decree of violent death inscribed on the very frontiers of life. You feel it already in the vegetable kingdom: from the great catalpa to the humblest herb, how many plants die and how many are killed; but, from the moment you enter the animal kingdom, this law is suddenly in the most dreadful evidence. A Power, a violence, at once hidden and palpable. . . has in each species appointed a certain number of animals to devour the others. . . And who [in this general carnage] exterminates him who will exterminate all others? Himself. It is man who is charged with the slaughter of man. . . The whole earth, perpetually steeped in blood, is nothing but a vast altar upon which all that is living must be sacrificed without end, without measure, without pause, until the consummation of things, until evil is extinct, until the death of death

>inb4 this is called edgy without even slightly being refuted

[Anonymous No.15700949]

>>15699999
ABSOLUTELY
BASED AND
CHECKED

[Anonymous No.15700979]

>>15699999
absolutely metal

[Anonymous No.15700983]

>>15699953
That's pretty metal. I don't have any ravens but there was a robin nest in my yard last month with three chicks.

[Anonymous No.15701005]

>>15699953
>>15699999

People who write such things are soft and sentimental. Totally ridiculous

[Anonymous No.15701009]

>>15699999
>>15700949
>>15700979
>>inb4 this is called edgy without even slightly being refuted
Nope, the leftist cowards haven't arrived yet. I think you posted a real winner here.

[Anonymous No.15701011]

>>15699999
This is great who is this?

Also quints of remarkable basedness. God has ordained this post holy.

[Anonymous No.15701018]

>>15701005
Ah, a coward, but of what type?

[Anonymous No.15701037]

>>15701011
fucking google it retard

[Anonymous No.15701068]

>>15701018

lol

Read Schope or Nietzsche, the Maistre quote only seems profound if you do not already take its truth for granted and see it in a broader context. Death and negation are intrinsic properties of existence. Any normative value at all oppresses and discriminates, this is trivial

[Anonymous No.15701093]

>>15699963
I kill every wing nigger I see. Run them over, stomp them, I don't fucking care anymore. Sick of this shit.

[Anonymous No.15701101]

>>15701068
schop would basically agree with the quote(did he ever mention de Maistre?) and Nietzsche is a massive cope artist

[Anonymous No.15701238]

>>15701068
I read Schop before De Maistre, and I consider De Maistre the master.

Everyone on lit has read Nietzsche, don't be such a bore.

[Anonymous No.15701571]

>>15701005
It's okay to feel, anon. Try it sometime.

[Anonymous No.15701882]

>>15701238
This.

[Anonymous No.15701918]

>>15699999
Savage beauty of creation

[Anonymous No.15702044]

>>15699999
Based quints of savagery.

GENESIS 9:6

[Anonymous No.15702212]

>>15699963
Fuck you. Birds rule.
>>15699953
What matters is intention. The raven is not destroying a nest of robin chicks out of sadism or resent. He is doing it to secure food for his own family or, perhaps, individual survival. Moreover, the raven himself has a robust familial unit unlike most humans.
Yes, one must sacrifice the good sometimes to continue with his own good. Ultimately, what matters is good intention and honesty. There is not much else one can do beyond that. Sacrifice will always be a part of life, but it's best to minimize sacrifice for only noble purposes as ancient Zoroastrians pointed out. As long as one lives with honest, good intention, then that is sufficient.
I am personally child free for these reasons. I don't want to bring children into this world where they may be sacrificed for another's happiness. It has happened throughout history all the time. In this sense, I agree with Gnostics like Mani.

[Anonymous No.15702229]

>>15702212
>Moreover, the raven himself has a robust familial unit unlike most humans.
holy fuck how will homo singlus ever recover

[Anonymous No.15702250]

>>15702212
>What matters is intention
I dont know anon, i think that is affuly anthropocentric. Can intention be considered just another absracted tool of survival? I dont know if there is an essential differe from killikng to live and killing for fun. Do we call dolphins raping some sea animal to death evil? Is there a certain barier to cross?

[Anonymous No.15702324]

>>15702250
>anthropocentric
Not really. Modern cognitive research into animals and birds show many have metacognitive awareness or theory of mind. The idea animals may have intentions is not really anthropocentric. In fact, I believe to deny their capacities for intentionality is anthropodenialism. Intentionality involves the construction of a mental representation of achieving a goal and then working to do so.
>absracted tool of survival
Intentions are not purely reducible to instincts. How else do you explain people who develop intentions for various ideological, moral, ecological, or etc. reasons?
>I dont know if there is an essential differe from killikng to live and killing for fun.
There is an essential difference in how the mind mentally represents one over the other.
>Do we call dolphins raping some sea animal to death evil?
If they are raping a sea animal to death, then yes, that is evil. With greater metacognitive awareness comes the capacity for evil such as sadism, which your dolphin example shows. Schopenhauer also calls schadenfreude evil.
Dolphins are some of the smartest animals, and for that reason they have the capacity to be good or evil.
>Is there a certain barier to cross?
Yes, with the increase of metacognitive awareness, intentions can evolve in a matter to be good or evil.

[Anonymous No.15702400]

>>15699963
>>15702212
Where I live there's only really crows that tear into garbage bins then litter all over the place and seagulls which are fed by retarded locals (nonwhite) and shit on cars. All I hear is the loud cawing and screeching of these winged fucks. Only when I go to nicer neighbourhoods or cycle through the local nature reserve do I hear beautiful birdsong.

