Aristocratic individualism

On this topic, what to read besides Stirner, Nietzsche and Ernst Junger?

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ?si=-t5yjHNPfWC727QO

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Wagner

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Aristocratic
    Please just learn some history and Marxist theory. The aristocratic feudal system was based on a mode of production that was agricultural and based not on profit or global trade but on systems of familial, social, and cultural relations that regulated production according to the need of the community and not for the demands of the global market. That was replaced during the Industrial Revolution by the bourgeoisie who created an entirely new system against which the old aristocratic values stood powerless. The old system did not work economically or militarily because advances in technology led to a new form of warfare and a new form of politics in which a centralised State bureaucracy with a centralised army did much better than the old system of lords coming together with their own personal armies at the behest of the king. Warfare became much more dependent on logistics, technology, and productive capacity. All this pathetic romanticism by reactionaries for a idealised past is pathetic and rooted in some form of narcissism. Nietzsche and Stirner will always be irrelevant when faced with the cold hard facts of material reality.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Please just learn some history and Marxist theory
      >Marxist theory
      How about you learn some history.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Nietzsche
      >Reactionary
      Don't talk about what you don't read.

      https://i.imgur.com/gQDilOR.png

      On this topic, what to read besides Stirner, Nietzsche and Ernst Junger?

      Leopardi, D'annunzio, Ortega y Gasset

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I would say that Ancient Rome had a very similar level of centralization and logistics and incentives as one example. Sure there was handful of political players at the top with their own interests, but you still see that everywhere. What you are describing seems to be Christian Europe. I am certain that individual methods of the clout chasers and wealth producers and culture influence each other but there are way too many variables and samples.

      There seems to be a pattern of states slowly centralizing and then collapsing again into many small splinters over thousands of years.

      Also how does one define aristocracy? Do we look at the origins of aristocratic systems, peoples, thought? Does this change based on the temperament of the peoples and the culture? The meaning, value, and modes of operations seem to change throughout the centuries.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >I would say that Ancient Rome had a very similar level of centralization and logistics and incentives as one example
        Nothing in history compares to the industrial revolution. You're comparing a system of mass production and world trade with an agricultural slave society which had still not progressed beyond travel on horseback.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >You're comparing a system of mass production and world trade with an agricultural slave society
          I don't see how that is relevant as we both are making claims on the comparison now. The scope of the Roman economy, production, infrastructure, technological progress was quite massive for the time as well.

          Anyways want Marxists really want is Christian Europe or Christian culture or just in general personal repentance with the Lord, but they don't realize it.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The biggest problem with Marxism is that it pretends to be pro-wealth or pro-individual when its just a status grab, people that don't know anything about producing goods and services taking and redistributing things from people that do based on poorly thought out psuedo-science. It ends up creating a more dysfunctional government.
      What you really want is to encourage individuals to produce goods and services and/or acquire those goods and services by letting them have full ownership of their produce and method and let the state handle governance and security. A government should be there for defense of the producers and consumers that it taxes.
      The problem when society is about to collapse is that there are too many people present for the amount of collective wealth available. A government should worry about security and incentivize individual wealth production and ownership to increase the amount of collective wealth available for its citizens.
      Also a "poor" person today has way more access to technology and convenience due to this increase in collective wealth than a medieval aristocrat though with the ways things are going that may not last.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The biggest problem with Marxism is that it pretends to be pro-wealth or pro-individual
        Stopped reading there.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Marxist theory.
      have a nice day.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It was not replaced during the Industrial Revolution. I think you are the one who should read some history. A few planter gentry dabbling in law and politics in America before the rise of industry does not make for a feudal system. The feudal system was long over by the time Industrial Revolution was in full swing. Were it not, the Industrial Revolution perhaps would not have even happened.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The very fact you settle for the material is why you’re mediocre.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Marxism always seems to focus exclusively on stuffing human nature into these unnatural little categories like "bourgeoisie" or "the people". It's like they skip any and all discussion of what makes a human and get right to the bureaucratically-obsessed, subversive hand-wringing.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Fuedalism is agrarian
      >Post revolution Russia de industrializes and goes back to agrarianism until American, British, and french business men help build factories in Russia in the 1930s

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I don't disagree with the historical implications, just the conclusion (that technological development is a good thing).

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Please just learn some history and Marxist theory.
      And just like that, I'm out of the thread.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The aristocratic feudal system was based on a mode of production that was agricultural and based not on profit or global trade but on systems of familial, social, and cultural relations that regulated production according to the need of the community and not for the demands of the global market.
      Now that centralized states are in clear decline, can we just go back to this and not waste more time with Western Marxism or Bourgeoisie Democracy?

