/lit/ - Literature

>1950’s
>trad
What are you, twelve?

>>15794349
America hasn’t been ‘trad’ since 1492

Go back to twitter, zoomer idiot.

>>15794349
Our present malaise took root a long time ago, my friend. When depends on precisely what you consider it to be, and what you would like to reconstruct. Read R. R. Reno's The Return of the Strong Gods and you'll understand why we have to draw the line at 1945 at the absolute latest.

>>15794496
Things were better during the war?

>>15794349
>Can someone explain this?
He was a muslim schizophrenic

Video about the book. Watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QQuD62RxrU

>>15794496
Sounds like more schizophrenia.
I recommend going with the brain surgeon >>15794522

>>15794496
Why that late? The 20s were extremely degenerate

>>15794522
>he saw the direction America was heading towards with the tranny/nigger dystopia
>that offends me, so he must be a schizo
based butterdyke, always delivers retarded hot takes.

>>15794522
>>15794532
Absolutely worthless, sad, small-minded opinion as always. Don't give a shit about Qutb but will give him a chance now that I know you're retarded enough to shill for government-funded psychopathology regimes that diagnose all dissent as madness.

>>15794575
4/10
Had me going there a minute

>>15794575
Butterdyke's a retard. Do go on with your investigation. Conservatives were strong in the 1950's but there was so much rampant teen sex, adultery, closeted gays in Hollywood, porn, and other anti-Christian hypocrisy, his perceptions weren't wrong.

>>15794516
We're talking about a general cultural climate, a sort of malaise that causes people to reject forms of thought that seek the consolidation of the basic institutions of man and his society: Church, Family, and State. This malaise induces a sort of contempt for conviction, for the search for truth, for an attempt to inculcate any sense of purpose among our countrymen that contradicts their desire to banish the "strong gods" that move men to take up arms and shed blood for causes greater than themselves.
>>15794538
If you read the book I referenced, which can be found on libgen for free, you will see what I mean. To give a short explanation, movements for transcendence and against the corrosive forces of the modern world still had a place in the 20s and 30s. They had not been entirely delegitimized, and were capable of winning the allegiance of large numbers of people, as we saw all over the world in the forms of fascism, ultra-nationalism, socialism, and so on. Beginning with Karl Popper, the postwar elite deliberately constructed an ideology of "weakening" that would push people away from anything that smacked of the "strong gods." In the 1950s, for instance, William F. Buckley and others were attacked simply for expressing their conviction in the sort of benign Aristotelianism that we would find in the work of Alasdair MacIntyre. They were likened to the KKK and the Nazis in exactly the same way that liberals liken the most milquetoast conservatives to fascists today.
Basically, the 1950s were themselves a time of universal degradation. The conservatives and the liberals of today are both the bearers of the ideology of weakening, and if we are to recover anything good and useful from the past, we will have to abandon both.

>>15794585
Fuck you are just awful and uninteresting. The few times you say anything at all, it's morally ugly. How do you manage that?

>>15794603
I think the 1950s myth is just used as shorthand by people who don't know much history. The post-WW2 boom was good for many people economically and neoliberals/neoconservatives might look back to it fondly, along with whatever is left of the pre-Reaganite, sincerely libertarian elements of paleoconservatism. But most people acknowledge that it was just an economic boom. Liberal and leftist faggots controlled the universities already by then. McCarthyism had the right idea but failed.

Real conservatives hate that era because it was when the modern welfare state was founded, and traditionalist conservatives hate the gradual slide into degeneracy that comes with a meaningless society unrooted in any values.

Qutb seems interesting from a Schmitt perspective but ultimately I can't be a Muslim.

>>15794651

Interesting take on the situation. I like how you think.

>>15794686
These aren't my ideas. I'm not nearly so smart as to be able to come up with this on my own. Read R. R. Reno over at First Things and in Return of the Strong Gods. Here's a sample of his work:
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/against-human-rights

(1/2)

While I was in Germany, I also found myself harboring doubts about human rights. This sounds heretical. The last two generations of Catholic leaders, including popes, have identified human rights as vitally important for building a humane society. They also serve as a bridge language that allows Catholics to join forces with men and women of good will to protect and promote human dignity. Understandable, and perhaps quite effective in certain circumstances.