I hope that if I have kids one day they can grow up somewhere that wakes them with beautiful birdsong rather than the cawing and screeching of winged niggers.

[Anonymous No.15702456]

>>15702400
Crows and corvids are actually some of the most intelligent birds. I recommend looking at some behavioral studies about them. For example, the documentaries Nova: Bird Brain, Nature: Murder of Crows, and various Youtube videos can provide a better introduction to this subject matter. In fact, there are also many good books too such as John Marzluff's Gift of the Crows.

Consider how New Caledonian crows even have technological evolution.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691310/

>"Many animals use tools but only humans are generally considered to have the cognitive sophistication required for cumulative technological evolution. Three important characteristics of cumulative technological evolution are: (i) the diversification of tool design; (ii) cumulative change; and (iii) high-fidelity social transmission. We present evidence that crows have diversified and cumulatively changed the design of their pandanus tools. In 2000 we carried out an intensive survey in New Caledonia to establish the geographical variation in the manufacture of these tools. We documented the shapes of 5550 tools from 21 sites throughout the range of pandanus tool manufacture. We found three distinct pandanus tool designs: wide tools, narrow tools and stepped tools. The lack of ecological correlates of the three tool designs and their different, continuous and overlapping geographical distributions make it unlikely that they evolved independently. The similarities in the manufacture method of each design further suggest that pandanus tools have gone through a process of cumulative change from a common historical origin. We propose a plausible scenario for this rudimentary cumulative evolution."

Furthermore, this is supposed to be a courteous discussion, so I politely request you stop talking like a vulgar nigger. Thank you.

[Anonymous No.15702512]

>>15702456
I know they're cunning and have interesting social structures but they still disturb me with their cawing through night and day, I'll refrain from further vulgarity though.

[Anonymous No.15702518]

>>15699999

Just because it's true doesn't mean it isn't edgy cringe.

[Anonymous No.15702549]

>>15702512
>they still disturb me with their cawing through night and day
I've grown to enjoy it. I think it's just due to how pervasive the association of crow cawing with death or despair is in literature or film. It can condition one to unconsciously interpret cawing in a negative manner.
>they're cunning and have interesting social structures
If you keep this in mind, then it can influence you to interpret their cawing in a more positive manner. Try befriending a crow. It's actually not that hard given how they discriminate faces and remember individuals.
>I'll refrain from further vulgarity though.
Thank you.

[Anonymous No.15702604]

>>15702549
>I've grown to enjoy it. I think it's just due to how pervasive the association of
CAW CAW
>If you keep this in mind, then it can influence you to interpret their cawing in a more positive manner. Try befriending a crow. It's actua
CAW CAW CAW
>>I'll refrain from further vulgarity though.
>Thank
CAW CAW CAW CAW CAAAAWWW

[Anonymous No.15702615]

>>15699963
t. Mao Tse Tung.

[Anonymous No.15702616]

>>15702604
It doesn't bother me. In fact, I would have preferred to have been a happy crow instead of a human being. Only when the raven devours thy heart, can it be converted into light.

[Anonymous No.15702621]

>>15699953
If the raven was more happy than the sparrows were unhappy then the total amount of happiness increased in the world so it was ok in the end after all.

[Anonymous No.15702902]

>>15702604
>I can hear the cawing from my window as I read this

[Anonymous No.15703860]

>>15699999
>will to power
Checked

[Anonymous No.15703870]

>>15699999
VIOLENT get

[Anonymous No.15704516]

>>15699953
birds and intelligent and sentient and can feel emotions (to some degree), worms are not, I don't even think they have a proper brain

[Anonymous No.15704662]

>>15699999
Probably the most based get in 4channel's long history

[Anonymous No.15704688]

>>15699999
b-b-based

[Anonymous No.15704691]

>>15702518
no more concise distillation of the normalfag mind is possible than this post I think

[Anonymous No.15704701]

>>15699999
Based get

[IGNORANT™ No.15704705]

>>15699953
ahem:

NEVERMORE


also: life isnt evil you dumb ignorant cuk

[Anonymous No.15704765]

>>15704516
This. Birds have much more humanity than worms, and fish; the sight of a fish flailing around for life is only slightly pathetic because it’s almost completely devoid of humanity.

[Anonymous No.15704858]

>>15699953
Beings are evolutionarily optimized to minimize internal entropy often say the expense of greatly increasing externally entropy

[Anonymous No.15705508]

>>15699999
Based

[Anonymous No.15705525]

>>15699999
basé et rougepilulé

[Anonymous No.15705607]

>>15699953
Oh please, that's nothing. Here, have some PTSD.

[Anonymous No.15705610]

>>15704701
This is an interesting poem

[Anonymous No.15705707]

>>15705610
It's beautifully written. But like the JdM quote, it amounts to nothing more than a projection of concepts and sheltered sensibilities onto more fundamental processes of nature.

[Anonymous No.15705717]

>>15699953
Ravens are top tier birds. I pity people like you who resent life. No matter how many chicks you try to save, the amount of chicks that have died and will die to ravens far outweight the amount you save. Now suck my dick, faggot.
>>15699999
Eveything you say is true and that's a good thing.

[Anonymous No.15705731]

>>15699999
Extremely cringe edgelord. Christcucks are literally scared of birds eating seeds.

[Anonymous No.15705742]

>>15701005
This.

