If Dostoyevsky was alive today he would be a /pol/ shitposter. How does this make you feel?

I think my post addressed that, Christianity isn't inherently leftist or rightist, it's a different axis of belief. you guys know Dosto was also a fucking weirdo right? He could barely talk to women, visited whores all the time, he was a lot closer to the Underground Man or Ivan than to Alyosha Myshkin, or Zosima, those were his ideals.

you also seem to think /pol/ are uniformly stupid which makes me think you haven't actually browsed the board. They're not all stormfaggots raging about kikes and liberals.

I mean, those criticisms were directed at 19th century French-inspired socialism. Even fucking Marx hated those hacks
Also by /pol/ standards a contemporary Dostoevsky would be considered a christcucked (since he's not willing to go full DEUS VULT) crypto-socialist

Who the fuck really gives shit about the poor? It's all virtue signaling nonsense. Besides, If they were not inferior they wouldn't be poor.

>you also seem to think /pol/ are uniformly stupid which makes me think you haven't actually browsed the board. They're not all stormfaggots raging about kikes and liberals
Imagine delving into all that propaganda, poorly thought infographics, boomer rants, etc, just to find that one smart /pol/poster.
Statistically speaking it is fair to say that they're all stupid, unless you're willing to spend hundreds of hours trying to find that one guy.

>If they were not inferior they wouldn't be poor.
absolute brainlet

Earning money in today's world is easy as fuck. Only retards can be poor in modern world.

/pol/ are really not a monolith, they're not even all white guys, not by a long shot. They're just people who dislike the culture that censors taboo ideas, which makes them all basically hate progressives and not agree on very much else.

I don't like defending the board because it really is mostly idiocy, but there is a reason it exists, it's a reaction towards our present culture and it's not just retards. I also suspect that you calling them retards has more to do with you disagreeing with the basic /pol/ sphere of ideas than their actually being dumb. They will argue with you at length if you go post there about whatever, which is more than can be said for most of the internet.

Everywhere else is also full of retarded propaganda and ranting idiots, /pol/ is just transgressive and mostly uncensored.

I used to brows /pol/ years ago when I was 20, and I'm aware of the echo chamber it is. Also Dosto was on the record criticizing the xenophobic nature of the catholic church, the exact ideology that draws the dumb /pol/tards.

I don't think that's true. What's funny though is that I'm nearly certain he would find Jordan Peterson obnoxious.

/pol/ is as gullible to propaganda as any other place on the internet. It's just a propaganda targeting contrarian edgy outcasts with bunch of counter culture mixed in, and you eat it all up. You are being sold a mindset as a product, and you just adapt with little thought of your own Your posts always reeks of how you have no idea what you're talking about. Just have a /pol/tard make a constructive argument and the holes become apparent. That is if they even take the time to make the argument and don't straight respond to you with buzzwords and memes.

That's because Peterson is a pseudo intellectual and a Jew loving neoconservative.

Attached: 1567319162462.jpg (773x559, 119K)

>I don't like defending the board because it really is mostly idiocy, but there is a reason it exists, it's a reaction towards our present culture
Not really, it's just a containment board for retards. Closing it would mean the end of almost every other board.
>I also suspect that you calling them retards has more to do with you disagreeing with the basic /pol/ sphere of ideas than their actually being dumb.
Not really, it's mostly the predominant ignorance that prevails in virtually every discussion there. I genuinely think that tjey can't even argue their points properly, unless schizoposting, meaningless infographics and detatched boomer rants count as arguments. And yeah, I'm aware that there are many legitimate arguments in favor their positions, but you simply won't find them there.
>They will argue with you at length if you go post there about whatever, which is more than can be said for most of the internet.
The standards of discussion there are low enough to make any discussion meaningless in the first place. Also those people who "will argue with you", as you put it, seem to be genuinely mentally ill.

If there are some mentally competent, smart and informed users on /pol/, it is still not worth it to go looking for them. You might as well search for more serious venues of discussion OR pick up a book.

I don't browse /pol/ and haven't in years. The only really /pol/ belief I have is about IQ and race, and I tend to get banned when I post about that on blue boards so let's just leave it alone.

when I was like 19 /pol/ functioned as a kind of disinfectant for the progressive propaganda I grew up with, but I never bought into white nationalism, natsoc, or any of that stuff.

and I literally said the same thing as you, that they are just as full of propaganda as anywhere else, i just said it the opposite way.

