If you can't reach your innate potential within, without attributing the dormancy of yourself to someone else, you're wrong. If you can't side step the issue of modernity and ideology without taking a hostage, you're wrong.
Take back your own minds, because a new ideological trap is waiting for you just around the corner.
Glo and gang don’t like to have a debate take place on their tribe, resorting to banning me then countering my argument with pathetic straw man rebuttals that I then can’t reply to. As bad as, if not worse, than the snowflake leftists of reddit.
No better than Rollo and Rian with their cheap catch phrases and memes as a form of debate or argument.
I disagree with the literature you are proponents of, therefore I must be stupid. No, I just have a different point of view - but none of you (except maybe leasheddoggie) can handle that in a grown ass way.
Finally, putting Evola’s abject stupidity to the side for one moment. Zizek - anti-ideology. Clear, concise, well thought out and agreeable. Yet you have turned everything about Zizek and Evola and your gang into a twisted and vile amalgamation of an ideology yourselves! Worse yet, it is an ideology that you won’t let anyone scrutinise because it wont stand up to scrutiny.
In conclusion, you can keep me banned - but that just proves how fragile your world views are when they are challenged.
And if you try to reply to this, try it without memes or catch phrases. (I bet you can’t.)
Read More@destraht Instead of debating with me, they banned me and used straw man arguments like ‘liberal’ and ‘nigger’.
That’s the thing, when and if you get to the book and you disagree with it - that doesn’t make you an idiot liberal faggot. I agree with anti-ideology and moving beyond Nihilism - but not with Evola’s pseudo-methods. He repeats both everything and nothing and fails to root it into anything. When he does, it’s religious ideology no less!
Zizek and Nietzsche have it right, and I could read those guys all day. Evola on the other hand.... no.
LOLBANNED!
@destraht I don’t give a shit if they called me names, what I’m pointing out is that the implication was those names ‘proved’ why I didn’t understand the material.
‘You don’t get it because you’re a liberal normie faggot’
Like, what the fuck does that even mean? How about they actually try and construct something worth saying before saying it.
My theory is they can’t. Their ideology is floppy and damp and will fall apart if they even dare to try and use it. In this way they are reduced to shit slinging comments while saying everyone else is stupid. It’s transparent as hell, and equal measures funny.
@destraht I don’t give a shit if they called me names, what I’m pointing out is that the implication was those names ‘proved’ why I didn’t understand the material.
‘You don’t get it because you’re a liberal normie faggot’
Like, what the fuck does that even mean? How about they actually try and construct something worth saying before saying it.
My theory is they can’t. Their ideology is floppy and damp and will fall apart if they even dare to try and use it. In this way they are reduced to shit slinging comments while saying everyone else is stupid. It’s transparent as hell, and equal measures funny.
@destraht It isn’t hard to understand, and the lesson behind it is grasped within the first handful of chapters. The difficulty as the book proceeds is that the initial lessons become less and less tangible in a meaningful way. The idea of a superior man is diluted to the point of non-existence. The denial of ideology while ideology filters through is bemusing. Honestly, I’d say when you’ve got the concept of tradition and superior man - return to Zizek and Nietzsche to actually purge yourself of ideology.
Better yet, keep the core tenets of TRP close at hand as you read this stuff. Maybe you’ll see why, maybe not.