[Anonymous No.15705759]

>>15699999
>>15701009
>>15701011
Hello edgereddit

[Anonymous No.15705767]

>>15704691
>/ntr/
>not normie-tier

[Anonymous No.15705800]

>>15705731
>>15705759
This is a normal reaction of suppressing fear, you don't want to look at reality so you pretend the person showing it is being ridiculous

[Anonymous No.15705936]

>>15705800
>reality is nature videos
Try reading sometime.

[Anonymous No.15705960]

>>15705936
Do you think this video of a dying zebra was staged or something?

[Anonymous No.15706028]

>>15705800
De Maistre was a faggot who had never been to the woods in his life. At that point nature had been almost entirely eliminated in Europe and what they were doing was developing new theories of nature based on what they heard from people exploring the new world and africa. Or more accurately, applying the changing human 'ecosystem' to nature as nature was becoming the humanist mythology. Note how De Maistre's commentary is just a precursor to Darwinism, same as Hobbes was in no way describing nature but the human ruins of Christianity reduced to mundane politics.
It was literally cucks sitting around watching the most extreme nature tv as a cope for their own pathetic existence. In reality bears mostly eat berries and run the fuck away from you the moment you make the slightest noise.
Nature isn't scary unless you've never been there.

[Anonymous No.15706042]

>>15706028
>a precursor to Darwinism,
Do you think Darwin was wrong lol

[Anonymous No.15706193]

>>15705960

[Anonymous No.15707146]

>>15699963
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-29HEpdpYA&list=PL7CE65E16B050C578

[Anonymous No.15707264]

>>15706028
>In reality bears mostly eat berries
The average weight of a coastal grizzly bear is 900 lbs at maturity. They only eat berries when other food sources are not available, and they ignore humans mainly because we're relatively large and, despite their being much larger, it can actually be relatively dangerous to predate on large species, which is why most predators target weak or young members of a species, or scavenge dead animals.

It is absolutely not true that fuckhuge bears are just nice little people that eat berries and chill out most of the day. Yes, for the most part once you reach maturity animal species at the size of humans or up to even a bit larger will leave each other the fuck alone. But there are a non-negligible number of cases of bears, specifically black bears, predating on humans. This is despite bears being, altogether, one of the more chill species of predator out there. Lions will actively hunt and eat children, and even adult humans, to the extent that there are actually entire villages in Africa that have to be evacuated because there's no way security forces can reach them after a pride of lions takes up residence in or near the village. Tigers are even more dangerous but are very solitary. Crocodiles will readily eat people and especially children. Chimpanzees will readily attack and eat people in the wild, and have even been recorded eating other chimpanzees from different tribes.

[Anonymous No.15707411]

>>15699953

I absolutely understand where you are coming from anon, but you have to remembered that "evil" does not pertain to the essence of nature, we cannot make moral judgements on what happens between animals which are striving for survival. That being said, I do think there is something admirable and maybe even intrinsic to our nature to want to help something that is in distress or pain - perhaps not from a real adequate understanding of the purpose of our action, but from the need to diminish the misery of suffering as we see it.
I often save things as small as worms from drying out on roads. Nature would have it that these things perish necessarily, but I think to indulge our irrational need to prevent suffering - even in something we cannot understand - is part of what makes us distinct as humans.

[Anonymous No.15708259]

>>15706042
Lmao the absolute state.

[Anonymous No.15708265]

>>15707264
Autism.

[Anonymous No.15708386]

>>15707264
Nah man, a muscular man with a spear or something sharp can easily kill any animal.

[Anonymous No.15708395]

>>15708386
holy fuck I wish i could see you try to fight a bear with a spear

[Anonymous No.15708415]

>>15708395
Who needs a spear?
https://youtu.be/t15t8WyFY9k

[Anonymous No.15708447]

>>15708415
Do you know why Russians call bears medved which means honey-eater? It's because they were so afraid of even saying the real name of the animal that the euphemism eventually took over

[Anonymous No.15708464]

All these confags cucked by grass.
https://youtu.be/rbE53XUtVw0

[Anonymous No.15708483]

>>15699953
On a instinctual level birds are more relatable than worms. Birds suffer more visibly, they cry, flail, their eyes have expression. It's your unsconscious being fooled by displays of emotion, thus your empathy only extends to what is similar to you. When you have the opportunity, try to observe a worm, grab one, see how it struggles, how it contracts itself fearfully. This animal which to us seems like nothing more than a moving tube of tissue, quakes in fear of death just like the birds, and like us.

[Anonymous No.15708487]

>>15707264
Black bears predating on humans? That seems backwards to me, the grizzlies are the tough ones. You can frighten a black bear by clapping your hands.

[Anonymous No.15708498]

>>15708447
Nice story anon but I thought you wanted to talk reality.
https://youtu.be/QkrzvRaJvew

[Anonymous No.15708522]

>>15708498
kek everyone laugh at the tradcaths.

[Anonymous No.15708532]

>>15708483
Do we really know if the worm feels fear? I guess it would make sense for it to have an emotion that says 'get the fuck away from that thing', pretty basic concept.

[Anonymous No.15708540]

>>15708498
https://nypost.com/2018/05/04/man-mauled-to-death-by-bear-while-taking-selfie/

[Anonymous No.15708579]

>>15708487
They absolutely do. It has to do with habitat overlap and poorer diets. The same happens with grizzlies, where coastal brown bears grow large on a diet rich in fish are less dangerous than their smaller inland counterparts, who have poor access to meat and become more dangerous due to poor nutrition.