But the hour is now late. After World War II, human rights came to prominence in Europe as a way to protect the individual from the state. Again, understandable and fitting. In the early decades of the twentieth century, nations in the grip of ideological manias sacrificed millions of lives in the pursuit of their ambitions. The introduction of human rights into the basic law of European nations after the war, and as a core commitment of the fledgling United Nations, defined boundaries beyond which politics cannot go. It was a way of securing human dignity by limiting government. Well and good, but in the twenty-first century, human rights has changed its role, at least in the West. Today, it has become a powerful ideology that promises to relieve us of the burdens of political responsibility for the common good.

Case in point: Europeans today must face the very difficult task of determining whether and how to limit migration. Who shall be counted as part of the national community? This is a political question, perhaps the most fundamental one, and it remains our responsibility to answer it. Human rights, however, can become an ideology that rejects this political responsibility, saying that migrants who qualify as refugees must be accepted, regardless of circumstances. By this way of thinking, immigration is a matter of basic human rights and thus transcends the political.

>>15794686
>>15794724
(2/2)

It sounds noble, which is one reason why church leaders are attracted to human rights. They recognize that the Gospel transcends the always uncertain, always fallible political judgments that govern the city of man. But they wrongly think that because human rights also seek to transcend politics, this moralizing enterprise shares in the transcendence of theological truths. The difference is that while supernatural truths of faith leaven the political judgments of the city of man, human rights override and void those judgments. The Sermon on the Mount does not limit politics; in the best of circumstances, it transforms public life by inverting our preference for the powerful over the weak. By contrast, human rights specify what cannot be done or, in some circumstances, what must be done. They circumscribe political life. Thus the danger: What was once a noble venture has become a temptation to a false transcendence, one that involves a utopian dream of public life governed by moral universals rather than political wisdom. I fear the upshot will not be a more moral world, but a less responsible one.

Thus my heretical tendency: I’m increasingly against human rights. As an ideology, it has become a patron of negative freedom, pushing against demands and obligations arising from our shared culture. In the West, human rights now functions as an enemy of the responsible exercise of freedom. Exalting human rights as the epitome of social responsibility short-circuits collective judgment and stymies action for the sake of the common good.

The people with whom I talked while visiting Germany recognize the challenges posed by the migration crisis unfolding there. (Hans Feichtinger recently outlined those challenges in our pages in “Refugees in Germany,” February.) But they tended to speak as if such matters cannot be addressed in terms of what is best for their nation, or even for Europe as a whole. Human rights encourages a cosmopolitan outlook that transcends such questions. Again, it sounds noble, but this supersession of the political by a moral universalism diminishes the exercise of human freedom.

>>15794669
By being above your slave’s morality, I suppose.

>>15794603
The state made an effort to bring Christianity back n the 50s. Screwed them so tight the 60s exploded.
No, this mythical moral world you pine for has never really existed. The rabbit hole you’re going to be led down leads to Islamic mysticism or something.
Just go with sufism and not that Wahhabist crap

>>15794752
Tell me one Wahhabi doctrine you object to.

>>15794651
>the ideology of weakening
>SECULARISM
No, oligarchy.
> we will have to abandon both.
They’re right and left liberals. Servants of capital.
>>15794669
>leftist faggots controlled the universities
Liberals aren’t leftists, you confused boy.
> McCarthyism had the right idea
See? The liberals already flushed the leftists out of any kind of statured positions under the Truman administration.
> the modern welfare state was founded [in the 50s]
So wrong. Social security started in the Roosevelt administration and medicare under Johnson in the 60s.

>>15794808
They weren’t originally supposed to go on Jihad, but since Qutb, they do. I hear Sūfī are pacifists is all

>>15794349
1950's were arguably peak degeneracy, definitely not trad

>>15794854
>They weren’t originally supposed to go on Jihad

The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said

>I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.

