ITT: What I Read/What I Expected/What I Got

...

...

so you expected gay naruto fanfiction but instead you got gay dragon ball z fanfiction instead? remind me to stay away from hacks like homer

Saved

hahaha accurate

...

In fairness, it's both what you expected and what you got.

T O R T L L A
O
R
T
I
L
L
A

...

I remember reading that Alan Moore found The Blind Owl to be one of the most disturbing books he read.

What is in the What I Expected box? Is that a worm or something?

The owl scene from the movie "The Fourth Kind" Whenever I think of owls I think of that scene. Not a great movie, but that scene legit disturbed me when I was like 14 or something.

I wouldn't say the book is the one of the most disturbing books I have ever read. I would say he was just trying to out-kafka kafka except without the thin thread of black humor kafka had, plus more occult and surrealistic influence.

...

...

It was exciting as fuck 2bh.

needs more bitter cucumber ends

like seriously, wtf

...

Get off my board,

Is The Civil War better than The Gaelic War? Bello Gallico is pretty fucking boring, corn memes aside

I haven't read that.
Couldn't get my hands on a copy for cheap.
I will try with an E-book.

The Civil War is pretty rad. Made me feel like I'm reading a war novel instead of some historybook.
No wonder, since it was made for the Plebs as a propaganda tool (I think)
It's considerably shorter than Gallico. This one is only 3 books long while Gallico has 8.

Try it,maybe the faster pace will help.

The book wasnt bad, just not what I was looking for. I think Chambers has the same problem Lovecraft has but perhaps even worse: The concepts are a lot better than the execution. I like his ideas and even some of the stories, the non-horror ones perhaps more than the horror ones, but its just not scary. Where Lovecraft tries too hard to make it shoking to the reader Chambers doesnt try at all.

...

...

...

kek

...

The pacing wasn't the issue with Bello Gallico, it was just boringly written. Even the descriptions of fights were pretty low-detail and uninteresting. May have been the translation though. May get Bello Civili if I get on another Roman kick

...

...

...

user, that book was written decades ago. It was probably stone cold terrifying back then.

ur mum was born decades ago and she's still terrifying

housecleaning memery aside, that's a rather ridiculous expectation and surefire setup for disappointment tbqh

...

Upvoted

what the fuck made you expect game of thrones from that book

Can you explain the subtlety? I totally get it but that guy needs you to explain it, thanks.

what's with the second half then

...

I only remember that a really young Seth Green was in the movie adaptation.

Maybe we are just different then.
I found Bello Civili to be really exciting to read.

It had a few interesting concepts in it.
Really liked the dual language structure. You had to keep track of what each character knew/could understand

points for originality

Should I make a few more?

...

I hope you die of cancer.

>Ted Kaczynski
>/pol/

Don't be an idiot. He was a far-off leftist -- the type who comes to hate almost all of the left because they're not left enough.

Like "we actually need to literally destroy human civilization to end racism, sexism, etc." kind of far left.

...

I know. It still does not mean that I have to feel scared because I should cut the author some slack does it? Like I said I can see the ideas and appreciate them, the passages where he describes Carcosa are pretty great tbqh, as is the Prophets Paradise. He just does nothing with it for the most part. That half the stories were not horror at all, even in the version I read which already cut the last few out, is also very strange to me. Not a necessarily bad book but not what I was looking for at all and a bit of a letdown to be honest.

Could you elaborate what makes you wish this dreadful sickness on me?

>ted kaczynski
>end racism, sexism
[citation needed]

for me it was the other way around

>It is true that not all was sweetness and light in primitive societies. Abuse of women was common among the Australian aborigines, [...]

>Propaganda for example is used for many good purposes, such as discouraging child abuse or race hatred.

>Among other things, the system has failed to stop environmental degradation, political corruption, drug trafficking or domestic abuse.

Also, re. /pol/:
>The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can’t make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.

Source: Industrial Society and Its Future, a.k.a., “The Unabomber Manifesto”
wildwill.net/blog/2017/04/26/industrial-society-and-its-future-a-k-a-the-unabomber-manifesto/

Further:
>In an article on pages 21–22, Anti-Authoritarians Anonymous wrote:
>>[A] return to undomesticated autonomous ways of living would not be achieved by the removal of industrialism alone. Such removal would still leave domination of nature, subjugation of women, war, religion, the state, and division of labour, to cite some basic social pathologies. It is civilization itself that must be undone to go where Unabomber wants to go.
>I agree with much of this. But there is the question of feasibility.

