/lit/ - Literature

>>19195926
Are you trying to get Butterfly to reply? Pathetic simp.

>>19195935
butterfly is a homo male

ITS NOT HISTORY.
ITS HER-STORY

GET IT STRAIGHT, BIGOT. ILL ADD A REFERENCE TO HOBBES AND LE TRAD COVER ART TO MAKE ME LOOK LIKE A PSEUD TOO.

picrel is the redpill

Fun mytho-history but seeing it treated as a manifesto always bothers me. I read it as a placeholder for a better sweeping analysis and condemnation of class society to come. Accompany it with some Mumford and Franklin Rosemont’s Marx and the Iruoquois.

Just read pic related instead

>>19195926
It’s a great angel on history and the closest one to my own that I’ve read. There is a general human urge to break free from these confines. The world is full of evil because evil has ruled and written its history the whole time. If you ever get frustrated with his bombastic style, the back of the book says it’s just an essay.

>>19195942
*female

>>19195949
Not “herstory” either. That’s not why he uses that.

>>19197241
The only thing that's good about that book is the cover. The contents are weak.

>>19197253
>it’s a weak essay
It’s well researched and fascinating and it rings more true than a lot of the other brainwashed professional academia stuff.

>>19197269
luv u butters

>>19197269
Based butters. I was shilling Perlman before you started shilling it. When did you first read it?

>>19197269
Butters you used to be an annoying cunt before you started shilling this book.
>MM000

>>19195926
It's the ultimate blackpill against civilization. Fredy retells history from the side of free people and shows how civilization has exploited the living world. As other anons suggested, you should read other books on the subject too to get a complete picture. Fredy does his best, but new discoveries date some of the history he discusses. He is also a bit too much on the noble savage side if things. Read Against the Grain by John Scott for more up to date analysis after Fredy.

>>19197322
How does Scott supersede Fredy (pbuh)?

We wuz noble savages...

>>19197358
Scott takes a much closer look at the first civilizations. A lot of what he talks about, Fredy probably would have included if it wasn't recently discovered. Scott goes through how early cities were a nightmare for the general population. They were infested with diseases from people living so close to each other for the first time. People tried to run away all the time which Scott believes is a major reason cities put up walls. Population control was a major aspect of early cities and women went from having a baby every 4 years to every 2. In spite of this, infant mortality actually increased compared to hunter gatherers. He also shows how the people in the early civilizations fundamentally changes in a similar way to how animals changes when domesticated.
The major way Scott goes against Fredy is that Scott discusses in greater detail how barbarians came about. Barbarians were neighboring tribes of looters, former slaves, or of people that had there land taken by the expansion of civilization. They raided supply lines and even sacked cities. Civilizations would pay tribute to them and even pay them to defend cities from other barbarians. In the end, the barbarians were just digging their own graves.

>>19197288
Little while ago. Thanks anon. This is why I came here and stayed.

>>19197368
We wuz, we sure wuz.

Also reading Scott’s The Art of Not Being Governed. (Scholars get so repetitive sometimes, but I’m enjoying it)

>>19197393
Sounds like he just fleshes out Fredy's account instead of actually overturning it. Based.

>>19197437
Must have been me then. I was the first one shilling this book that I know of. You are welcome, butters. My estimation of you skyrocketed after learning you appreciated this book.

>>19197443
>Sounds like he just fleshes out Fredy's account instead of actually overturning it
Absolutely. There is nothing that contradicts Fredy, just a lot more detail and more nuance.

I like to post this every now and then. This and Gilgamesh are my favourite indicators to the artists favor of the old ways

Ovid's Metamorphoses (Rolfe Humphries trans.)

The Four Ages

The Golden Age was first, a time that cherished
Of its own will, justice and right; no law,
No punishment, was called for; fearfulness
Was quite unknown, and the bronze tablets held
No legal threatening; no suppliant throng
Studied a judge’s face; there were no judges,
There did not need to be. Trees had not yet
Been cut and hollowed, to visit other shores.
Men were content at home, and had no towns
With moats and walls around them; and no trumpets
Blared out alarums; things like swords and helmets
Had not been heard of. No one needed soldiers.
People were unaggressive, and unanxious;
The years went by in peace. And Earth, untroubled,
Unharried by hoe or plowshare, brought forth all
That men had need for, and those men were happy
Gathering berries from the mountainsides,
Cherries, or blackcaps, and the edible acorns.
Spring was forever, with a west wind blowing
Softly across the flowers no man had planted,
And Earth, unplowed, brought forth rich grain; the field,
Unfallowed, whitened with wheat, and there were rivers
Of milk, and rivers of honey, and golden nectar
Dripped from the dark-green oak-trees.

>>19197241
Is the book as good as Jimmy Dore?

>>19198959
Oh wow a completely different trip which fake butterfly larp is which

>>19197241
>It’s a great angel
kek

>>19197470
>>19198959
>>19199007
How many butterflies have there been?
I've been on here for about eight years and there's always been a butterfly but I can't remember if the current ones are the original or if they're all just LARPers

>>19199048
I always thought the !ol3er one was the og, but then again I started coming here in 2014.
Always felt ol3er somehow fit "her" personality.

>>19199048
Hard to say. One of them wouldn't stop posting Nietzsche, Max Stirner, and Epicurus.
>>19199007
Both of them suck Dore's dick. So idk what it matters.

I definitely don't think the butterfly in this thread is the original because the one I remember was tankie larp. This butterfly is far more based

>>19199048
A few, the current one is not very good but slightly less annoying
>>19199068
>One of them wouldn't stop posting Nietzsche, Max Stirner, and Epicurus.
This was horrible

>>19199007
>>19199048
I can put that older one on if you want. Trouble is there are people who know it too. But as you can imagine, no really wants to dress up for more than a troll or two.
I am the original. I Dore. He isn’t up on much history or polysci, but he understands what’s going on and calls out bullshit.
>>19199068
I also have that philosophy trio pic
>>19199202
I have never been a tanky. I went from conservative to nonconformist, to progressive, to anarchist. Though I stick up for Marx on occasion, I don’t prescribe to everything he ever said like some sort of prophet

>>19199033
Yeah, whoops.

>>19199252
>This was horrible
Heh. The rightest of all philosophers is horrible to you.

>>19199007
I feel like the one in this thread has to be fake because the butters I've seen most often is a gaslighting and infuriating tranny who autistically replies to literally every single post he even slightly disagrees with, the dude in this thread seems more chill

>19199310

>>19199289
cringe movie t b h

>>19199296
Tell me what you get out of these 3. I'd love to know.

>>19199820
A warm glowing feeling or calm and yet there’s tingly simmering excitement deep down.

https://youtu.be/hBWDIzHldPg

>>19199845
Wow your reply reminded me of this classic quote: "Women are considered deep - why? Because one can never discover any bottom to them. Women are not even shallow. ”

Did you even finish high school?

>>19199888
>Because one can never discover any bottom to them
some are bottoms

>Anarchism

>>19199888
No.
You can’t find the bottom in some places, in others you can see plain enough how shallow.
This answer you want. How many words would it take? Are you even familiar with the three of them?
I’m not even pulling some intellectual rank on you. I’m not a philosophy student. I found three of the best and have read them. “What do you get out of these 3.(three?)” but not ultimately? You could have warned me.

>>19199901
Worse! Proto-primitivism!
Lets just look at fresh though. The current course is sending humanity over a cliff of extinction.
Or do you believe in a scientific miracle machine? Is AI going to propose the next phase of progressivism?
I’m not a “return to monke” Luddite, but have you even given any thoughts to our global predicament?

>>19199939
Sure, I don't support technocratic neoliberalism at all. I just don't like anarchism.

>>19199957
More. Explain your position.