https://twitter.com/nickmon1112/status/1092469779137482755

approved

https://discord.gg/YAmJPF

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/ralph-northam-controversy-political-correctness-no-statute-of-limitations/

@Overpaid one cannot agree with pol pot ideology

ho chi minh theory

and maoism

>Pol pot

at the same time

maoist and ho chi minh

GUYS

kinda compatable

IS DEAD

wait

RIP

really

time to host a 3 year morning period

when he die

like

RIP @ho chi meme

2051?

you're being discriminory

and i dont like your timbre

pol pot was too government debased for it to work with ho chi minh theory

maoism

is fine

but pol pot doesn't work with maoism or ho chi minh

these are my thoughts tho

i like the killing fields aspect

Hi

Hi

Hi

hi

https://youtu.be/YeAp1fPt8Eg

sounded good before the techno kicked in

Fite me

Well guys, I did it. I finally read the book *Revolt Against the Modern World* and it fucking sucked. It felt like if Hitler wrote Mein Kampf while he was high on weed. It had this weird mythological and romanticized version of the past as if the "old traditions" were better than what we have now. Yet it picked and chose traditions of the past rather than taking the past as a whole. It had that idea of the past being tinted with the values that we have now. It made me think a lot of how Focault saw the past. As more an argument than a truly materialistic and objective view of the past. We cannot return to the old ways because we don't really have a good view of the past. If you want to return to old traditions... you can't. It is literally impossible.

Seriously, I'd call it Fascist Mysticism. It didn't have any material arguments to make, but just a whole slew of mystical and spiritual arguments. It feels simultaneously easy and hard to argue against it because it's basis is in the "transcendental" rather than anything else. I can dispel it by saying that has no real basis in reality, but for the mysticist, who fucking cares? This idea of the past as when we were more spiritually pure is just an argument from emotion. He felt the past was better, but all he bases it off of is... well, spiritual bullshit.

Like, his argument for racial purity isn't based on the modern day scientific racism, it's based wholly in spirituality. He believed race was a spiritual thing more than anything. If your soul was a good one, well then you'd be born a white male. Kind of a hindu thing if I am being honest. How can we base that on anything? We can't, it's pure mysticism.

And the solution he gives in the end are vague as best and just imply we need a totalitarian state. He talks about the USSR and their revolution and he also talks about America but it's all wishy washy and never goes anywhere. It also concludes very vaguely. He says he doesn't want to provoke reactions or instill optimism and be objective as possible, but how can you be objective while also spending the whole fucking book talking about spiritual and mysticist bullshit? It's a waste.

The truth is, we cannot go back to the past. We have glasses on of the modern day world and the values it has instilled into us. You cannot run away from the culture you were born into. I has shaped you and molded you. Even your own view of the past will be shaped and molded by the world now. The "past" is just your view of it. You were not there. You will do, as Evola did, pick and choose things of the past you think were better. The past to you is not the past to me. You cannot return to the past way of doing things without taking a little bit of what we have now with it. Do not go backwards. Go forwards. Move into the future.

So yeah, bad book. 0/10