Source: Answer to Some Comments Made in Green Anarchist
wildwill.net/blog/2017/04/26/answer-to-some-comments-made-in-green-anarchist/

The following are in context of criticizing anarcho-primitivism, providing evidence for negative aspects of primitive cultures:

>In other nomadic hunter-gatherer societies male dominance was unmistakable, and in some such societies it reached the level of out-and-out brutality toward women.

>Much worse are the forced marriages of girls in their early teens to men much older than themselves.

>Among the Eskimos with whom Gontran de Poncins lived, husbands clearly held overt authority over their wives [83] and sometimes beat them.

>The Australian Aborigines’ treatment of their women was nothing short of abominable.

>According to A. P. Elkin, under some circumstances-for example, on certain ceremonial occasions-women had to submit to compulsory sex, which “implies that woman is but an object to be used in certain socially established ways.”

Source: The Truth About Primitive Life: A Critique of Anarchoprimitivism
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism

His writings generally see sexism and racism as being *obviously* bad. He thinks that the mainstream left isn't honestly fighting against these issues because industrial society fucks them up.

Just because it is not in the thread yet

Yes

love that book

>tfw you see your content posted

never bothered with the other two books in the trilogy

...

Awful

...

...

I hate this and I hate these threads.

agreed. I don't know how you can't see strong environmentalism and strong anti-capitalism as leftists POVs. He's not even "traditionalist" like what bring right wing people close to him; primitivism and traditionalism are pretty different things.

Ted being widely considered right wing is actually pretty good evidence for Moldbug's hypothesis that right wing views are just those that are "heresy" to the church of liberalism.

Kek.

It fucking sucked

>Ted being widely considered right wing is actually pretty good evidence for Moldbug's hypothesis that right wing views are just those that are "heresy" to the church of liberalism.
That's very interesting. I had never heard of that hypothesis, but in radical feminist circles it's a well-known and constantly occurring problem that liberals keep insisting that radfems are just right-wingers in disguise. Exactly because radfems put forth ideas which are heresy to them, like critique of pornography, prostitution, and sex liberal ideals, critique of transgenderism, and so on. And it's insane with what viciousness they attack radical feminist women sometimes, simply for expressing their ideas. ("Radical feminism" refers to a set of ideologies here, not extremist or militant action.)

In which book did Moldbug say this?

...

I think it's in a "A Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations"

...

>in radical feminist circles it's a well-known and constantly occurring problem that liberals keep insisting that radfems are just right-wingers in disguise.
It's a well-known and constantly occurring problem that radfems and various adherents of "left"-liberal identity politics keep insisting that the anti-identarian radical left (Marxism and related) are really just right-wingers in disguise.

I kinda like Korn. Will I like this book?

>radfems
>liberal identity politics
>not Marxists
Wew lad. Lrn2radfem.

radfem.org/

Hmmm

Mistake #1:
Victoria Woodhull was a suffragette, not a radical (second wave) feminist.

Mistake #2:
Applying class analysis to other axes of oppression than just classism (such as race and sex) is not equivalent to liberal identity politics.

Mistake #3:
Appeal to authority, thinking that everything God and Father Karl Marx did and said was absolute truth and beauty, is dumb. If you are able to understand that Hillary Clinton's brand of feminism may not be representative of black and working class women or women in the third world, because while Clinton is female, she is part of the white American upper-class, you should be able to understand that Karl Marx's brand of socialism may not be representative of black and female people with additional particular struggles in society, because while Marx may have led the working class, he was white and male.

Also, I have NEVER heard of a feminist claiming that misogynist men on the right are really conservatives in disguise. They consistently talk about "misogyny in the left" when talking about, well, misogyny in the left.

>claiming that misogynist men on the right are really conservatives in disguise
*on the left

Please stop. These don't make sense. Either you're missing the point or you have fetal alcohol syndrome.

