/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16313255]

>BTFOs the warfag babies
BASED

[Anonymous No.16313270]

>>16313255
This is the exact case of Borges and his gaucho rethorics.

[Anonymous No.16313317]

>hates jews
>treats them free of charge
Céline is infinitely based.

[Anonymous No.16313320]

I would argue the same thing about Commies arguing on "behalf" of the workers.

[Anonymous No.16313346]

No wonder the french had no chance against the germans with such a whack ass mentality

[Anonymous No.16313361]

>>16313346
>whack ass
no wonder American literature had no chance against European with such weak bum mentality

[Anonymous No.16313370]

Isnt this just projection?

[Anonymous No.16313398]

>>16313346
Céline was in the winning side of the Great War.

[Anonymous No.16313450]

>>16313255
Based

[Anonymous No.16313459]

>>16313255
Sounds like a big COPE coming from a FROG

[Anonymous No.16313475]

>>16313255
>Jüngerfags who wear combat boots and listen to Sabaton without realizing how cringe it is eternally blown the fuck out

[Anonymous No.16313526]

>why yes I don't go to war and I get enormously wealthy from it. how could you tell?

[Anonymous No.16313537]

>>16313398
Yes because of America and England, which havent had such demoralizing literature. Really makes you think, huh.

[Anonymous No.16313547]

>>16313537
>Yes because of America and England, which havent had such demoralizing literature.
What? Have you read England's post-WWI literature?

[Anonymous No.16313548]

>>16313475
Gas the sabaton babies

[z No.16313549]

no wonder french woman spread their legs to the germans instead of the faggoty ass excuse of men they have

[Anonymous No.16313561]

Pacifism is nothing more than veiled anti-Semitism.

[Anonymous No.16313577]

That's applicable to most modern and definitely to WWI era warfare. But that is due to the industrialized nature of society and the impersonalization and horrification of war as a result. Prior to the late 19th century war has always had a justified heroic or sacred aspect.

[Anonymous No.16313586]

>>16313577
>Prior to the late 19th century war has always had a justified heroic or sacred aspect.

[Anonymous No.16313588]

Pacifism is a huge joke honestly. I read one essay about the Iliad that was in the Greeks chart and this (((bitch))) literally used the fucking Iliad to justify her pacifism

[Anonymous No.16313591]

>>16313537
>Yes because of America and England
It's unsettling just how brainwashed anglos are.

[Anonymous No.16313594]

>>16313588
this bitch you're refering to is Weil, and she is a christian.


This thread is really triggering the primitive anglo brutes kek. Go back to redpilling yourself over holywood productions.

[Anonymous No.16313603]

>>16313586
Is that pic supposed to disprove me? I never claimed war doesn't have the worst of humanity in it's nature too. It's a phenomenon of extremes, virtue and wrongs, heroism and cowardice, spirituality and all things carnal and physical.

That balance has shifted heavily in the past 150 years away from the values in war and overwhelmingly towards the negative aspects. WWI was the nadir of that shift

[Anonymous No.16313605]

>>16313603
I know I'm jusrt being a faggot lol

[Anonymous No.16313606]

>>16313594
I'm not even an anglo kek
I too wouldn't like to be a frog. Imagine getting invaded by every people of Europe, from Romans, to barbarians, to Germans again and now niggers and Arabs too. Truly a sad country.

[Anonymous No.16313610]

>>16313577
I remember reading a fragment by Pindar saying that glorying war was foolish, also saying more or less the same thing as Céline, that generally this was done by mortals that never fought.

>>16313561
Yes, this is correct.

[Anonymous No.16313612]

>>16313526
Your last name is Bush

[Anonymous No.16313623]

>>16313586
>that poem at the bottom

[Anonymous No.16313643]

Am I the only retard in the world who does not see any irreconcilable contradiction between war being awful and war being enjoyable? Being purely "pro-war" or "anti-war" just seems myopic (I mean in terms of what kind of thoughts or experiences you entertain or acknowledge, not what you support politically).