>>15794865
>It’s tri-corner hats for me!

>>15794878

>>15794496
>muh 1945
Pure and utter brainlet. America had already been accelerating into advanced stages of liberal capitalism well before the end of the war

>>15794854
I never said anything about secularism. I myself am largely secular in my beliefs, though I am not hostile to the faithful.
>No, oligarchy.
It is possible to conceive of an oligarchy possessed of firm convictions, and this is in fact what we see in the pre-war era. The problem for us is that of conviction. I used to be a Marxist, and I'm sure you've experienced what I did: young men and women who are so demoralized and stuck on the idea of being "cool" and "indifferent" that they are unwilling to consider any critique of the world they live in, besides those that are packaged for them by television, movies, and the newspapers.
>They’re right and left liberals. Servants of capital.
I agree that capital is corrosive of everything. If you want the truth, I have distanced myself from Marxism for three reasons:
1. It is easier to be an open conservative than it is to be a Marxist where I go to school.
2. I disagree with Engels's idea that the family is a product of class society, and I fervently oppose all forms of Marxism that take that as their basic assumption.
3. I disagree with the militant atheist ethos developed by Lenin.
I believe that these last two factors and the problem of weakening that R. R. Reno points out in The Return of the Strong Gods are the reason why Marxism is so weak in the West today. Neither left nor right will be able to win until we have overcome the false notion that to believe firmly is to be misguided. In this, we face the same enemy.

>>15794885
>what is the Tea Party

>>15794752
>The state made an effort to bring Christianity back n the 50s
>The 60s were a reaction to this Christian revival

Literally throughout the entire 1950s they were setting the roots for neoliberalism and the replacement of classical liberalism that coexisted with Christianity. The decline of religion directly followed the horror of the world wars and most people still believed in ideologies and people more than they believed in God. you're such a fucking ridiculous pseud it's unreal, not a hint of humility in any of the garbage you presuppose is true

>>15794924
>not a hint of humility

That's the most annoying thing about butthurtfly by far, she is a pontificating douche and not interested in real conversation

>>15794854
>They weren’t originally supposed to go on Jihad, but since Qutb, they do.
This is actually wrong. The circumstances under which jihad can be declared are indeed limited, and I suspect that declaring religious war for the sake of protection of a secular unit such as the nation state might actually be a little odd in terms of fiqh, but it is perfectly legitimate to do so after the Prophet. For instance, the Ottoman Empire was created through various wars of jihad, and it continued to wage jihad until the very day it disappeared. The war against the Zionist movement has been conceptualized as jihad both by Christians like Qustantin Zurayq and by Islamic organizations like Hizbullah and Hamas. Neither Hizbullah nor Hamas are Wahhabi organizations. The war against the US in Iraq is also Jihad.
>I hear Sūfī are pacifists is all
Also wrong. The Ottoman Sultans were all Sufis. The Qizilbash who Shah Isma'il used to take power and create the Safavid Empire were Sufis, as was the man himself. Al-Ghazali was a Sufi. There is nothing peaceful about Sufism. It is simply esoteric Islam. The esoteric neither contradicts nor negates the exoteric. The two complement each other.

>>15794924
>>15794947
>trying to genuinely engage with butterdyke

>>15794904
>I myself am largely secular in my beliefs
Ah. A subtle trad. Beg pardon.
I started out a Christian conservative (younger years liking Dr Doom of all things!) spent a little time being a moody pseudo-goth. Honestly drifting to the left for me doesn’t come with any coolness factor. The freedom project is a labor of love
> I disagree with Engels's idea that the family is a product of class society
Haven’t read. I would like to see large households. Apartment building sized families that take care of their elders etc. I oppose the atomic family for something more natural.
Statism is the Marxist weakness, but Leninism was weaker still. We need a non-market economy and not just “the workers” to seize their workplace. We need to go full Stirner union of egoists

>>15794918
An astroturf campaign from the Koch brothers

>>15794924
There was massive censorship in the 1950s at the direction of some catholic as I recall...
But yes, Christianity is fading.