>Mistake #
lmao
Okay, let's go.
>Victoria Woodhull was a suffragette, not a radical (second wave) feminist.
This gives a view into what sufficient conditions for being expelled from an orthodox socialist org are. It doesn't matter what your intellectual foundations are or -why specifically- you emphasize petty-bourgeois institutions and identarianism, just that you do. She could be a nazi and the point would still hold.
>Applying class analysis to other axes of oppression than just classism (such as race and sex) is not equivalent to liberal identity politics.
Right, but that's not what she did, nor is it what intersectionalists do today. They don't decompose subjectivized discrimination into its fundamental causes within the class and material structure of society, they don't examine the mechanics of how oppression of socially-defined groups presupposes that of objectively-defined ones, and so on. Also "other axes of oppression" ishygddt
>Appeal to authority
No, it's not. I'm making a claim about what is and what is not "Marxist," not what ought to be. My words were "the anti-identarian radical left (Marxism and related.)"
>If you are able to understand that Hillary Clinton's brand of feminism may not be representative of black and working class women or women in the third world, because while Clinton is female, she is part of the white American upper-class
It's because her "feminism" is wholly an accessory to and device of class rule. As such, it's not a true or meaningful emancipatory horizon.
>you should be able to understand that Karl Marx's brand of socialism may not be representative of black and female people with additional particular struggles in society
The truth of a theory of how the world works does not depend on who it "represents" and how well.
"Additional particular struggles" are an emergent property of the specific form that capitalism's contradictions take and not states of affairs inherent to "the pathology of the human race" or whatever immutable, transcendental, context-independent cultural characteristics you point to. If you want to say it traces to nature, you open up a whole 'nother can or worms, too.
>while Marx may have led the working class, he was white and male.
Pic. You couldn't produce a bigger non sequitur if you tried.
>misogyny in the left
Clearly it's meant for "misogyny" to be a "right-wing position," and one antithetical to the emancipatory project, no? So you can dismiss positions as immoral without arguing whether they're actually correct or incorrect, theoretically justified or unjustified, how well they're informed by the lessons of history?

Also
>Mistake #x
Stop mansplaining, shitlord

>This gives a view into what sufficient conditions for being expelled from an orthodox socialist org are.
Wait what now. I thought your argument is "radical feminists are liberal identifarians" and not "radical feminists tout ideals that get one expelled from an orthodox socialist organization [that's dominated by white men]."

>or -why specifically- you emphasize petty-bourgeois institutions and identarianism
In calling anti-racist and anti-sexist efforts petty-bourgeois institutions, you're revealing that you're literally as ignorant on these topics as your average Trumpkin.
Have you ever read a feminist book?

>Right, but that's not what she did, nor is it what intersectionalists do today.
The topic is neither Victoria Woodhull, nor today's "intersectionalists." The topic is radical feminists.

>They don't decompose subjectivized discrimination into its fundamental causes within the class and material structure of society, they don't examine the mechanics of how oppression of socially-defined groups presupposes that of objectively-defined ones, and so on.
Radical feminists do all of this. You're basically summing up their whole gripe with liberal, queer fauxfeminists.

>Also "other axes of oppression" ishygddt
I'm not sure what this is supposed to express if not your flat-out ignorance of women's and blacks' oppression by men and whites. Do you *literally* believe that racism and sexism don't exist?

>The truth of a theory of how the world works does not depend on who it "represents" and how well.
And it was not the truth of classist analysis that I was questioning; it was its ability or inability to cover the particular concerns of black people and female people, which overlap with but are not equivalent to the concerns of working class people.

>"Additional particular struggles" are an emergent property of the specific form that capitalism's contradictions take and not states of affairs inherent to "the pathology of the human race" or whatever immutable, transcendental, context-independent cultural characteristics you point to.
Firstly, it'd be a great service if you reduced your dependence on fancy buzzwords, because it makes it really hard to decipher what you're saying.
From what I can tell, this sentence comes down to "classism is the only real struggle and sexism and racism are just byproducts of it." Which is bullshit, because racism and sexism also affect people who are on the same class level and would continue to affect them even if there were no hierarchies based on economic class.

>You couldn't produce a bigger non sequitur if you tried.
It is not a non-sequitur, because a white person has an incentive of upholding white supremacy and a male person has an incentive of upholding male supremacy.
Your picture is /pol/ tier. Try harder.

>Clearly it's meant for "misogyny" to be a "right-wing position,"
Except you just made this up. Misogyny is a male supremacist position. Racism is a white supremacist position.

...

>Racism is a white supremacist position
>No other culture ever knew racism
But whatever, glad to have more womens' studies majors on this board.

ughhhhh shit i was hoping this wasn't true. wanted to read this but i feel like i'm going to think the same thing

common nigger
how the fuck did you not get what you expected?

this book gave me the feels

I don't think so.
It's my favourite Camus book.

The Stranger sucked.

...

So true user

...

>Woooooosh!

Aw, you sure *have* shown me, my man!

Anyone with half a brain would have deduced that the comment was about US race politics. But you just had to be a willful idiot and miss the point just so you could pretend to have a point.

P.S. I just spent time in a thread that was on fire so sorry if I'm bullying you too much. You sure need to get your ass down that high horse though, especially when you have no idea what you're talking about.

here with caligula