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Marquis De Sade
    Ralph Waldo Emerson
    The Gospel according to Malfew Seklew
    icycalm (orgyofthewill.net)
    The archives of the American Egoist journal The Eagle and the Serpent (1898):
    https://www.unionofegoists.com/journals/eagle-and-the-serpent-1898/

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Please learn some 19th century pseudoscience
    No.
    https://freiman.substack.com/p/guest-post-marxs-most-damning-critics

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nicolas Gomez Davilaa Colombian philosopher.
    He wrote mostly in aphorism.A mixture of Catholicism and Nietzsche.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Stirner was an individualist but to characterize his philosophy as “aristocratic” in any way is actually patently absurd, and if you read real aristocrats, people like de Maistre, de Tocqueville, people well-versed in aristocratic history and traditions, you find this notion of the aristocratic individualist is a 19th century fabrication. Even Junger admitted that it was more of a coping with modern life than a clinging to tradition, to be clear. The idea that is that the aristocratic thing to do IN THE AGE OF MASS MAN is to be an individualist, not that it’s the aristocratic thing to do in general. He even distanced himself from this view in the end anyway. He said that he preferred to take eternity rather modernity as his polestar.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Junger? Was he an individualist?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      For a time, yeah. A lot of people were trying to rebrand Nietzscheanism and Stirnerism as aristocratic individualism in the 20th century and he liked both of those writers so he sympathized with it. From the close of WW1 to the dawn of WW2 he was more of a collectivist. He thought you can accept fascistic/communistic machine civilization and find meaning in that, but he discovered it led to nihilism. So he abandoned that in favor of this aristocratic individualism, but more of a way of coping with modern life than anything. I would say that he abandoned that before he wrote Eumeswil and never returned to it. When he wrote Eumeswil, he was understanding himself as a person not looking to the past or future and not coping with the present but a man in all of time. That’s partly why he loved mythological motifs so much. He really wanted to blend modernity and pre-modernity in his fictio. Everyone seems to stop at Eumeswil though. Nobody talks about how he even changed after that and became a Catholic upon death. People love to pretend he was either a pagan fascist, a communist sympathizer and Strasserite, a Nietzschean-Stirnerean aristocratic individualist, all of these things but the truth is that by the end of his life he was all and none of them. That is actually what’s so interesting about the guy. He lived the entire 20th century and really lived it, and his worldview changed as many times as the world did, at least. It’s a shame he never got to see the surge of online Christian Orthodoxy and comment on that. He would’ve found it interesting at least.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Daily reminder that aristocratic means leading men in to war and without this you are nothing, nor will ever be anything but a larping child.

    To be aristocratic one needs to be above the common masses in physicality, mentality, intellectually, spirituality and authority. This last is the most important and is derivied from the other four elements. There is no individual here.

    >picrel

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ortega y Gasset
    Scruton maybe

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Vance.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Inborn mentality, can’t acquire it sorry. Pride, stubbornness, spitefulness, intelligence, dignity, etc.
    the traits all come together

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nothing you have said is true. Your conception of an aristocrat is an inbred modern landowner, as far removed from an aristocracy in spirit, meaning and ability as one can get. They are no different to the masses beyond wealth and inherited physical deficiencies.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Individualism: Thoreau.
    At first sight the opposite of an aristocrat,, but I guess it depends on what you mean by the word.

    Aristocratic - Evola. Definitely more of an individualist than Thoreau was of an aristocrat, but again I guess it it is relative…

    Not sure what you are seeking as all aristocratic thinkers coming to mind defended an alternative to the French Revolution, spawning from monarchy to fascism, usually a mix of both, and all individualists rejected society and tradition…but it’s an interesting exercise

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Aristocratic
    >Stirner
    >Nietzsche
    /lit/ards never cease to amaze

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Aristocracy is a spook.
    I mean you can larp as an aristocrat if that's what makes you feel better. I don't mean that as an insult, literally, if you feel like you'd live a better life if you believed that you were somehow "better than the masses", believe it and have fun.

    The real point of "stirnerite" individualism is that you owe literally no one literally nothing, and if a given identity is starting to give you challenges ("is it befitting of me as an intellectual to have not read {philosophername}? or does that expose me as a pseud?") you can try to overcome them if you want, but you also can try to drop it and maintain your dignitiy. Ultimately it literally doesn't fricking matter, just do what you want with your life and don't let an ideology steer you down a given path.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The real point of "stirnerite" individualism is that you owe literally no one literally nothing
      >just do what you want with your life and don't let an ideology steer you down a given path.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Aristocratic
    Do you hold a hereditary rank and title? If the answer is no, you are not and never will be an aristocrat. You are a LARPing homosexual and belong at a cosplay convention.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Aristocrat of the SOVL

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yukio Mishima.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *