True. I am basing my opinion on a review. However, if the review is accurate to the contents, then I believe my opinion is still justified (especially if the review is accurate).
Is it likely Woods, who has a multi year animus toward Brahmin, has written a fair critique of a book 250+ pages long, released less than 48 hours ago?
Or is it more likely he has spent all of Wednesday rushing a hatchet job, with no intention of engaging with the text in a reasonable manner?
It's not that difficult to read a 250 page book in a day, especially when there is little of intellectual substance and most of is essays Brahmin has published before.
What does "rushing a hatchet job" even mean here? You don't have to sit on the book for a week to conclude that thinking The Terminator represents Hitler or that John Connor is Jesus Christ is straight up retarded.
Should be easy for you to defend the contents of the book then if you've read it and we're all just arguing in bad faith. But I suspect you're not gonna do that.
Well, you tell me then; did you read the book as well? If so, how accurate would you say this review is in reference to its contents? Regardless of whatever is more likely in his case, what too is more likely? That the Jews have conducted an over 2000 year old anti-white propaganda campaign or that Jews simply have more power now in western societies than ever before at this moment and simply dislike white people and act accordingly?
The problem here is that these two authors thought they were Nietzsche 2, and could copy his quasi aphoristic style that looks like vibes based association of different ideas and historical facts into a coherent whole, make birth of tragedy 2, and influence generations to come.
The problem: Nietzsche was one of the preeminent authorities on classical Greece even at the young age that he was writing the Birth of Tragedy (which itself is a coherent work with extreme clarity and clear arguments). It's through the thorough understanding of the material that he was able to come up with his analysis and novel ideas.
It's clear that these two have had neither the intellectual capability to be Nietzsche nor did they put in the work to become world-rank scholars to come even close. The result is a desperate attempt to produce something world revolutionary and provocative like Nietzsche, but it ends up a garbled together mess of nonsense.
Some insights aren't even that wrong — as you said it makes sense that for example Jews would be interested in stories of double identity, if you study biographies etc. But you can explain this purely through genealogy and material conditions. Looking the same, yet being different deep down was a structurally common experience for Jews to have. That Jews have an interest in moralising themselves, or their own philosophical ideas they may have gotten from their structural situation in European society, sure, I guess. Elaborating that into a massive conspiracy theory of Jews deliberately putting symbols absolutely everywhere just to put "Aryans" down is completely insane.
This book is and REM in general is a catastrophe for the right because with it the rightis effectively left with nothing philosophically or conceptually concrete to build itself up on that isn't Catholic integralism, which is on very shaky ground itself since the Church is trying hard to kill and excommunicate them. Atheism doesn't seem to be a way forward, as Richard Dawkins himself admitted. "Cultural Christian" is just liberalism. A way out has to be found, and with this Apollonism is completely dead. It had potential; hardcore Pan-Europeanism, anti-thirdworldism, pro-Ukraine, moving beyond Christianity, relatively cool symbols and so on.
It seemed like they were trying to provide the right wing with an idea that went beyond mere Conatus. The right is mostly fixed on something like: "I want to preserve my culture and my people and I don't need anything more than that." That's what Jared Taylor has been doing for 30 years and it's boring, empty, uninspiring. Nobody cares. Mere self preservation isn't a value and and Nietzsche himself realised this. And with the failure of this, I guess, the Western right wing is literally just Conatus or Christianity against Christianity.
I'd be interested to hear what you have to say to this conundrum especially.
I admit I gave up halfway through, but considering most of it isn't even new and just strucurally the same as Mark's blog there's really no reason to read it.
The theory was so stupid I couldn’t finish it, thanks for the audio version though. Do you think the conspiracy-theory right is being organized deliberately to discredit people on the right? Or is it just people trying to make money?
The myths of Saturn and Liber Pater obviously hold subversive conscious power. Vulcan, Prometheus, Hermes, are up for more debate and reconciliation I believe. There is something to what they are highlighting. Saturnalia, and the conception of the Golden Age as a metaphysical good, was ultimately a detrimental ontology for the Romans. The Bacchae tells us the ultimate nature of Dionysus. I think it's a necessary debate, and a conclusion to reach, that the Greco-Roman system willingly embraced substrates of collapse
They are presenting a theory so the burden of proof is on them. I don't have to present an alternative theory about the esoteric meaning of Ant-Man's name.
The greatest gripe I may have with it based on this review so far is equating (or at least putting in the same camp) Bacchus with Saturn. I am still compelled to read the work myself but at least now have an idea.
The overall architecture of the ideas proposed in the book seem/feel like a rip-off of Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morality. The use of myths and symbols is, without a doubt, overlaid and heavily influenced by Nietzsche's position on Judaism. However, it appears from your criticism not to have the finesse or deeper substantive character of its influence.
It is obvious this is a personal attack on the authors. You are in Ireland where the book was released at 9.20pm on Tuesday. So with no prior notice of its release, you were able to instantly clear your entire schedule for Weds to do this?
43 hours later, you’ve apparently managed to read their 250+ page book and written a detailed analysis of it.
Just bad faith, childish behaviour that reflects poorly on you. Comes across as desperate.
Referencing the Dyer debate says it all. Any neutral person could see Dyer was being extremely rude to MB for no reason, early on referring to him as ‘ludicrous’ and openly laughing at him, with the obvious desire of forcing an argument, instead of a discussion.
Reading a book in a day isn't difficult, amd none of this is very intellectually challenging anyway. A huge portion is just making Jewish connections to popular media, and much of it has been previously published in blog form by Brahmin. I read most of it the night it was released.
I did all my college essays the night they were due and got straight A's in uni. It's called locking in.
You're acting like I'm pretending to be neutral on the theory and its promoters lol. Yes I was motivated to show what utter drivel this stuff is, we've been waiting 7 years for this release. That doesn't make my arguments any less correct.
I'm a long-time fan of Richard, but I've never understood the association with Mark. I remember back when Richard used to be on Heel Turn with Joachim, and they would bring Mark on to make the case that, "reality [itself] is Jewish!" I consider myself woke on the JQ, but Mark is just absurd. Maybe I'm too low IQ.
Perhaps, and I don’t know, Richard doesn’t care much about religion, and he views Mark’s vision as something passable enough, which glorifies himself as an enlightened guide for the stupid people —I think that’s the part that matters.
Occam’s razor at its finest. One can recognize Jewish disdain for western people without needing such a grand conspiracy.
You haven’t read the book yet you’re online denouncing it. Lol.
True. I am basing my opinion on a review. However, if the review is accurate to the contents, then I believe my opinion is still justified (especially if the review is accurate).
Is it likely Woods, who has a multi year animus toward Brahmin, has written a fair critique of a book 250+ pages long, released less than 48 hours ago?
Or is it more likely he has spent all of Wednesday rushing a hatchet job, with no intention of engaging with the text in a reasonable manner?
It's not that difficult to read a 250 page book in a day, especially when there is little of intellectual substance and most of is essays Brahmin has published before.
What are KW’s motivations in
-instantly clearing his diary at 9pm on Tues
-spending all Weds reading a 250+ page book written by Brahmin who he hates
-writing 5-10k words on it
-posting it Thurs afternoon
I’m sure it’s to be even handed and fair
? You can easily read a 250 pages book in a day.
What are KW’s motivations in
-instantly clearing his diary at 9pm on Tues
-spending all Weds reading a 250+ page book written by Brahmin who he hates
-writing 5-10k words on it
-posting it Thurs afternoon
I’m sure it’s to be even handed and fair
What does "rushing a hatchet job" even mean here? You don't have to sit on the book for a week to conclude that thinking The Terminator represents Hitler or that John Connor is Jesus Christ is straight up retarded.
It’s obvious what I mean.
Your following comments show you haven’t read it either.
All you imbeciles ever respond is ‘retarded lol’ really insightful stuff 👍
Should be easy for you to defend the contents of the book then if you've read it and we're all just arguing in bad faith. But I suspect you're not gonna do that.
Well, you tell me then; did you read the book as well? If so, how accurate would you say this review is in reference to its contents? Regardless of whatever is more likely in his case, what too is more likely? That the Jews have conducted an over 2000 year old anti-white propaganda campaign or that Jews simply have more power now in western societies than ever before at this moment and simply dislike white people and act accordingly?
The problem here is that these two authors thought they were Nietzsche 2, and could copy his quasi aphoristic style that looks like vibes based association of different ideas and historical facts into a coherent whole, make birth of tragedy 2, and influence generations to come.
The problem: Nietzsche was one of the preeminent authorities on classical Greece even at the young age that he was writing the Birth of Tragedy (which itself is a coherent work with extreme clarity and clear arguments). It's through the thorough understanding of the material that he was able to come up with his analysis and novel ideas.
It's clear that these two have had neither the intellectual capability to be Nietzsche nor did they put in the work to become world-rank scholars to come even close. The result is a desperate attempt to produce something world revolutionary and provocative like Nietzsche, but it ends up a garbled together mess of nonsense.
Some insights aren't even that wrong — as you said it makes sense that for example Jews would be interested in stories of double identity, if you study biographies etc. But you can explain this purely through genealogy and material conditions. Looking the same, yet being different deep down was a structurally common experience for Jews to have. That Jews have an interest in moralising themselves, or their own philosophical ideas they may have gotten from their structural situation in European society, sure, I guess. Elaborating that into a massive conspiracy theory of Jews deliberately putting symbols absolutely everywhere just to put "Aryans" down is completely insane.
This book is and REM in general is a catastrophe for the right because with it the rightis effectively left with nothing philosophically or conceptually concrete to build itself up on that isn't Catholic integralism, which is on very shaky ground itself since the Church is trying hard to kill and excommunicate them. Atheism doesn't seem to be a way forward, as Richard Dawkins himself admitted. "Cultural Christian" is just liberalism. A way out has to be found, and with this Apollonism is completely dead. It had potential; hardcore Pan-Europeanism, anti-thirdworldism, pro-Ukraine, moving beyond Christianity, relatively cool symbols and so on.
It seemed like they were trying to provide the right wing with an idea that went beyond mere Conatus. The right is mostly fixed on something like: "I want to preserve my culture and my people and I don't need anything more than that." That's what Jared Taylor has been doing for 30 years and it's boring, empty, uninspiring. Nobody cares. Mere self preservation isn't a value and and Nietzsche himself realised this. And with the failure of this, I guess, the Western right wing is literally just Conatus or Christianity against Christianity.
I'd be interested to hear what you have to say to this conundrum especially.
thats a lot of words to write about a book you havent read yet
You are presenting yourself as an authority on a book you have not even read. What a fucking idiot!
I admit I gave up halfway through, but considering most of it isn't even new and just strucurally the same as Mark's blog there's really no reason to read it.
So you joined Alexandria, downloaded the book and read half of it?
This is a lie, just admit it 👍
None of this happened.
The theory was so stupid I couldn’t finish it, thanks for the audio version though. Do you think the conspiracy-theory right is being organized deliberately to discredit people on the right? Or is it just people trying to make money?
I'm actually more convinced that their theory is correct after reading this.
Keith doing Apollo’s work for us lmao
The myths of Saturn and Liber Pater obviously hold subversive conscious power. Vulcan, Prometheus, Hermes, are up for more debate and reconciliation I believe. There is something to what they are highlighting. Saturnalia, and the conception of the Golden Age as a metaphysical good, was ultimately a detrimental ontology for the Romans. The Bacchae tells us the ultimate nature of Dionysus. I think it's a necessary debate, and a conclusion to reach, that the Greco-Roman system willingly embraced substrates of collapse
Hopefully Spencer is being lazy, claiming credit for something of which he wrote none.
If you believe that these symbols mean something else, present your argument. Instead you are effectively just engaging in the culture of critique.
They are presenting a theory so the burden of proof is on them. I don't have to present an alternative theory about the esoteric meaning of Ant-Man's name.
youre effectively saying that such names are meaningless then. chosen at random. i personally find this highly unlikely.
No I am not lol
okay then why is Ant-Man named that?
more importantly, what does the story of Laban’s flock mean?
“WHY IS ANT-MAN NAMED THAT?!”
Take a good look at yourself
what does the parable of Laban’s flock mean. why was it included in the Bible.
Do you wear ant-man pajamas?
Literally nobody cares…
Isn’t that all that matters in the end
If you don’t care why are you here commenting?
We’re making fun of you guys
You can run along now. Avengers Doomsday will drop soon, and I don’t know how you spergs will be able to handle it.
😂 you online nerds are something else.
nah i think ill stay. want to hear your explanation of Laban’s flock.
tactical nihilism
The greatest gripe I may have with it based on this review so far is equating (or at least putting in the same camp) Bacchus with Saturn. I am still compelled to read the work myself but at least now have an idea.
I was hoping that we’re all over the jewish-mania we used to have, seeing jews as nearly all-powerful.
It’s good to become red-pilled, but even better to see their power as sourced from a tangible power base, not ancient psychic magic.
Giving them way too much credit here: essentially time-traveling lords of the universe.
My therapist: "Keith Apollo is not real, he cannot hurt you"
Keith Apollo:
True or false: Mark Brahmin has one of the most jewish voices you've ever heard?
The overall architecture of the ideas proposed in the book seem/feel like a rip-off of Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morality. The use of myths and symbols is, without a doubt, overlaid and heavily influenced by Nietzsche's position on Judaism. However, it appears from your criticism not to have the finesse or deeper substantive character of its influence.
It is obvious this is a personal attack on the authors. You are in Ireland where the book was released at 9.20pm on Tuesday. So with no prior notice of its release, you were able to instantly clear your entire schedule for Weds to do this?
43 hours later, you’ve apparently managed to read their 250+ page book and written a detailed analysis of it.
Just bad faith, childish behaviour that reflects poorly on you. Comes across as desperate.
Referencing the Dyer debate says it all. Any neutral person could see Dyer was being extremely rude to MB for no reason, early on referring to him as ‘ludicrous’ and openly laughing at him, with the obvious desire of forcing an argument, instead of a discussion.
Reading a book in a day isn't difficult, amd none of this is very intellectually challenging anyway. A huge portion is just making Jewish connections to popular media, and much of it has been previously published in blog form by Brahmin. I read most of it the night it was released.
I did all my college essays the night they were due and got straight A's in uni. It's called locking in.
What are KW’s motivations in
-instantly clearing his diary at 9pm on Tues
-spending all Weds reading a 250+ page book written by Brahmin who he hates
-writing 5-10k words on it
-posting it Thurs afternoon
I’m sure it’s to be even handed and fair
You're acting like I'm pretending to be neutral on the theory and its promoters lol. Yes I was motivated to show what utter drivel this stuff is, we've been waiting 7 years for this release. That doesn't make my arguments any less correct.
I'm a long-time fan of Richard, but I've never understood the association with Mark. I remember back when Richard used to be on Heel Turn with Joachim, and they would bring Mark on to make the case that, "reality [itself] is Jewish!" I consider myself woke on the JQ, but Mark is just absurd. Maybe I'm too low IQ.
Perhaps, and I don’t know, Richard doesn’t care much about religion, and he views Mark’s vision as something passable enough, which glorifies himself as an enlightened guide for the stupid people —I think that’s the part that matters.