[Anonymous No.16313657]

>>16313643
Nah I agree. There's a bombastic beauty in the large-scale destruction war produces. There's also an insane impersonal yet intimate beauty in hand to hand combat. The adrenaline one feels while struggling with someone to the death is probably more pure than a heroin overdose

[Anonymous No.16313680]

>>16313643
That's the reasonable view to take
There's a reason people have either spoken highly of war or despised it, some are more attuned to or observant of the positive aspects which are intense beyond anything encountered in peaceful life, and others likewise see or focus on the horrors which likewise are extreme far beyond peaceful issues. Some see a hidden beauty in the horrors, others see horror in the beauties.

[Anonymous No.16313685]

>>16313643
>>16313657
Pick up a combat sport if you want to beat each other up

[Anonymous No.16313691]

>>16313685
Cope, you're going down with us on the battlefield

[Anonymous No.16313705]

>>16313255
war is just glorified mutual suicide
only depressed people like it

[Anonymous No.16313710]

>>16313606
You are 100% anglo, as De Gaulle understood that the anglo mindset pervades the entire western world, no matter your nationality. Down to your love for the reification of history, your interest in holywood-tier sensationalism, you probably even thought of subscribing to these DNA ancestry tests. You are a waking cliché hahaa

Ironically, your anglo opinion is highly fitting for this thread, since everything you've stated; the main caracter of Voyage au bout de la nuit states at the very beginning of the book LMAO. You were a depthless novel archetype 7 decades before you even were born.

You got Céline'd, faggot.

[Anonymous No.16313724]

At least post based things by Celine like his collaborator apologism

[Anonymous No.16313728]

How do you explain the italian futurists/fascist Marinetti, Mussolini etc who all fought in the war before?
How could a hitler and all his fanatic supporters who fought in ww1 be so keen on starting war anew?

There are certainly those who relish in war, the majority who does not (especially the feeble; i.e. children, women and meek men) and a tiny portion (lets say 1%) who directly benefits from war indirectly.

[Anonymous No.16313729]

>>16313255
Get a load of this faggot. Yes, many people who actually experience war find it horrific and detest the romanticization of warfare, but many others do not and find heroic and mythic language the only suitable way of conveying the enormity of their experiences. John Garth's biography of Tolkien describes this well- the canonical Great War poets like Owen and Sassoon were actually not particularly popular with real veterans because their work portrayed the formative experiences of a generation of men as entirely vile and meaningless, whereas many actually felt it to have been, while awful to experience, a just enterprise that did breed heroes.

[Anonymous No.16313732]

>>16313710
You can be a pacifist all you want, but don't complain when your women open their legs to foreign BVLLs.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16313754]

>>16313320
When they’re bourgeois “commies”, like Lenin, yes, but not when they’re workers

[Anonymous No.16313776]

>>16313586
Yoo what the fuck lol. People really be wild'n back in the day huh?

[Anonymous No.16313887]

Thank god frogs probably won't exist by the end of this century

[Anonymous No.16313893]

>>16313754
>t. never worked in their life

[Anonymous No.16313957]

>>16313577
>ok everyone!
>line up!
>now march forward into their gunfire while I and the other general watch you from afar on a hill having cocktails!
>the winner will be determine by who suffered the least losses!
>righty-ho chaps!

[Anonymous No.16314004]

>>16313957
Every general was a soldier in the past

[Anonymous No.16314385]

>>16313537
America was irrelevant during WWI. The French had the best army.

[Anonymous No.16314404]

>>16313588
Those days are gone. If you go to war now, you're sucking Jew cock and fighting for them.

[Anonymous No.16314410]

>>16313606
Frogs raped England for centuries. You literally got fucked in the ass by the guy who gets raped in the ass LMAO your language reflects that and you cannot change it

[Anonymous No.16314413]

>>16313710
BASED

[Anonymous No.16314414]

>>16314410
I'm an IBERIAN BVLL. My kind were the ones raping fags like you. Not even Napoleon could get to our level

[Anonymous No.16314430]

>>16314414
Napoleon raped Spain so much that they lost control over their entire colonies LMAO

[Anonymous No.16314432]

>>16313255
true, just ask stephen crane

[Anonymous No.16314445]

>>16314430
The Spanish are nothing but moor rapebabies. Napoleon never defeated PortuCHAD

[Anonymous No.16314447]

>>16313270
care to elaborate?

[Anonymous No.16314454]

>>16314445
Because Portugal is irrelevant and not worth the fight/effort. It's like going against a retarded dwarf with rabbies.

[Anonymous No.16314536]

>>16314454
>It's like going against a retarded dwarf with rabbies.

[Anonymous No.16314547]

>>16314536
sim(p)

[Anonymous No.16314565]

>>16313255
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA EVOLAFAGS ON SUICIDE WATCH

[Anonymous No.16314577]

Is war here to stay lads?

[Anonymous No.16314586]

>>16313606
>imagine
>invaded
>people
>country

Mhhh... wondering how those french words came into your language.

[Anonymous No.16314625]

>>16313728
because they didnt have to fight in those wars themselves and didnt give a shit about the soldiers whod suffer

[Anonymous No.16314684]

>>16314625
Hitler literally was a mesanger who got gassed. Act like a frog and hop off

[Anonymous No.16314704]

Reminder Bardamu laments not living for something after Robinson's death

[Anonymous No.16314925]

>>16314547
Were chivalrous knights the original simps?

[Anonymous No.16314946]

>>16314925
there were no original simps. simp is a modern internet meme, like incel.

[Anonymous No.16314966]

>>16313255
Do anti-war fags seriously pretend they aren't a tiny but very vocal minority? The most popular memoirs and account from veterans of wars have been those like American Sniper. Even regarding controversial wars like Vietnam it's the "pro-war" accounts that are the most popular with vets. Have you retards EVER even been to a VFW before? Is this like how you fags pretend to be for the working class while never having lived outside your urban bubble?

>>16313887
This. The frogs are second only to the jews in how insufferable and degenerate they can be. Good riddance.

[Anonymous No.16314971]

>>16314946
Sure, I understand that the idea and mindset behind these terms is more substantial than the people and situations they're used to describe, but we could still think of primordial/historical examples that perfectly fit for how "simps" and "incels" are understood now. It seems clear to me that incels of old were Christian monks and priests, and simps of old were chivalrous knights who put women on a pedestal to their own detriment.

[Anonymous No.16314985]

>>16314966
Honest question, I don't give a shit however you answer it.

Could you tell me what exactly you find to be fundamentally wrong with French people? And what exactly is fundamentally wrong with Jews? Finally why you agree with >>16313887 that the French won't make it to see the 22nd century?

[Anonymous No.16314990]

>>16314966
Amerifags love to suck the Jew cuck, so of course they're into modern war and help Israel and corporations all the time.

The times for glorious war are long gone.

[Anonymous No.16315014]

>>16314971
Monks were just celibate, not really "incels" (which in a way is an oyxmoron, given that all celibacy is voluntary by definition). Chivalrous knights were fictional for the most part.

All this was before the sexual revolution and democratic industrialization of sex from the 1960s, which is the reason why simps and incels currently exist.

[Anonymous No.16315046]

>>16315014
>Monks were just celibate, not really "incels"
Many men chose to become monks because they couldn't get laid or were rejected by women though.

>All this was before the sexual revolution and democratic industrialization of sex from the 1960s,
Since the 1960s life has become more "democratically industrilized" for sure, but I see sex as merely one consequences in these changes to culture, society, and people's lives. Of course it's going to express how, when, and who has sex, but that's but one of many impacts the changes had to people's lives. It also affected to no less an extent how people worked, socialized, travelled, etcetera.

>which is the reason why simps and incels currently exist.
But you just said >>16314946
that simps and incels are a concept, merely an internet meme. Therefore at least as far as you see it, it's more a question of how changes since the 60's brought about people inclined to regard people or themselves in certain contexts or situations with these terms and the implications they bring with them for the mindset necessary that they would be used in the first place, as opposed to just "producing incels and simps" which is only what someone who believes the notions have concrete value or is a self-described incel or simp would believe.

[Anonymous No.16315067]

>>16315046
>Many men chose to become monks because they couldn't get laid or were rejected by women though.
Literally all men could get laid back then. Going to the brothel was like going to the grocery store and we can see this across many authors. Men became monks thanks to some religious "calling", family pressure, or to pursue a field of study, not because of lack of cunt.

[Anonymous No.16315178]

>>16315067
If that's the case then why do you blame "industrialization of sex from the 1960s" instead of the politics that cause prostitution to be illegal? Women are largely responsible for the illegality of prostitution, as many women are threatened by the idea of regulated widespread legal prostitution as it would lower their own sexual market value.

Instead of blaming how culture/society changed since the 60's wouldn't it make more sense to campaign for the legality of prostitution? After all since the issue is that "back then" going to the brothel was like going to the grocery store.

I don't know your specific stances but this all seems to prove to me how fundamentally contradictory the mindset of anti-feminist reactionaries is.

[Anonymous No.16315239]

>>16313754
>When they’re bourgeois “commies”, like Lenin

[Anonymous No.16315273]

>>16313255
War is beautiful and the sublime-most expression of humanity.

[Anonymous No.16315275]

>>16313754
You literally understand absolutely nothing about history. Which wouldn't be so insufferable if you didn't act like you knew everything.

[Anonymous No.16315282]

>>16313537
You're thinking of WW2, and even then, crudely so. France made the biggest contribution among their allies during WW1, and the US showed up late as always.

[Anonymous No.16315286]

>>16313561
Yet many Jews are pacifists...

[Anonymous No.16315294]

>>16313537
Have you read any Melville other than Moby Dick? Or TS Eliot or Hemingway or Kerouac or Hawthorne or Fitzgerald or Faulkner or Nabokov. What are you on about?

[Anonymous No.16315297]

>>16313588
While the Iliad is not a pacifist work it does contain a lot of argument that can reasonably used for pacifism. You're just a brainlet who probably haven't even read the Iliad or who didn't understand it besides muh epic fights.

[Anonymous No.16315314]

>>16315297
Yes, this is accurate
Homer concerns himself with how War arises and does not make moral statements about it. It's telling that many on the Greeks and Trojans knew each other and were friends. The Gods like both of them, there is no good and evil.

[Anonymous No.16315317]

>>16313643
>>16313657
>t. not war veterans
There's a reason WW1 turned half of Europe into pacifist (and no, not just the French).

The adrenaline thing can be real but for most people it's dubious it has been worth it, especially when it comes from being shelled by distant artillery.

[Anonymous No.16315322]

>>16315286
Nietzsche was right. Both anti-semites and jews should get fucking shot

[Anonymous No.16315327]

>>16313732
>t. heavy consoomer of American pornography

[Anonymous No.16315340]

>>16313729
There are always whacko who enjoy the blooshed, but it's true that WW1 widely changed the perspective on war and technology. It bred many more broken men (physically and mentally) than it did heroes.

[Anonymous No.16315348]

>>16313728
The German were bitter from the defeat and wanted revenge. Marinetti was just a dandy fanatically devoted to his pose. The Italians were much less involved in WW1 than the others and they were keen to leave WW2 when things got rough.

[Anonymous No.16315358]

>>16314004
Aristocrats didn't start at the rank and file.
And even for aristocrats this hasn"t been true in decades anyway.

[Anonymous No.16315365]

>>16313754
>admitted in another thread you don't understand economics and couldn't even define capitalism, yet identify yourself with Marxism which is entirely an economic philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16315379]

>>16314966
>Do anti-war fags seriously pretend they aren't a tiny but very vocal minority?
What was the name of that US president who was elected on a platform of "bringing back our troops" again? I think it started with a T.

[Anonymous No.16315382]

>>16315358
Every aristocrat descends from some barbarian who fought for his position in the hierarchy. As such, every aristocrat carries the genes of a warrior ancestor. Thus, they have the privilege of standing afar on a hill having cocktails

[Anonymous No.16315387]

>>16315348
>The German were bitter from the defeat and wanted revenge
thats not the point faggot.
Nothing you said is.
Soldiers who knew war; the most brutal war in western warfare and still they decided for more war. They were soldiers for kings whose sons never saw the front, the msot abused and readily discarded bunch yet they knew they would fight another war and wanted to.

Someone who has never seen war has as little right to call for the glory of war jsut as someone who has never seen war has the reason call for the demonization of and be against war.

Against what Celine said: there were men who saw a brutal war and instead of the narrative wanted more.

[Anonymous No.16315394]

>>16314971
>incels of old were Christian monks and priests
They were volcels if anything

>simps of old were chivalrous knights who put women on a pedestal to their own detriment
Those mostly didn't exist, and if they did it was through an aesthetic choice of their own, not out of an inability to do better, which is central to the modern idea of simp.

[Anonymous No.16315405]

>>16314985
He won't give an honest answer because he's thinking in memes.

[Anonymous No.16315421]

>>16315322
Nietzsche never said that, on the topic of the Jewish question he even took the (uncommon at the time) position of simply letting Jews be. Which you would know if you had ever read him. A vanishingly rare event on /lit/, I know.

[Anonymous No.16315455]

>>16315421
NTA, but that's a similar englightenment view. Casanova thought the same, Jews were simply a force not to be disturbed. You should be skeptical of anyone who calls themselves a Jew to begin with, I mean Ashkenazi is a European race, and there's only 'faint' similarities to Talmudic Jews. Look at their re-appearance in Russia during Catherine the Great and Napoleon's views on Jews. Nietzsche praised the Jews for being strong and sticking together and abandoning morality, but thought they were mostly contrary to the German people and shouldn't be in positions of power. Also, his posthumous work has been discarded, I'd like to read more into that. But yeah, his ideas aren't new, inasmauch as Nietzsche had ideas, but his style was.

[Anonymous No.16315478]

>>16313255
What about the metaphorical war of the soul that the individual fights all their life?

[Anonymous No.16315497]

>>16315387
>thats not the point faggot.
It is an answer to your question, so it certainly is. People didn't want to go to war because war is so great, they wanted to go to war for payback (among many others things, see below). It was not the romanticism of war, but the romanticism of revenge and victory.

>Soldiers who knew war; the most brutal war in western warfare and still they decided for more war.
Most of them were high ranking and former high ranking officers who saw little combat at the front, many of those who voted them into office were too young to have fought in the previous war. The other were uplifted by promises of ending their misery (the living conditions in Germany at the time of Hitler's rise were terrible) and giving them revenge. There was also the threat of extinction of the German people which, in hindsight, was completely overblown, but that seemed very real to them at the time.
The role of the heavy industry, especially the weapons industry, was also big in funding Hitler and putting him into power.

So to answer, again and in more detail, your question, Germans chose war in exchange for bread, nation survival, and revenge. Nothing less than three of the most powerful motivators for humans, all marshalled by big industries who stood to benefit for it, and all put into action to keep the German economic machine (which was the source of a newfound prosperity) turning at high speed.


>Against what Celine said: there were men who saw a brutal war and instead of the narrative wanted more.
Céline is still very much right in that people who could profit from the war while being shielded from combat were very influential in crafting and propagating the war rhetoric. His affirmation should be nuanced in that the people who had to fight were convinced it was for their benefit. But isn't that the case everytime? There's no question however that the propaganda wasn't written by and for the profit of the common soldier. The German people were bought with words and jobs, and in a sense it was less dishonest than usual because at least they got jobs. But the fundamental dynamic is not dissimilar to that of WW1 (in Germany, it was different elsewhere).

[Anonymous No.16315506]

>>16315497
NTA, but most have not read Celine's pamplets. It's indefinable what he conceived as Jews. He considered structures and elites Jews too, regardless of their ancestry.

[Anonymous No.16315535]

>>16315455
It's true that on this topic Nietzsche surprisingly agreed with many of the Enlightenment figures he generally mocked, that's an interesting remark. The idea itself was indeed not new (there are new ideas in Nietzsche, but not in the detail of his political views) but it was becoming rather unpopular in the late 19th century.

I'm not sure I would agree with Nietzsche thinking that Jews abandoned morality, he considered them the creators of slave morality (or its propagators at least), and he even at some point derails antisemites for giving in to resent, saying they proved to be quite Jewish in this respect (in reality for Nietzsche most of the modern world is part Jewish because of Christian influence).

Completely agree with you about Ashkenazi, I would call them legitimate Jews but their connection to Bibilical and Talmudic jews is very distant, which shows how vague the concept of jewishness is.

[Anonymous No.16315536]

>>16315497
>Most of them were high ranking and former high ranking officer
Not who youre responding to but stopped reading right here. The idea that the fascists, nazis, and various far right rabble rousers of the interwar period were high ranking armchair generals is not just wrong, its hilariously wrong. The book The Outlaws by von Salomon gives a good window into exactly the type of person agitating for war at that period. They were not some champagne chickenhawks, they were very well acquainted with the violence of war.

[Anonymous No.16315555]

>>16315506
True, we shouldn't forget that. Céline was more than a fair bit unhinged, you find racist discourses about every race in his phamplet. There's a fun short story of Marcel Aymé (a contemporary and friend of Céline) in which Céline himself appears as a character, and Aymé gently mocks his obsession with the Jews when the character complains that waiting in queue at the posting office takes forever because of Jewish intervention.

Can't remember the name of the story unfortunately.

[Anonymous No.16315586]

All the Anglos talking about war in this thread.
Your state sponsored military summer camp in Afghanistan or Iraq isn't war. Céline fought in WW1 against a real enemy, not illiterate farmers with home-made bombs and rusty AK-47s.
He saw the trench warfare and then went back, "victorious", to his country in ruins.

>>16313537
You should read My Boy Jack and Epitaphs of the War by Kipling.

[Anonymous No.16315600]

>>16313588
Filtered.

[Anonymous No.16315608]

>>16315536
>The book The Outlaws by von Salomon gives a good window into exactly the type of person agitating for war at that period.
I'm talking about the leader, not the agitators under them.
I'm aware of Von Salomon's book, it really doesn't change the fact that the nazi party was a bureaucratic organization staffed civil servants who were not majoritarily frontline veterans, with exceptions. Of course a variety of washed up soldiers would latch onto the organization, but they provided neither the funding, nor the rhetoric, nor the strategy. People like Reinhard Höhn were generally more central to Nazi thinking and rhetoric than hotshots from the Freikorps.

[Anonymous No.16315616]

>>16313255

So I should stop reading Fantasy novels?

[Anonymous No.16315639]

>>16315497
>It is an answer to your question, so it certainly is. People didn't want to go to war because war is so great, they wanted to go to war for payback (among many others things, see below). It was not the romanticism of war, but the romanticism of revenge and victory.
people didnt want to go to war for that one aspect, they wanted to go to war for that other aspect of war.
Summed up what you said. They wanted war, never said they were mythical vikings wanting death in battle for walhall.

Rest of your post is simply retarded and shows your staunch anti fascist stance. You tout a rhetoric more strict than the typical anti Nazi (germanophobic) lines it's pathetic.

[Anonymous No.16315663]

>>16314445
>Napoleon never defeated PortuCHAD
Because the Portuguese authorities decided to not fight and run way?

[Anonymous No.16315690]

>>16315663
We call it non-conventional warfare

[Anonymous No.16315754]

>>16315497

You write an antiwar post yet your friends in ANTIFA are fucking shit up in U.S. cities, throwing bricks, using fireworks as missiles, throwing explosives, beating the crap out of people, and even wielding firearms to try and kill people. You ANTIFA and your supporters are a bunch of hypocrites.

[Anonymous No.16315801]

>make celine thread
>3 replies
>make a thread were bunch of retards discuess morality of war
>guaranteed 300 replies
He is in top 5 authors of 20th century, why does /lit/ refuse to actually read him?

[Anonymous No.16315840]

>>16315801
Because /lit/ doesn’t read and most of his books are hard to find, plus his pamphlets are effectively banned. He’s also not better than Joyce

[Anonymous No.16315849]

>>16315379

Do you mean Donald Trump? Because, yeah, he seems to be pulling troops out of foreign countries which is was some Democrats wanted to have done a couple of years before in the 2000s.

[Anonymous No.16315908]

>>16315840
I got journey and death on credit online for less than 10 euros. I dont know if he is better but he is way funnier than joyce

[Anonymous No.16315944]

>>16315754
I have no antifa friends and you have no argument. That's an aside, I probably have spent more time discussing with right-wingers (I'm talking straight up monarchists) than you have too.

>all that confused whining about American urban violence in a thread about large-scale wars
I'm sorry for Americans but that's besides the point. You should take some days off the internet to restore your ability to discuss things without instantly falling back to cable news talking points.

>>16315639
Reread the OP, the Céline quote is specifically about the poetry of heroism.
>Summed up what you said.
And lost the argument in the process, but it seems you didn't get it in the first place. It's never been about wanting war, it's been about glorifying war and wanting it for its own sake. Again, "poetry of heroism", answering to the OP, basic reading comprehension, all that stuff. If you go to war for survival you effectively want war even if you don't romanticize it. It's hard to understand now but many Germans at the time considered it was the last call for them, preemptively defeat your enemies or go extinct.

>They wanted war, never said they were mythical vikings wanting death in battle for walhall.
For the third time, poetry of heroism vs pragmatic reasons for going to war (really pragmatic or merely perceived as such). How many time are you going to miss the basic point of this thread and of my posts?

>Rest of your post is simply retarded
Rest of my post is pretty run-of-the-mill history, you can discuss the relative contributions of the various factors, but none of them is really up for debate at this point. Unless you're willing to ignore details like the Great Recession, the rhetoric of the Lebensraum, or the role of Krupp in financing Hitler, etc.

>shows your staunch anti fascist stance
Meh, you're just grasping for straws at this point. Nobody care which poster itt fascist or anti-fascist, it's about what the options where for Germans at the time.You fail to understand that, maybe because you don't really care about the history of Germany at the time? I'm starting to feel like you have nothing of substance to say itt. Btw Nazi and fascist are not the same thing, but I suppose you don't care.

>You tout a rhetoric
You're using big words as if this was a political tribune, this is an informal discussion in an anime rape convention. I'm telling you what I think are the reasons for the German warmongering before WW2 (pretty well-known and unoriginal reasons all considered), and you answer with heated accusations of anti fascism without even addressing the fundamental points. I suggest you calm down a bit and reread my posts carefully.

>anti Nazi (germanophobic)
I'm sure Canaris and the German military aristocrats who tried to assassinate Hitler were germanophobic too. Maybe the elite Luftwaffe pilots who refused to do the Nazi salute (pretty much all of them) were secretly germanophobic as well.

>>16315801
Because /lit/ doesn't read.

[Anonymous No.16315958]

>>16313255
All poetry works like that. Do you think ugly losers with zero romantic potential care for poetry about falling in love?

[Anonymous No.16315972]

>>16315840
He's not really much worse either. The fews of his works that aren't edited by major publishing houses are fairly easy to find online, at least in French.

>>16315849
The point is he was elected among other things for this, and most his electorate is made up of lower-class whites, you find also a lot of anti-war people among those who didn't massively vote for him like minorities. Clearly the warmongers aren't in a majority right now.

[Anonymous No.16315979]

>>16313586
30 Years War was some crazy shit. More Germans as a percentage population died in that shitshow than died in both World Wars.

[Anonymous No.16315981]

>>16315958
As surprising as it is I've met quite a few borderline incels who were into sappy stuff. It might just be a compensating mechanism, but the chads tend to be much less romantic.

There's of course at least a third category of people who care a lot about relationships and also about poetry, and who tend to often get into both.

[Anonymous No.16315992]

>>16315981
The only reason why you haven't met any of the equivalent for war-lovers is because war tends to kill people. Plenty of people enlist, actually see action, and enjoy it. They just die shortly thereafter.

[Anonymous No.16316014]

>>16315972
>He's not really much worse either. The fews of his works that aren't edited by major publishing houses are fairly easy to find online, at least in French.
Later Celine is more similar to Joyce than one would think. I also prefer Nabokov and Musil, Celine is in my top 5-15 easily though.

[Anonymous No.16316046]

>>16315908
Yes those are the only two you’re ‘allowed’ to read. Rigadoon and professor y are great

[Anonymous No.16316136]

>>16313710
basé et rougepillé

[Anonymous No.16316243]

>>16315801
I'm reading right now and almost finishing it. BAP recommended it :) pretty goot read

[Anonymous No.16316379]

>>16313728
hero systems
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf0G2MPBEYM

[Anonymous No.16316389]

>>16313893
neither did Lenin, for that matter

[Anonymous No.16316397]

>>16313710
très basé

[Anonymous No.16316415]

>>16315979
shame they didnt finish the job...

[Anonymous No.16316671]

>>16313561
this

[Anonymous No.16317043]

>>16315275
What are the replies to his post?

[Anonymous No.16317099]

>>16315178
Because the cancer has gone beyond just sex and has shaped society as we know it. Prostitution is legal in most non-meme countries. Marriage was the thing that mattered. Also, I'm not one of those "anti-feminist reactionaries." I'm simply talking about the past because you brought it up.

[Anonymous No.16317122]

>>16313255
This quote retroactively BTFO'd Mishima too kek

[Anonymous No.16317422]

>>16313710
force et honneur

[Anonymous No.16318525]

>>16313537
>Yes because of America
Americans really?

[Anonymous No.16318842]

>>16315273
How many wars have you been to, incel?

[Anonymous No.16318919]

>>16315840
He is also literally not Joyce and nothing he wrote even belongs to remotely the same literary realm? Plus also of Joyce's major works except for the Wake were already published 10 years before Celine's first novel

[Anonymous No.16319086]

>>16315365
>Marxism which is entirely an economic philosophy
Retard detected.

[Anonymous No.16319262]

>itt man children recoil in horror and indignation at the very notion of manhood

[Anonymous No.16319384]

>>16315382
Ok. No serve.

[Anonymous No.16319447]

>>16319086
Are you telling me that cultural marxism is real?

[Anonymous No.16319481]

>>16315382
Meh, that genetic ancestry is so diluted now it's pretty much nonexistent except perhaps in the few families that have maintained a warrior tradition.
Remember genetic contribution from any given ancestor is 1/2^n of your genes where n is the number of generations between you and him. So your ten-times-removed grandpa only contributed to about 1/1000 of your genetic material.

You only have to see how most of those aristocrats behave to see what I mean.

[Anonymous No.16319488]

>>16319481
>Meh, that genetic ancestry is so diluted now
Not if you only marry aristocrats

[Anonymous No.16319491]

>>16315992
Given the state of Western militaries and the kind of engagement they partake in that's increasingly rare. How many US soldiers are killed for each Taliban or Iraqi or whatever? And the recent US wars actually have a high fatality rate by contemporary Western standards. Besides the proportion of enlisted that actually see combat doesn't compare to what is used to be before 1990.

[Anonymous No.16319493]

>>16316014
>Later Celine is more similar to Joyce than one would think
I could see that being the case. I need to start read late Celine.

>>16316046
I remember finding Trifles for a Sla

[Anonymous No.16319494]

>>16313255
How can a man be so based?

[Anonymous No.16319495]

>>16319493
*I remember finding Trifles for Slaughter (not sure how the title is translated in English) online when I was 13 and still new to the internet.

[Anonymous No.16319496]

>>16313255
Dilate.

[Anonymous No.16319505]

>>16319488
Here is the secret with aristocrats and how they stay in power for millennia. They NEVER only marry aristocrats, they marry for success and then retroactively ennoble their spouses.

[Anonymous No.16319506]

>>16319488
Assuming those aristocrats were all also from warrior lines, most people ennobled since the 18th century are not in that case (this means that many of the family considered 'old extraction' in France don't have soldier ancestors).

Nowadays old aristocrat families even drop their particle to better blend in with the bourgeois, and they often partake in typical high-bourgeois commercial activities. The spirit of the crusades is dead for good, although there is still a sizable minority of aristocratic officers. Those are not the ones typically sipping cocktails though.

[Anonymous No.16319536]

>>16319505
>>16319506
That leaves one option left...

[Anonymous No.16320267]

>>16318525
boomer conservative would cream himself to this image

[Anonymous No.16320282]

>>16320267
Not anymore. Liberals unironically creamed themselves when Bush said some shit about Trump

[Anonymous No.16320366]

>>16315286
Show me 1 (one) contemporary jewish intellectual that is a pacifist

[Anonymous No.16320910]

>>16315608
The leadership of both the Nazis and Fascists were overwhelming lower to middle class frontline soldiers who were despised by Ancien Regime Junkers and Italian nobility. The fact that your smoking gun is someone as obscure as Reinhard Hohn is argument enough.

[Anonymous No.16320923]

>>16318919
You haven’t read late Celine

[Anonymous No.16321109]

>>16313586
>in the end those devilish and lost knaves,
>like weeping fruits hanging from this tree
>Show well that the crime (horrible and monstrous)
>is itself instrument of shame and vengeance,
>and that the destiny of vicious men
is to one day suffer the justice of Havens
(My English isn't good enough to make things pretty and well translated, but at least you can grasp the meaning of the poem that way. Of course the original isn't in prose)