>>15708487
> the grizzlies are the tough ones
They have less potential for fatal attacks but they are still 90kg and armed with large claws and teeth.

[Anonymous No.15708606]

>>15708532
This discussions ends being a semantics debate. But they get agitated in face of danger, my point being that once you see this behavior in detail, it's easier to relate it to same suffering OP witnessed on the birds.

[Anonymous No.15708618]

>>15708540
>India
>retarded zoomer taking selfie with wounded bear
The levels of cope in these posts.

[Anonymous No.15708622]

>>15708606
I wasn't trying to be pedantic, I was genuinely wondering if they have nervous structures analogous to those that control our emotions and if they have conscious experience of fear. It seems reasonable to me that they would have a version of it, to make them run away from danger

[Anonymous No.15708628]

>>15708618
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/olga-moskalyova_n_930464?ri18n=true
>A Russian mother listened helplessly on a cellphone to her teenage daughter crying for help earlier this week as she was eaten alive by bears.

[Anonymous No.15708708]

>>15708628
>woman
Come on now.

[Anonymous No.15708715]

>>15699963
Absolutely based post

[Anonymous No.15708734]

>>15708622
They have a primitive brain and sensory organs so to some degree, are able to process the world and stimuli on a level higher than purely mollecular reaction.
Now to what extent this translates it something analogous to our emotions is pretty controversial, even more complex animals such as fish are not entirely understood in this area. It's hard to define where pure preservation instinct ends and where pain, fear, etc begins.

[Anonymous No.15708862]

>>15699999
THOSE DIGITS

[Anonymous No.15708921]

>>15699963
Because birds are awesome.

[Anonymous No.15708968]

>>15708921
They're rats with wings.

[Anonymous No.15708999]

>>15708862
>look i posted it again

[Anonymous No.15709002]

>>15708968
No, those are bats

[Anonymous No.15709016]

>>15709002
Birds are disgusting and they shit everywhere a d never shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.15709059]

>>15699953
This shoudln't be a subject to philosophical rhetoric because that is how nature works (dominance), it is built on which species dominates the rest through which ever means at its disposal.
So remember, violence culls the weak and promotes the strong
Modern society prevents that resulting in a coming apocalypse which will wipe out the majority of humanity resulting in nature correcting itself through the imbalance of the weak and strong

[Anonymous No.15709073]

>>15709059
Imagine believing this.

[Anonymous No.15709076]

>>15708999
?

[Anonymous No.15709089]

>>15709059
When your brain starts liquefying and seeps out of your ears from reading too much bad Darwinian fanfiction

[Anonymous No.15709093]

>>15709016
>Disgusting
>Never shut the fuck up

You mean any creature that lives in the city?

[Anonymous No.15709095]

>>15709089
what do you think can contend with power exactly? nice feelings? empathy?

[Anonymous No.15709107]

>>15709095
The song "Imagine" by John Lennon.

[Anonymous No.15709113]

>>15705759
cope

[Anonymous No.15709116]

>>15709095
Where's the power anon?
Human obsession with nature is distinctly a lack of power.

[Anonymous No.15709352]

>>15709073
>>15709089
I hate darwin to be honest with you, But its not the morally advanced that conquer the world, but the ones willing to bend what they have including morals to their will
That is why the Jews rule and why beta culture is promoted
That is why the impending happening in the next few decades will wipe 90% of the artificially propped up human beings with no understanding or self awareness of the nature their kind evolved to survive in, the harsh wilderness
While I do agree that morality is necessary in society, it should only be preserved for those who can help themselves, otherwise the system will artificially prop up parasites resulting in collapse

[Anonymous No.15709359]

>>15709116
When a lion eats a gazelle, is that power or something else that lets it do that?

[Anonymous No.15709365]

what should be read of the maistre?

[Anonymous No.15709420]

>>15699999
best get I've seen

[Anonymous No.15709935]

>>15699953
Quoth the Raven - Nevermore!

[Anonymous No.15710071]

>>15699953
You see robins as closer to humans than worms. Also you’re an idiot.

[Anonymous No.15710680]

>>15710071
wrong

[Anonymous No.15710742]

>>15699953
Once I saw a crow litter. It reached into a public trash can where people had properly thrown away their refuse, and dropped the top four or five clumps on the ground. Then it just left.

I assume it was looking for food and then decided it was fruitless, or too risky, but it was something to think about. People in general care about the world. We're not great custodians, but on the whole we try. Not so lesser animals. They don't care at all. It reminded me of the balance. Not only are people not so bad, but the world is not so good, either.

[Anonymous No.15710755]

>>15699953
Robins are cunts. Ravens are bros. Robins can't tell if other robins are male or female, so they have developed a social system that involves males attacking any other robin they see until it runs away, or, submits, in which case they fuck it and hope it's female. I once watched two male robins take turns fighting each other to fuck a third, dead, not submitting, robin.
Ravens hold funerals for dead members of their social groups and for humans that care for them. Fuck robins.

[Anonymous No.15710779]

>>15710071
Double digit IQ

[Anonymous No.15710804]

>>15710680
>>15710779
I seem to have struck a chord.