It might be a containment board, but it's also the largest mostly uncensored forum on the internet. It's literally the hub of 'what you are not allowed to say', with a few exceptions for things like pedophilia that break US law, and as such is a kind of barometer of what is percolating underneath mainstream culture. Most random kids and boomers can't find their way to edgier sites so they all end up there.

and it's fucking Yea Forums. find me a board on this site that isn't mostly filled with shitposts, it's unreasonable to expect anything different, especially when it's constantly spammed by people trying to disrupt it.

Now you're just grasping at straws trying to find a redeemable quality in a cesspool.

>it's fucking Yea Forums. find me a board on this site that isn't mostly filled with shitposts, it's unreasonable to expect anything different, especially when it's constantly spammed by people trying to disrupt it

im not the dude youre responding to, but what about Yea Forums? in fact I would say that it is pretty easy to find coherent discussions on most blue boards. dunno about /pol/ though, I haven't browsed it since like 2015

this shit is what i come here for

No source for that quote, and thus it's widely regarded as fake.

cool off with antisemitic remarks

We're clearly just not going to agree, but I used to see people on /pol/ discussing stuff all the time so I don't know what to tell you. The nature of the board is always going to make it pure anarchy.
Yea Forums is one of the better ones, and where I mostly post, but it's still full of bullshit, and a lot of the posters here will just refuse to actually have a discussion, opting instead to throw meme insults and sarcasm. I value this board a lot for its recommendations and discussions but it's still Yea Forums.

dos always distanced himself from the shitty pop politics scene and he tried to keep an independent thought. nonetheless he wasn't an edgy faggot and he favored the tsar because he thought he empowered the people. he favored Christianity because "if everyone were actively Christian, not a single social question would come up ... If they were Christians they would settle everything".
he is strongly incompatible with /pol/.
also you can read his wikipedia page or his diaries and unfinished works (if you think everyone is a lying jew)
fake quote

>white nationalism
Why? Are you not white?

He would be the guy posting Christianity threads telling people to repent.
James Joyce, on the other hand would probably be the most prolific shitposter in history

>he favored Christianity
liked orthodoxy but hated Catholicism

I live in Canada and my ancestors are all English and Scottish, so I am pretty white. I just don't feel an affinity for 'white people in general'. I'm very tribal and kind of just like my family and friends, and my friends are not all white, and certainly not all anglos, so it's a bit complicated.

I don't like the narrative going on of 'fuck white people' but that doesn't really make me feel that the French or Germans or Russians are my people, I like them and their culture but they're not the same as me, or even really the anglo diaspora. I have no real connection to the British Isles and Canada is a very young country with hardly an identity.

>Who the fuck really gives shit about the poor?
Actual Christians.

>Only retards can be poor in modern world.

Attached: 1531454131140.png (673x501, 61K)

Pretty comfy desu

Attached: IMG_2156.jpg (1024x1013, 129K)

Well, first off, you're right to feel this way, and that's likely a consequence of advancements in technology and the general trend of modernity. Anomie and rootlessness is how I would describe it. As I see it, which I will say that I'm by no means a representative of the whole of /pol/, white nationalism is essentially a larger bloc comprising all European nationalisms. To me, it means lending a hand to other whites against non-whites, that people of the same larger family take precedence over those who aren't.
>so it's a bit complicated.
Things like that can be. I've never personally felt any affinity to people not of my race, by that I mean European. I won't lie by omission by not disclosing that I have a non-white coworker that I get along with. A second thing I think that you're doing might be equivocating white nationalism with genocidal racial ideology. White nationalism in it and of itself I don't recognize as inherently genocidal. White supremacy would be closer to that kind of ideology, so if that's one of your reasons to be reluctant to don the label white nationalist, simply be pro-white. To me, that defuses the negative connotations.
>the French or Germans or Russians are my people
They aren't specifically (Canadian, Anglo-Scottish), yes, but they're fighting the same battle ultimately. Do you think that the people spewing out "fuck white people" don't include those peoples (French, German, Russian)? To them, you're the same, and they're right. Genetically, you are related to them.
>I like them and their culture but they're not the same as me
You are on Yea Forums, so can I ask if you don't see a cultural continuity between yourself, Canada, France, Germany, and Russia. Well, Russia I could maybe see. But there is a overarching identity that we, in my opinion, all share. I mean, there's been dialogues between European countries for centuries on each ideas and books, etc. I'm about to hit the hay, so if you do respond. I probably won't read it before the thread expires. Sorry. Goodnight.

As uncool as it is, you're correct. The group of people not in the political minority must always be permissive of disagreement whereas the day's moral majority will try to destroy your life of stupid bullshit.

