/lit/ - Literature

>>17733775
>she is a hot vapid girl (The netflix and chill type, the Uggs and Starbucks type)
>She also said that I am smaller than her previous partners after sex
Bro I get that slit is maddening but holy fuck you're wasting your time with this girl. >>17733783's advice isn't that bad.
I don't have any books specifically speaking to this, but here's a song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsyKe6sUO7Y
>>17733820
>advice about women from a woman
>single, childless, menopausal
>4chan tripfag
>"just be honest"
OP FUCKING DON'T DO THIS KEK

>>16537037
>Still uses social media
ngmi. High IQ anons all left for a very good reason.

>>16466218
Comfy headphones + faint rain and ocean sounds to simulate reading in a cabin in the Hebrides. I use these: https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B07JH3LSHN/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

>>16353109
I do on occasion. Sex for da feelz =/= reproduction.
>>16353118
I haven't read Benatar yet but couldn't a species-wide self extermination come voluntarily, gradually, and in waves over the next few centuries? This was something that Ligotti suggested. Why would we HAVE to become intergalactic slayers if we only wanted to end our own species?
>>16353121
>blah blah blah no nuance here just feelies and "love for one's folk"
>>16353174
Wouldn't it be possible to be an antinatalist without wanting to extinguish yourself? It's a non sequitur to say that not wanting to create more life necessitates wanting to end your own.

>>14551281
>>14551279
the "truth behind symbols" correspond to different psychological and physical realities that got lost in the weeds. literally just read the introduction to "simulation and simulacra," it'll explain it better than i can. he actually argues that when you try to symbolize these truths, you begin to obscure them from that very moment, which is an interesting point.

nonetheless, the reason we must work with these symbols is because man has become so detached from his intuition that we require reference points.

>>14294171
> The right wing lacks of serious thinkers, as usual.
Because most of the serious right wing thinkers are dead, but the same is true for left wing thinkers. Who do you guys have now? Chomsky? He is literally a CIA shill; he works at MIT.

>>14294173
>A cursory glance makes most of these look like psychological self-help books. Is this really the best of Fascist theory?
I know that's how they appear, but they are not. They all go in-depth on the Materialist vs Idealist dialectic. Another good start could be any introduction to Neo-Platonism, but Evola does a pretty good job at explaining things.