[Anonymous No.15711667]

>>15699976
well yeah, I genuinely think worms dont have feelings of sadness or fear, or pain, they split into different animals when they get split. They are like objects to me, while birds are similar to us, have sadness. I saw a duck freaking out over not finding her eggs in her nest, I was surprised how human ducks were after that, it was one of the most interesting things ive ever seen. Anyway, I compare worms to plants. You can teach birds tricks, and to kiss you. Worms, you can poke them to make them move, you can do that with venus fly traps. Also, why are there so many shitty psychopaths here?

[Anonymous No.15711740]

>>15709352
It is interesting that the question of will becomes so prominent in the very era that it disappears. Is this not the very reason for the end of the monarch? His will can no longer hold power, just as we can only imagine describing our laws of violence and power to alien beings visiting our world. This says something of our natural instincts when they must be adorned with such intricacies and abstractions - romanticism as the death of morality, but also its last festival.

Also interesting is that de Maistre can clearly see the inability of the savage to appreciate civilised finery, and yet he cannot make the simple connection that the modern state does not repeat the intricacies of Roman law - specifically the code of the stick - because it too is savage. He lacks the subtle perception of Rousseau even as he mocks him. More clearly, de Maistre cannot imagine that the delicately clothed monarch and aristocrat of the modern era would appear the fool to monarchs of other eras. Such a man must be armoured in his own refined tastes from head to toe: his stockings, silk cape, corset and permanent wig deny the very being of nature. The decadence of city walls infiltrates the physiognomy of man. Stand this man next to the Roman in his toga and the laurel appears as punishment all on its own, only in an opposed manner to de Maistre's desired laws. Such differences are even greater than that which separates the noble and the savage.

The simple question, why does the Christian hold such hatred for his ancestors, the first beings of this world? There is in this a history of self-masochism, and it lacks the duality of stories of the Golden-souled beings who once lived in idyllic forests, passed on by the Greeks and others. In this Rousseau's subtlety once again shines through, while de Maistre's own savagery limits him to his age.

[Anonymous No.15711753]

>>15711740
2
Savagery and nobility is a mark of character, what is taken from man through his will to civilisation is a natural freedom to which no law can ever become sovereign. For civilisation is also an end to will, and as clumsy as the liberal philosophies of law and state were, they approach a truth that all the conservatives have never been able to reconcile. The savage turns away from civilisation to his own because they are of different worlds. The Christian too can only see his own world, and so too turns away from what is offered him - the civilised and the savage are one. In this the profanity of the humanist sees beyond the moral will of the Christian. Punishment of the other must be combined with his own elimination - execution until he becomes the last man standing. Thus too all opposed nobility, which is nothing other than an object of nature.

De Maistre asks another strange question in this, even as he heralds the willless nature of war (we won't say that he'd ever frame it in such terms), and the state's cowering before much simpler problems: he questions why the state has not mirrored the presence of the individual. The state itself has entered a state of nature, a realisation that he almost stumbles upon but fails to notice. Instead he admonishes the foolish theory of the state of nature while demanding that the state replace the individual as its subject of law. This is, of course, a hardening of the mythic nature at humanism's core and can only result in a brutal end to the state within the society of nations. The Burning Legions give way to the legions of atheists, even become their forward units, as the Thirty Years War revealed. God becomes impossible in a foxhole, or at least his religion is sacrificed to the soldier's basic survival. Thus his being hung from the endless trees of the world.

[Anonymous No.15711764]

>>15699999

[Anonymous No.15711765]

>>15711753
3
For de Maistre, war is divine because its end is divine, all outcomes are the law and morality of divine providence. A state and its people are gutted because it is the will of god, the blood of the earth is merely the occasion of heaven; the worm, the robin, the eagle, man, and God are one. But only through the will of God do they exist, and may the blood be washed away through him to which all else is nothing. A powerful position, yet devastating and completely self-destructive, contradictory to even its own internal logic. It holds nothing, and in it the laws of morality and religion give way to the processes of the mundane and technical. In form it is without will or essence, morality appears as machine-like necessity and the Christian becomes servant to his dying nation. He who sees certainty, and his religion which is nothing more than the devouring of all other religions. One need only imagine the Christian qualities of the Russian peasant pressing forwards against the machine gun - the victory of imagination. Hence the romantic qualities which must be attributed to all of the self-sacrifices that would otherwise be forgotten; and hence the laws of nature which must be hardened to appear as warlike and eternal for a figure of man lost to all of nature. Mechanical time becomes the triumph over the will of death, which in turn becomes total. Divine nature demands its greatest sacrifice, approaching by the turn of hours and seconds.

In this is revealed the extent to which the Christian relies on the ancestors it repudiates - a religion of patricide in law rather than myth, and perhaps the source of its self-masochism and devouring qualities. Saturn-like in its human moralising. Also in this, the very contradiction of the modern period can be understood as the failure of the Katechon against laws of time, demanding ever more of the material world what may never fall from heaven. And so all ages become lost, all men the caricatures of their fabled warnings. Death may only struggle against itself, as nature too must feed upon its carrion and be given rebirth into divine form.

[Anonymous No.15711777]

>>15711765
4
Perhaps the tale of the werewolf is revealing here: he whose appetite can never be satisfied; he who must devour the vitality of lost youth; he to whom no sacrifices can be made. The absolute return of man to nature, the myth of Actaeon in a peasant song. There is power in the tale, but only as it is enslaved to another world, an unknown sovereign law. The monstrous thus appears as the rightful heir to the fallen angel, he for whom only primordial wealth will suffice. Christianity loses its own being in such a world, gives way to the earthly forces, that which resides beneath it and presses the Christian to his vice. He who has become the bestial politician sides with the peasant, but mostly his death within brutal nature. He who is without decision and will, yet writes them as tales of war in themselves. One can thus see the proximity of modern masters to old world slaves, and the living death of noble character. The realpolitik of Chiron-figures gives way to the bestial character of which it was but a means. The monarch continues his existence only through lycanthropy, and even the divine renounces the silver gown for youthful blood.

The necessity of sacrifice returns along with the duality of material qualities. Tyr's hand in the grips of the world's end. Nothing worldly will suffice in this, this is written into the necessity of the tale, and yet it is all we see. Decision cuts out from the world its moral qualities - but the moral is not of its own world, not a dominion in itself. Opposed to morality the decision completely lacking in certainty. Between the youthful blood and the werewolf.

https://youtu.be/Lv8nz1BWetE

[Anonymous No.15711801]

>>15705800
Were can i find full vid?

[Anonymous No.15711814]

>>15699953
Because the robin is closer to you in nature. It is warm blooded, has a skeleton, and most importantly has a brain. Science aside, it is a visually appealing creature and has a pretty song, on top of that they were young and thus something of a paternal emotion kicked in you. As for the worm, it has no skeleton, and has no brain, and it is not visually appealing. Birds are wonderful creatures.

[Anonymous No.15711833]

>>15699963
Not all birds are equal. A pigeon is not equal to a swallow.

[Anonymous No.15711888]

>>15699999
Thank you for that OP. Though I don’t fully agree, their is quite some truth to that. Great read.

[Anonymous No.15711931]

>>15709352
And more simply, power does not always win either. Fate is the simplest argument against Nietzsche. Where fate intervenes one can be certain that something greater than power has taken hold - as in the strong character up against forces greater than this world. Will always falls short in these situations.
Germany is the obvious political example, both stronger and morally right, yet it lost. The alpha wolf can be overcome by a larger group, and the deformed deer may be the only survivor of a forest fire. Darwinist nature is merely a myth of technicians.

[Anonymous No.15711951]

>>15711931
Best refute to this philosophy I’ve heard

[Anonymous No.15712130]

>>15711931
Good post.

[Anonymous No.15713065]

>>15711931
>overcome by a larger group,
This is still power and to think that Darwin's theory doesn't incorporate this is ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.15713364]

>>15711931
>United might of half of the world was "fate"
Deer example is more valid but saying "better adjusting creatures have better chance to survive and prosper" is better description of nature actually proved by the number of the dead species.
Deformed may survive one forest fire, but will he survive the next one and the wolf hunt? He is less likely than healthy big deer.

[Anonymous No.15714051]

>>15711931
>Darwinist nature is merely a myth of technicians
This is a mistaken outlook. Natural selection works as described, but only in the aggregate. The problem is gay non-technicians applying their gay progress narrative to a universe that is totally value-agnostic. "Natural selection" frequently selects for opposite traits, or as your deformed deer example, for just not being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's an incredibly popular misunderstanding that "evolution" is equivalent to "improvement," but it's not a misunderstanding that anyone who has studied that field actually holds.

[Anonymous No.15714913]

>>15714051
Yes, but I don't mean it so literally. We are discussing the politics of de Maistre and Nietzsche in relation to nature, so the Darwinist evolutionary theory in its mistaken form is a bit of shorthand. Of course, the valueless theory - which in its form is the same as that of the separation of powers necessary for freedom of speech - is even more apt and self-destructive.

The most basic question at the center of this is, What is Nature? This question becomes difficult once we realise the unwillingness to consider it in its nontechnical form, hence the various objections to what I have said which are simply in regards to the technical approach rather than the essence of what was said. Whether this misunderstanding is intentional or not is of no concern here, as the mistake can be even more revealing.

I would prefer to speak of evolution in general rather than any of its specific types, it is simply interesting the extent to which de Maistre and Nietzsche had theories of nature and power that are effectively one, all while coming from a Christian and anti-Christian position respectively. One would think that they would be opposed, but not only are they equal, apart from inessentials, the two ideas are formed within the abstraction of nature of the age. They share its force, even if their authors would claim to be opposed to the nihilism and atheism of the age. They are both as lost as Simplicissimus and his Father in the forest. The world goes on without them, even if they catch glimpses of its changing. And their virtue may only increase next to its isolation beneath vice, increasing in force like a machine in the final press of its product - the world of morality gives way to the technical.

[Anonymous No.15714924]

>>15714913
2
Another idea of nature is lost to us, but is worth mentioning as it begins to form once again. The simple dominion of Artemis and Actaeon; the youthful blood and the werewolf; or Fenrir's biting grip upon the world in its end. This is the dominion of nature where all the differences between creatures and their types disappear, or even become one. This is not only a descriptive difference, it affects our very relation to nature and earth forces. The evolutionary theory is one without end, the taxonomical system must be complete and become a world all its own - both for the vital extraction and refinement of materials and the survival of its life in its own territory.

This is the contradiction at the heart of technical nature, and we can look to Darwin's own theory to further explore this. He does not begin from such a position, rather he looks to the idyllic exception of nature, that which has survived the brutal war of nature. In one sense, a break from the modern conception of nature occurs; in another, the technician brutalizes the romanticist politic and returns him to the state of nature. Man disappears from the picture even as he is its heart - another of the great paradoxes of the secular world.