>>15794964
Even if butterfly doesn't get anything out of it, bystanders will. And in any case, we must act under the assumption that our actions will bear fruit. To do otherwise is to give up.
Also, we are all insufferable to some set of people on this planet. I am probably no less insufferable than her. If I am to accept toleration, I must also tolerate.
She doesn't seem that bad to me, anyway. Just misguided.

>>15794947
>The circumstances under which jihad can be declared are indeed limited,
This is completely bogus. Rather jihad is default unless there is commercium. That is, unless a kaffir nation has a pact of commercium with the khalifa, they are valid to raid. The idea that jihad is something that must be "declared" is modernist and based on the idea of early modern states. The Ottomans you mentioned understood this too, that's why they freely engaged in piracy and raiding ports and taking damsels as concubines from France and Iceland

>>15794995
not that guy, but Im interested in the subject, what books/sources did you read that lead you to this conclusion?

>>15794982
no one cares. leave.

>>15794992
you're actually speaking informed by reason and not ill informed opinions barely stitched together with a crooked brain.

>>15794982
>Honestly drifting to the left for me doesn’t come with any coolness factor. The freedom project is a labor of love
Exactly. You genuinely believe. You understand what it means to be committed to something. The postwar consensus is hostile to people like us. This is the first obstacle to realizing your goals, and I think that guys like R. R. Reno can be of help to you.
>Haven’t read. I would like to see large households. Apartment building sized families that take care of their elders etc. I oppose the atomic family for something more natural.
Then you are about as "trad" as I am.
>We need to go full Stirner union of egoists
I don't know about that.
In any case, you don't disagree with the "trads" as much as you think you do. Take a look at Return of the Strong Gods and see if you can't get anything of value out of it.

>>15794935
Absence of schizophrenia isn’t a lack of humanity or even soul. I am trying to plant a seed of reason in you to help you.

>>15794947
Okay. I wasn’t remembering something I heard somewhere... I think it was Adam Curtis ... The Power of Nightmares

>>15794964
Nice, isn’t it?

>>15795013
I genuinely WANT to be free. And I want others to be free with me. A lottery jackpot isn’t going to ease my mind. I care too much.
> and I think that guys like R. R. Reno can be of help to you.
Okay.
I’m as trad as wanting to make Ovid’s Golden Age a reality.

>>15795006
Seerah, tafsir and Hadiths. If you would like an intro course I recommend this, the Life of Muhammad, صلى الله عليه وسلم, by Imam Anwar al-Awlaki

https://www.kalamullah.com/anwar-alawlaki.html

>>15794995
Alright, it seems you know a lot more about fiqh than I do. Either way, butterfly is wrong, and jihad is completely normal.
Now for the real question: On behalf of what institutions can jihad be waged? You mentioned the khilafah, but there is no khilafah at present. Does it mean anything for Hizbullah to declare jihad against Israel for the sake of defending Lebanon's borders and eliminating a hostile entity in the midst of the Arab-Muslim world? I'm assuming you know Arabic, so you must also know that Nasrallah never refers to the Ummah without referring to the Arab nation as well - what are we to make of this?

>>15795039
isn't the view that Jihad is the default thing only supported by certain scholars? Im sure if I can dig enough I can find and Quranic verses like in 60:8 and scholarly opinions that refute what you said, is it really the common view? excuse me, If I posted something retarded, Im not really that informed on this subject.

>>15795038
>Okay. I wasn’t remembering something I heard somewhere... I think it was Adam Curtis ... The Power of Nightmares
Common misconception. Go deeper. The stuff you need is available online.
>I’m as trad as wanting to make Ovid’s Golden Age a reality.
If you believe that the family should be a pillar of human society instead of being subject to the withering forces of capital and anti-family ideologies, you are "trad." I never called myself "trad," by the way. You appended that label to me.

