ITT: Brainlet repellent books

I have, its great
go to culturewars.com, it's 30$

right on

Sexual freedom by itself is not the problem. Non-reproductive sexual freedom is.

>Malebranche
It's funny that in his books you clan clearly see Descartes ideas were 100% of gnostic origin. I wish I knew how he had access to the gnostic library that weren't translated to latin or greek until 280 years later. Perhaps he was fluent in Canaanite languages

Sometimes people genuinely do reinvent that shit on their own though. Take Taoism and Buddhism for example.

Possible but extremely unlikely

>Libido Dominandi is the first draft of a great work. As it is, it is a failure, suffering from shoddy writing, poor research, and a wandering and inconsistent thesis. What should be an erudite and compelling polemic against the the sexual revolution—Western culture’s death knell—is an inconsistent and often unreadable mess.

>A bird’s-eye view of Jones’s thesis—that our inability to control our sexual drive has been used for the purpose of political suppression—is beyond reproach. Of course, Catholic leaders have been saying the same thing for years. Leo XIII’s Humanum Genus operates as a rough outline of the book, beginning with Augustine’s distinctions between the City of Man and the City of God, and going on to condemn freemasonry. Who know if Jones himself was actually aware of his debt?

>Regardless, Jones is not exactly marking new ground here. For this book to be worthwhile, it must function as a polemic which inspires the vanguard, and provides grist for later scholars. Dr. Jones’s work does neither. I was hoping for a traditionalist version of Das Kapital, but instead got a book that was barely worth finishing, let alone carrying into the trenches.

>First and foremost, his writing is very, very poor. The overall structure of the book—jumping from year to year, place to place, vignette to vignette—makes it hard to follow intellectual rather than a thematic elements. Given the fact that the book’s thesis is nebulous and has a tendency to change as Jones goes along (more on that below), reading the book is a major slog.

>A inquiring reader can jump to any given page to witness Jones’s lame writing. More shocking is his plain sloppiness and failure to edit himself. Just one of many many examples: On page 88, the author quotes Abbe Barruel, ending with “for men may be turned into any thing by him who knows how to take advantage of their ruling passion.” ONE PARAGRAPH LATER Jones uses the SAME EXACT QUOTE, except he finishes with the word “passions”—not “passion.” In other words, Jones repeats the exact same argument by using the same quote in succeeding paragraphs—and cannot even get the quoted material right! To call this a first draft is too kind—it is a first draft seemingly written the night before it was due! This is simply unforgivable.

>What about the research? A good bibliography may still be helpful even if the prose is abhorrent. But the bibliography of this 600-page behemoth is surprisingly spare, and utilizes discouragingly few primary sources. And from the get-go, I couldn’t help notice two noticeable absences from Jones’s bibliography: Camille Paglia and Pitrim Sorokin.

goodreads.com/review/show/1906990944

what is that painting?

underrated post

Attached: greek.jpg (350x499, 33K)

the poor editing and the sparse bibliography are the only valid criticisms, the fact that he laments the absence of camile paglia is proof enough of how retarded gonzo posting. its just a series pomposities of an arm chair rectionary
>For this book to be worthwhile, it must function as a polemic which inspires the vanguard, and provides grist for later scholars. Dr. Jones’s work does neither. I was hoping for a traditionalist version of Das Kapital, but instead got a book that was barely worth finishing, let alone carrying into the trenches.

Delilah betraying Samson, and turns him over to the Philistines by Caravaggio

Attached: DelilahSamson.jpg (2076x1348, 1.18M)

really wanna read this but don't wanna drop $30

definitely gonna buy his book on logos

Berkeley references Gnosticism in his Principles towards the end. He makes fun of Manicheanism, a Gnostic religion, even though his philosophy ends up resembling Gnosticism due to its Platonic and Christian influence

Further proof that goodreads reviews are garbage written by pseudo and shouldn’t be taken seriously

The real proof is all the five star reviews for this garbage

crybaby pol hardheads. worship at the feet of e michael jones because he was in nobodytm’s most low effort video

rip nobodytm, never forget
his later content is so fucking good

>the book has to be all these grandiose vague things that I describe or it’s no good