Darwin's Galapagos is the state of nature to the society of nations - the idyllic to be carved out into the future where the technician leverages the world without need of refinement and death. It is also the force at the horizon of Westphalia which drains upon conservative theories of war. De Maistre imagines the will overcoming even material war and the triumphant return of authority, missing that the theory of 360 degrees only makes enemies who encircle one another. Hubris against nature does not differentiate, neither the Christian nor the Atheist hold a taxonomy. They are one, lost to the hidden world where the huldra seduces the creation of God.

[Anonymous No.15714930]

>>15714924
3
Technical nature is no different from Christian moral authority, Nietzsche's power, liberal freedom of speech, Kantian duty, de Maistre's legitimate usurpation, scientific analysis. They are one, good in themselves and free from all constraint. For where the valueless reigns one approaches the being of nature - at least in one of its instances and taxonomies. The world is open to any possibility.

De Maistre's nature is thus formed of necessity, a Christianised theory of the earth which must give way to its own forces - increasing its religious power where its essence has been lost. This is where valueless power takes up its form - and even value - where morality loses its sense of dominion and becomes nothing more than a technical instrument or bare sense of duty. The romantic is injected into the refined product to give it a vital shell, a container. The paradoxical and contradictory become the only dominion. The Christian seeks return to all that his religion had plundered, the triumph over death seeks the nature of desecrated statues, monuments, and temples. A festival of those who are total instruments of power, but a form of power complete in its being equally lost to us.

https://youtu.be/RUlaiQc9Vpg

[Anonymous No.15714976]

>>15713065
What is power?
It seems that the Nietzscheans have mistaken intractable forces for power. And yet, everywhere they turn their vitality is pilfered by the valueless society they despise - becoming its fish struggling on a hook. In this one may also see the strength of technology, the sight which refuses the intractable and holds a destructive power greater than the Dionysian and the tragic. This is also why religion and nihilism are impossibilities.
Junger clarifies this naive anarchism, and in many ways resolves the impossible struggle against morality imposed on us by the self-contradictory moralists of the old world.

[Anonymous No.15714992]

>>15714976
Power is the ability to do something. If you can get together with your friends and together beat down a stronger man that is power. If this seems like it makes a tautology in which power necessarily everything that is correct. The only reason this tautology confuses people is the nearly universal tendency to delude oneself and others about power struggles by framing them in obfuscatory moral or other terms.

[Anonymous No.15714998]

>>15714992
>in which power necessarily everything
in which power necessarily decides/determines everything*

[Anonymous No.15715027]

>>15699953
>Why was that not evil to me, but the raven's actions were?
Worms are gross, birds are cute, it's easier to empathize with cute things. It's how nature tricks you into taking care of your children, except with humans it extends to other animals too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuteness

[Anonymous No.15715071]

>>15714992
So what is the difference here? How can there be strength or weakness if whatever wins is power? How can there be an untermensch or ubermenschen? Or to go back to the original comment, one must not oppose the destruction of Germany and the old world, as stateless liberalism won and is thus true power.
What you are speaking of is not power, it is simply decision or, more likely, choice. Again, intractable forces which reduce all beings to instruments, which in some cases may be the participation in an instance of power. But this is not power as a form, there is neither divine nor even human quality to it. It is more accurate to describe this as as a struggle against power, destructive forces, or the sovereignty which exists in a state of civil war.

[Anonymous No.15715085]

>>15715071
If you form the phrase 'do I have the power to do this' I think the confusion here will be cleared up. Name some conflict in the world, look at the agents present, and look at what each of them can do, what options they have, that is power. It doesn't inhere in a person like an essence, you can lose it.

[Anonymous No.15715744]

>>15715085
Again, this is your confusion and that of the nietzschean perspective, not mine. What you speak of is potential ability, and little more than that. If the options are open to many, and options which can be both formed of strength and weakness, choice or instrumentation, then there is very little power involved at all. For example, the decisions of North Korea and America currently are almost entirely driven by factors other than power or sovereignty. They are driven by a greater power other than themselves, but this does not mean any being of power - at least as it relates to decisiveness or at least a revealing of power. This may be contrasted with Russia, which has engaged in a very specific form of power of the era, either carving it out or at least establishing itself beneath it and revealing a part of its total nature.
In other words, blind displays of force are not power. One must be able to isolate the intractable force and give it form, or in some way redirect it into an instrument of its own. This may explain the relation of nature and technology in our time and why certain political forces are incapable of anything but a sacrificial form of power.

[Anonymous No.15715750]

>>15715744
>. What you speak of is potential ability, and little more than that.
If you have the ability to do something you have the power to do it.

[Anonymous No.15715808]

>>15715744
Or in other words, the aristocrats who struggled for centuries to describe what had already been apprehended in simple peasant songs. That is the difference between dissolution and power. The relinquishment which must see itself as power is a theology of suicide - where honour gives way to the ego, and the individual sees himself taking the place of desecrated statues.

[Anonymous No.15715809]

>>15699999
So dangerously Based that the digits agree

[Anonymous No.15715816]

>>15715750
Lol, okay Wittgenstein.

[Anonymous No.15715836]

>>15715816
I'm not being pedantic or trying to win an argument here. Im telling you it's literally a tautology that power decides everything. Think about it for a second, any possible other consideration in a conflict is by definition subservient to power, you either have the power to enact your will or you don't.

[Anonymous No.15715944]

>>15715836
>power decides everything
It doesn't. Otherwise the powerful would always win.
And no, that doesn't mean that power is just whatever wins. Power must have some relation to human being and the functioning of society and the state. Otherwise it is meaningless, a pure nihilist functioning.
Your going to the fridge isn't a relation of power.

[Anonymous No.15715956]

>>15715944
>Your going to the fridge isn't a relation of power.
Yes it is. Someone can stop you from doing it for example. Your body can weaken and you can no longer have the power to do it. etc.

It literally just means 'what you can do'.

[Anonymous No.15715978]

>>15715836
Or another way to put this. Where is the will to enact a new form of monarchy? Why has the strong man in the modern era been nothing more than a suicide establishing further territory without power? If all of these experts of will have so much power then why are we in a worse state than ever?
You have no power, none of us do. There is something much greater than will and power, and this is true to the extent that such ideas have themselves become a slave moralism. Coservatism has proven little other than this.

[Anonymous No.15715985]

>>15715956
>the will to get fat and/or lift
Ok retard.

[Anonymous No.15716004]

>>15715985
this gibberish is in no way related to what I wrote

[Anonymous No.15716016]

>>15715978
I have literally no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Name a specific man, and we can discuss what power he has, what he can do.

[Anonymous No.15716031]

>>15715956
This would mean submission is also power, eliminating any difference between master and slave morality.

[Anonymous No.15716064]

>>15716031
>submission is also power
It is incredibly hard to understand what you are saying in any of your posts, but if a person submits to another, it is usually because they have less power, they cannot dominate the other person. It is also possible it's some ploy that will allow them to gain an advantage in the future, in which case they are exercising a more subtle form of power.

In any case, the determining factor in a conflict between two people will always be power.

[Anonymous No.15716083]

In my opinion, eating any mammal or bird is unethical. They are highly intelligent and sentient creatures. I believe it's better to eat Jews and blacks. They lack sentience, and it is less immoral to create factory farms full of Jews and blacks instead of innocent birds and mammals.

[Anonymous No.15716108]

>>15699999
And thats a good thing

[Anonymous No.15716128]

>>15716064
This isn't complicated. You said that power is whatever you have the ability to do, which would mean that a slave also holds power, because he is doing what he is capable of.
See what happens when you use relative definitions? They have no meaning.

So Christianity was more powerful than Rome, Germany was weak, and monarchy deserved to fall because powerful men weren't actually powerful. Anything else you'd like to clarify?

[Anonymous No.15716141]

>>15716128
>a slave also holds power,
Yes the slave has power to do certain things, and he doesn't have power to do other things. What are you not getting about this?

[Anonymous No.15716260]

>>15709359

[Anonymous No.15716508]

>>15701005
>>15716128
If X always overpowers Y then X is more powerful than Y in that situation. If X grows weak and Y overpowers Y, then Y is more powerful in that situation. Power is just a variable in time, its not some eternal essence in a thing

[Anonymous No.15716794]

>>15716508
This is just blind functioning, Kantian ethics applied to the self-destruction of the old world.Let's take, for example, the Luddites. Their insurrections against textile machines may appear as power over the era, or at least its minor instruments, but this would be incredibly short-sighted. What they did not see was the relation of technical power that existed beyond the machines and the sacrifices made by both man and machine in this increase of power. This could be seen as an opposed economy in which power exists as a form of barter.
This is much closer to how the ancients understood power. In many cases it is much better to retain one's enemies, as the exchange of power causes the one to elevate the other. The code of honour betrays any need of a descent into punishment and the fragile territory retains a boundary that acts in place of nature, strengthening both leaders and their nations.

To eliminate one's enemy is to have to descend into his polluted territory: the extension of the nation is also its division. Of course, this should not be understood dogmatically, but rather as one of the hidden enemies or a messenger of some unknown state. The Christian mythology of war sounds powerful in its total elimination of nations, but there is a double-edged sword that resides in the underground kingdoms of conquered territory. Perhaps this is the reason why old kingdoms buried their kings beneath the governmental palaces.
The descent into Catholicism and Protestantism may thus be seen as an attempt to reconcile with these invisible forces of an ever expanding, but also dead, territory. The mills of realpolitik grind slowly but completely.

Likewise, Machiavelli's Chiron. Descent into the bestial realms becomes necessary where kings and their catacombs have been plundered - the Maginot Line of the Wild Hunt is sacrificed for hundreds of years of mercenary wars and material elimination of impossible armour. The intricacies of mythic power are lost to generals of profane peace, where death becomes the only victory and treaty.
Where questions of power appear with simple solutions one can be sure that a great trick is about to be revealed. The Trojan Horse can only become more subtle or brutal with each use, this explains planned obsolescence in power relations.

[Anonymous No.15718091]

bump

[Anonymous No.15718745]

>>15699999
>Scriptkiddie detected

[Anonymous No.15718751]

>>15699953
Nature is the church of Satan.

[Anonymous No.15719133]

>>15701238
No one on lit reads

[Anonymous No.15721294]

>>15716794
>This is just blind functioning
that's how the world works

[Anonymous No.15721297]

>>15699999
Holy BASED

[Anonymous No.15721889]

>>15699999
Based

[Anonymous No.15722638]

>>15721294
Fake and gay.

[Anonymous No.15722879]

>>15699999
beautiful