> After the staggering slaughter of back-to-back world wars, the West embraced the ideal of the “open society.” The promise: By liberating ourselves from the old attachments to nation, clan, and religion that had fueled centuries of violence, we could build a prosperous world without borders, freed from dogmas and managed by experts.
Uh oh. Already wrong
>... the postwar consensus is breaking down.
But no, there was no such consensus, we’re not even close to a borderless world. This is absolute rightwing hysterics

>>15795097
Read the whole thing. He explains precisely what he means in the first chapter. "Borderless" can be both literal and metaphorical, as in the case of the GHWB quote he refers to.

>>15795077
>You appended that label to me.
Pardon. Hard to tell motives of blank named people lurking in the shadows.

This book’s thesis is all wrong. Nations will preserve capitalism and capitalism will preserve the state. Nationalism doesn’t work, we cannot bring feudalism back and hope family units under a benevolent dictator will steer us towards an ecological solution.
The past isn’t the answer.

>>15794349
>He thinks the 1950s were some long epoch that serves as an eternal baseline rather than a brief, anomalous point in time

>>15795069
You have to understand that "most scholars" are state shills. For example the Saudi scholars all are because any who dissent go to prison and are tortured or killed. "Most scholars" is not an actual basis for law in *any* of the four schools unless it's of the Salaf (and some schools reject even that saying unanimous consensus is required by the Salaf as the majority could be wrong). Rather scholars must based their rulings on proof and cannot make rulings against proof. The proof is undeniable that after the conquest of Mecca, the default became jihad. I quoted a Hadith from that period here

>>15794878

I can quote more

>>15795128
Butterfly, you're moving too quickly. You haven't read enough of the book yet to understand its thesis. Keep going, read all the way through to the end. You can do it in less than a day. You will find something of value in it.
>Nations will preserve capitalism and capitalism will preserve the state.
He does not argue against this. He has little to say about capitalism, and more to say about ideology. He never actually says that the state will disappear.
>Nationalism doesn’t work, we cannot bring feudalism back and hope family units under a benevolent dictator will steer us towards an ecological solution.
He doesn't advocate for any of those things. The man's a devout Catholic, for Lord's sake.
Read the entire book and take it seriously. Try to actively look for something of value in it. Think of it as an exercise, if you will.

>>15795136
>When you engage in ‘aynah transactions [a kind of transaction intended to circumvent the prohibition on riba or usury], and you take hold of the tails of oxen and you are content with agriculture, and you give up jihad, then Allaah will send upon you humiliation that will not be dispelled until you return to your religion, Allaah will send upon you humiliation that will not be dispelled until you return to your religion, Allaah will send upon you humiliation that will not be dispelled until you return to your religion.

Another has Muhammad, صلى الله عليه وسلم, saying any Muslim (man) who dies without making jihad or intending to, dies a munafiq (someone who pretends to be a Muslim but is in fact an infidel)

>>15795012
>you're actually speaking informed by reason and not ill informed opinions barely stitched together with a crooked brain.
To some other person or group of people, I surely seem the latter. And indeed, I am still just at the beginning of my journey. I am not now who I was even a year ago. I was worse than butterfly not too long ago. I can understand frustration with a perceived lack of progress, but hostility will not help. Only embracing butterfly and trying to push her in the right direction will help. Perhaps if she encountered more encouragement and less derision she would take less of a hostile attitude to us.

>>15795069
Now, if you really want scholars to feel at ease, try reading any prior to the fall of the Ottoman empire. The consensus from antiquity to then is overwhelming. Only after colonialists installed puppets who appointed the judges and scholars did the modern opinion become promulgated

I must say, the title “Return of the Strong Gods” does remind me of the story I should be working on.

>>15795145
Alright alright. We the. Both to disappear
> The man's a devout Catholic
Rather evident.
Started to read this one thing The Fall of Public Man by a Sennett. Couldn’t get my head around how wrong it was, or seemed.

>>15795185
>We them both to disappear

>>15795136
>>15795136
alright, I get what you're saying but the hadiths you posted clearly contradicts Quran 60:8, and as far as I'm aware, when that happens, you always put the Quran above the hadith (because according to muslims, its infallible while hadith can be fallible). in regards to the scholar you recommended (Anwar al-Awlaki) apparently he's Al-Qeada recruiter, is that someone I should go to, to get a balanced opinion on this matter?

>>15794349
He's got the Thunberg eyes.

>>15795185
>I must say, the title “Return of the Strong Gods” does remind me of the story I should be working on.
Well then, get back to it.
>Started to read this one thing The Fall of Public Man by a Sennett. Couldn’t get my head around how wrong it was, or seemed.
Even if you completely disagree with a work, see if you can't figure out its underlying premises and logic. If you understand what you disagree with, you will be more effective at combating it.

>>15795185
>We need them both to disappear

>>15795228
>see if you can't figure out its underlying premises and logic
Still have it. Might get back to it.

>>15795167
its not worth a 50 something midwit when you can guide 20 zoomers more promising, with the same amount of effort.

He was basically a fifties Egyptian version of a polcel. Had he been alive today, he would’ve endlessly complained about muh degeneracy, muh traditional values. There should’ve been a containment board for him to spout his bullshit on, but unfortunately, that didn’t exist yet, so no one laughed at his ideas as people should, which allowed them to fester and grow

>>15795287
Why should youth make the difference? And in any case, you can see the results of my efforts just above you. It worked. I don't think butterfly does any of this stuff on purpose. She's not completely deranged. Compare her to what follows:
>>15795288
You are retarded. Most of his work hasn't been translated, but he's a wide-ranging and flexible thinker. I've only read Milestones in Arabic (معالم في الطريق), but even that was an interesting, if not entirely sophisticated, discussion of the problems of modernity and the role that Islam can play in supplementing the material civilization of the West.

>>15795047
>Now for the real question: On behalf of what institutions can jihad be waged?
Usually based on the authority of the prophet. Also, you have to understand that jihad is just a tool. It’s probably the highest honor in Islam, but is still just a means to a goal. The goal is tawhid, or monotheism. Wherever and whenever monotheism is breached, and shirk (worshipping anything besides Allah) and kufr (unthankfulness towards Allah) emerges, the main sources of Islam will make it very clear that jihad must be waged on the infidels. So Islam is such that it can be waged by almost anyone, and that justifying it is extremely easy using the core sources of Islam

>>15795309
Milestones in hardly more sophisticated than the average piece of redpilled literature you’ll find on /pol/. It’s the same purity nonsense, with some parts like the Islamic vanguard who will lead the Ummah, a little more thought out. Also, you don’t have to try this ‘Arabic is some magical esoteric language’ bullshit on me

>>15795352
Arabic is a more poetic language that loses its quality when translated.
t. Arabic student.

>>15795610
We’re not talking about poetry, we’re talking about works of theology and ideology. In this area, translators generally do a very good job, with consistent translations. Furthermore, Arabs are not aliens that inhabit another dimension. Many of the concepts they use are very common in western thought and are easily translatable with little loss of meaning, if any at all

>>15794386
**laughs in Bartolome De Las Casas calling out the degeneracy of Columbus and his crew brutalizing natives

>>15794752
I was tempted to go Sufi, but if you insist I'll go Wahhabi.

>>15795680
>Bartolome De Las Casas
Is there a greater example of the degeneracy and uselessness of the priestly class than him? Imagine visiting a location that fifty years prior would have resulted in him being tortured and sacrificed by boy raping papas (native priests) and then shitting on the warrior class that gave Spain sovereignty, for their farming practices.

You have strong heros like Diaz earn the prize and then absolute goblins like de las Casas grumble over what they could never earn or achieve.

>>15794349
>Can someone explain this?
He was a gay wog (but I repeat myself)

If Qutb had visited Constantinople fifty years earlier during the Ottomon Caliphite would he say the same?