>*not in the political majority

I always feel like the modern far-right is the monster that liberals created. I disagree with the the far right to the point where they'd call me a lefty faggot, but you'd have to be woefully ill-informed to see the radical right as anything other than people who feel alienation and a lack of identity in our modern world. Whether they're right or wrong is irrelevant-- Their mere existence is the symptom of a larger social sickness.

Vindicated

This post being this underrated is proof that Yea Forums is dead.

we all know where the quote is from it's just not that funny

>mfw Nabokov thinks he is in any position to criticize Dostoyevsky

It's not even underrated newfag. Not everyone needs a (you)

More likely to be some ironybro twitter personality.

t. refuses the corn

He also drank water, I'd imagine

Imagine being this unaware of your privilege.

I thought Crime and Punishment sucked ass. AMA.

Read Demons. Almost 1000 pages of Dosto dabbing on liberals

This. As someone who browses it and is only half white, there is a ton of infighting, a ton of larpers of various kinds, but we all unanimously agree (more or less) that the left is retarded, traditional values are greater than progressive values, and democracy is fucking stupid.

Maybe you should hop back and stay there.

>claptrap reactionary journalism
what the hell is "reactionary journalism"and where can i find it

Attached: Screenshot_2019-06-11 lit - Literature.png (864x1864, 193K)

Lord forgive this poster

Pyotr is based though

>How much do you think the average /pol/ack donates to help the poor?
this is marxist propaganda the bible does not support mindlessly giving money to poor people considering a large amount of poor people are scum

Nice meme non-statement

>muh privilege
If you don't have nigger tier iq, earning money is easy.

>the bible does not support mindlessly giving money to poor people considering a large amount of poor people are scum
Yeah, I remember learning about how the Catholic church stopped giving alms because a large amunt of poor peopel are scum.. one of the encyclicals i think..

Charity and tending to the sick ar iportant christian virtues user. And fwiw he Bible doesn't support praying in front of images either, it even considers that a very dubious practice, yet almost all Christians except Protestant regularly do it.

>Yeah, I remember learning about how the Catholic church stopped giving alms because a large amunt of poor peopel are scum.. one of the encyclicals i think..
>The church
You mean the catholic church? Who cares they're freaks

>tending to the sick and poor
Yeah the sick and poor Christians not just every sick and poor person you run into

Jesus didn't just randomly heal people who didn't even believe in him. That wouldn't even make sense.
>praying in front of images
wtf are you talking about, if you're talking about Catholics idk they're insane

>Yeah the sick and poor Christians not just every sick and poor person you run into
People didn't ask for poorfag's Christianity cards before giving charity. As long as you weren't obviously Jewish or Muslim it was fine. And even then, there is a long tradition of giving even to non-Christians.

>wtf are you talking about, if you're talking about Catholics idk they're insane
How many non-Protestant Christian denominations that don't rely heavily on iconography do you know? Orthodox are just as guilty on that count.
Also Catholics are like half of Christians, you can' t brush them aside like that.

>Imagine believing he’d have any use for the internet at all

>People didn't ask for poorfag's Christianity cards before giving charity. As long as you weren't obviously Jewish or Muslim it was fine. And even then, there is a long tradition of giving even to non-Christians.
This entire line of text is pure gibberish, have you even read the bible?

>Jesus didn't just randomly heal people who didn't even believe in him.
Have you read the gospels ??

IQ is mostly hereditary so please understand the privilege you (supposedly) have.

Attached: Income & IQ.png (640x466, 212K)

Not him, but as I recall Jesus only healed those who displayed faith in him.

Funnily enough he actually is

even Lazarus?

american psycho

>the movie has him saying that
>the book has him saying this

what's the deal?

Attached: american psycho jewish restaurant.png (1000x1249, 686K)

I don't understand your question. Are you saying "Did Jesus heal even Lazarus, among those who had faith in him?" or are you saying "Did Lazarus have faith in Jesus?" The answer to both is yes.

no he's not

he's really not at all.

I just want to have bantz with Lovecraft, Howard and Hodgson.

It wasn't a statement, it was an advice.

The liberals of 19th century Russia have nothing to do with the liberals of today. Those liberals actually fought for things like anyone having the right to own a private property/land. The only parallel you can draw to modern liberals are the radical ones that were mostly young people who saw the movement as an opportunity to rebel for the sake of rebelling against the Tsar, and are the one Dosto was criticizing in general as being misguided. There are other parallels, like powerful opportunists using the movement to make money out of, and how it's losing its core ideas. I just feel like a distinction needs to be made, so people don't get the book expecting Dostoevsky to go full /pol/tard like probably OP, who has never read any of his books, expects. Same with the so called "nihilists" in his books, that have very little to do with what is understood today as nihilism.