Post books that explain where it all went wrong

Attached: 1550053699211.gif (272x281, 1.99M)

Ass

youtube.com/watch?v=7hWl8jq4zLI

Attached: wandering who.jpg (324x499, 27K)

Are these two essentially the same?

>implying it's ever been better than now

>muh comfort, muh hedonism, muh safety

>muh muh
wow you got me

>let's just decry the meme but not the criticism
Good job.

>my comfort, my hedonism, my safety
is hardly a substantial argument
it doesn't even make sense outside of lazy meme talk

Did you have something else in mind?

>muh something else in mind

Kewl then.

Spiritual and intellectual burn out are inevitable in all high Cultures. No causal event begat the decline of the West, it has been our spiritual destiny since the first Gothic cathedrals were erected.

Attached: 220px-Decline_of_the_West_1922.jpg (220x332, 12K)

You set up a false dichotomy there.

There has never been another time but now.
There has never been a situation better than the present.
The past exists only memories, the future in hopes and fears, but "this" moment is eternal.

Attached: 1555796717053.jpg (960x690, 122K)

I don't see Zerzan memed on here and maybe that is for the better. Anyhow he has some great essays, although I do not agree with him broadly. His essay on WWI in Future Primitive (I think) is pretty good. Interesting guy.

>ages and dies
dumb frog poster BTFO

Where?

Between inevitability and causality.

"Since time is in fact circular, it is not in the past that the present ought to be measured in order to prepare for the future, it is by the extreme future (the concept of what is ideally to be realized) which is also the origin of the past, which thereby assumes the past only by revising it.
When the present is decaying (and such is the sad condition of our times), it is natural that we tend, in a reactionary fashion, to return to the past, because illness is a corruption of the health it presupposes ; reaction is opposed to progressivism, which dreams of an infinite, linear movement towards a necessary progress (as opposed to the past situation). But the reactionary spirit opposes progressivism only by adopting the same postulate, namely the linear conception of time ("things were better before"), and as such, is the partner-in-crime of progressivism. To return to the past to ward off the catastrophe of a future, potentially contained in a decaying present would re-engage the process of giving birth to this present decadency. The proper method of promoting real progress, then, is not to return to the past as a paradigm - thus to a past that needs to be made present again - but to return to the past in a critical perspective, namely to make present only what was timeless within the past, and to what the past itself was inadequate (if it had been adequate with it, it would never have given birth to a decaying present), in order to promote a future which, far from progressivism, is inscribed in the "telos" of a return to the Origin (the concept of what has to be, first in intention and ultimate in execution), which, far from the reactionary spirit (sacralization of the past as past), is ablative of temporality itself and of the past. It is not because this shifting, collective, historical reality, which is France, has become aware of its vocation only within and through its history, that its past history should be taken as the proper expression of his concept."

Attached: charlemagne.jpg (1581x645, 210K)

>his
its*

Both of these have a similar story really, Modernity is pretty much derived from escalating Church-State power struggle in the Middle Ages as both sought to undermine one another.

I had read an interview recently with Michael Hudson about usury in ancient Greece and Rome. It's interacting to read OPs account in light of the rise of usury and various banking clans during the Renaissance and Enlightenment which were "Back To The Greeks" movements.

Attached: Pynchon-Against-the-Day_2.jpg (200x317, 13K)

this

Western civilization had yet to spring into existence at that point.

regards, Oswald T. Aspergler

Doesn't the expanded version of this have a bunch of rants about Trump? I might be confusing this with something else.

read Marx

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH—
AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

When was it not shit?

before the agricultural revolution

Going to need more info on that book, user

Submerged reality by Michael Martin

I read that on Unz as well, it was pretty fascinating

The Faustian soul came into being around 900 AD but its world-feeling is far older than that.

In feudalism perhaps it was shit but only because of natural limitations (only so much land can be cultivated).

Contrast this to now.

After Virtue.

Attached: 1547909478145.jpg (353x500, 26K)

Attached: 1537832823973.jpg (984x1600, 98K)

>waah! I am not successful so everything is bad!
you are living in a civilization where you can buy a portable handheld pocket-computer by working for 40 hours, that you can use to contact people on the other side of the planet, that you can use to learn any discipline you want, that you can use to steal nearly any book ever written, that you can use to view the highest art of the last millenium, that you can use to buy things without needing to get off your ass, that you can use to find women to bang, that you can use to look up nearly anything you want, and you complain about it?
>but then everybody will turn into a lazy idiot
yeah, the retarded. But the intelligent people will grow even stronger and smarter because of these tools. Following this line of thought, that advancement will make the intelligent incline, and the retarded decay, and that you would be upset about advancement, only means that you are retarded.

Attached: 1555826278814.png (620x581, 16K)

have soma

It's from a French phd and agrégé in philosophy, specialist of st Thomas Aquinas and Hegel, traditional Catholic, fascist and natsoc that writes his historical and political stuff under pseudonyms. He worked with the French revisionist Vincent Reynouard in his magazine Sans Concession, mainly about political philosophy.

To ne short, his work is an effort to integrate the captive truthes of hegelianism (the ontological reflection) in the thomist corpus in order to overcome an aporia of it, namely the junction between the natural and supernatural order.
He opposes the modernist solution that was adopted from Lubac in Vatican II (which is a naturalist answer to the problem of the natural desire of God) and the political conclusions of it (personnalism), but doesn't see the root in this council alone but also in the political philosophy of the popes that enabled the emergence of a Christian Democracy (by subordinating morals to politics).
All that leads him to openly profess a fascistic (on the national level) and natsoc (on the imperial level) political organicism like Aristotle, Aquinas and Hegel, but with critiques of some elements of these doctrines.
He also tackles apophatism, gilsonism, radical orthodoxy (since it derives from Lubac), part of Koninck's view on the Common Good, neopagan and liberal epistemology, judaism, the "papal question" (reasons of the sede/sspx tensions and how to try overcoming that) and so on and si on.
It's fascinating but makes me feel like a brainlet when I try to understand the big metaphysical explanations.

samefag retardation inbound.

sounds cool, whats his name?

No thats bullshit weak ideas have to be rejected halftruths and lies cannot be adopted as absolute the subsequent collapse and ashes are only the womb in which the greater truths can arrise.

Joseph Merel/Jean-Jacques Stormay.
French only tho :/

what's his beef with radical orthodoxy?

Attached: 1527756905903.jpg (333x499, 13K)

Attached: 1539801145597.jpg (409x648, 92K)

?

They say that the natural end of man is only supernatural, which is basically saying that a state of pure nature is impossible and that Grace is not a free gift from God (or that God is unjust), which is false and heretic.

I read this book called “introspective rationale” and pinpoints multiple moments where it all went wrong. From the transition of nomadism to an agrarian way of living, to the eschatological conundrum between the State of Israel and the people of Palestine. Not a bad read either but a little too dense for me