Let's get another /pol/ thread going. These are far too far and few between on this board. I'd rather see a daily /pol/ thread than another fucking /sffg/ thread.What have you been reading lately?>Thread Question:What is the single most strange or obscure historical happening or event that you've ever read about?
>>25292150Keep your politics out of my literature.
>>25292157This is a thread about political literature. Non apolitical literature.
>>25292150this fruity ass nigga plays fire emblem. point at him and laugh
>>25292161I do that.
/hislit/ OP here. I'm strangely flattered by this odd imitation thread. Can't for the life of me fathom why you decided to do this.
>>25292160Politicizing the aesthetics of literature is a gesture not a feature.>>>/pol/
>>25292179That seems a very political post to me.
>>25292150>What is the single most strange or obscure historical happening or event that you've ever read about?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Mexican_Chamber_of_Deputies_bombing_attempthttps://rense.com/general17/mossadagentsarrested.htmhttps://booty.substack.com/p/new-information-on-the-israeli-colonel
>>25292179That seems very post-colonial feminist queer and marxist post to me.
>>25292157your literature is a manchild escape, grow up
/pol/ schizo blatantly copies my thread>Recieves more posts in five minutes than mine does in two days Gay
>>25292182>>25292192Schizos detected.Stay in your containment boards.
>>25292193Aesthetics precedes theory.Let me guess, you read for plot?
>>25292195He's a weeb /vi/rgin /pol/tard. The ultimate 4chan stereoype.
>>25292150I'm reporting you for thread plagiarism.
>>25292194>>25292204We love debate here. Welcome friends!
>>25292188That's very concerning news.
Half the goddamn board is /pol/lit
>>25292197I read purely nonfiction to enhance my understanding of the world and build analytic skills. You read "literature" to simulate the comfort of breast feeding.
>>25292257Oh boy.
Been looking into Listian economics. Quite interesting desu
>>25294364>Listian economicshe seems pretty smart
>>25292179There is no literature divorced from the political. To take the position that a particular piece is apolitical is merely to engage in politics. Consider the statement>Trans rights are not political, they are human rights.This is a matter of politics. Indeed, even the question of human rights (what are they? how many? for whom?) is a political one, and framing it as a matter of moral necessity an aggressive act which seeks to make political dissent a legal and moral evil. Consider my own post, which is only a neutral take in favor of political neutrality; to accept it, to leave it unbanned, is to permit the question that human rights are not some divinely (by god or reason) revealed law but instead a dubious set of legal principles. There is no neutrality, and there is no apolitical statement.Investigating the way politics appears in a text, in the positive or the negative, in the way it is consciously expressed or unconsciously tints the narrative, is an enjoyable part of literature. This is not politicization, just an acknowledgement of one integral component of Art.
>>25292150SO, IS THE TOPIC POLITICS, OR HISTORY?ALSO, EITHER WAY, THIS THREAD IS OFF TOPIC: THIS IS THE LITERATURE BOARD.
>>25294402People like you are why current year is so fucking shit.
>>25294604Too bad. The naïve view of art is dead.
>>25294402>There is no literature divorced from the politicalYes, there is, read more. Just aa retarded when retards say 'everything is political' Get a gripNo, it isnt.
>>25292150My thesis is simple: mid 19th century communists, in seeking to politicize art, wound up achieving the same thing as the Fascists who sought to aetheticize politics. Convergent evolution though distinct but interconnected dialectical processes
>>25294662There is no literature divorced from the political, and "everything is political." Everything is submersed in and exudes the politics in which the work was written, and ideas which the author consciously or unconsciously expressed. You can choose to focus on one aspect of a literary narrative or another, but that it is political is irrefutable, unless one wants to deny the political's existence altogether. Politics isn't the imbecilic left-right sportsball you are imagining in your little head, and decrying something as retarded is not an argument.
>>25294554This thread is about how McKenna Grace became a slut and you ditched your obsession after she turned 17
>>25294725Wasn't my argument. Read more.
>>25292160Off you plop >>>/pol/
>>25294725I’ll throw you a bone, just one. You are suffering under the friend-foe dichotomy. That’s all you’re getting from me for now alright, you have been brainwashed and manipulated into this unnatural way of animalistic thinking.
>>25294364I have this and his American System treatise
is being a racist political because i may be extremely "political"
>>25296357Many people say so but I would argue opinions about biological organisms are not political but instead more fundamental.
>>25295710>>25295723Your argument is a supposed refutation of the statement that nothing is divorced from the political. Let me say it again: You didn't provide an argument. You merely claimed>Yes, there is, read more.and that it's>Just aa retarded when retards say 'everything is political'Again without any substantiation of a claim. My post was only reiterating the original point and calling out your non-argument. You making a vague claim that one ought only read more to finally be illuminated is a lazy and imbecilic attempt to feign control over a pointless basket weaving argument.Now you vaguely reference Schmitt without relevance to the topic. How, for instance, am I "suffering under the friend-enemy dichotomy?" I am only stating that just as texts are not free of the moral-social conditions from which they arise (and are read) they are also not free of the political. These political meanings are by no means definite, and may run parallel or contrary to the aims of the author; they may exist as definite articulations or symbolically, and are in all cases a construction of the reader and the text. You can deny the politics of Homer just as you can deny its aesthetics or its moralisms, but this does not negate them. What of this?>Be still, thou slave, and to thy betters yield;>Unknown alike in council and in field!>Ye gods, what dastards would our host command!>Swept to the war, the lumber of a land.>Be silent, wretch, and think not here allow’d>That worst of tyrants, an usurping crowd.>To one sole monarch Jove commits the sway;>His are the laws, and him let all obey.Is this pure aesthetic? Perhaps if you exist as a purely rational being apart from human experience. But it is the human subject which reads Homer, who reads the monologue and rebuke of Thersites and, even if unaware of the political dimension, is moved by it. Is it a snide smirk directed at populism, or the mob? Or does one direct it at the political reality, of the kings and blind worship, in the society from which this passage arose? You can appreciate it and its complexity without a definite (conscious) political stance. One can dissect it, analyze it, digest it, enjoy it for what it is whether one would like the Hegelian or Marxist position. In any case, the political dimension is either known or unknown, but by being perceived by the human subject, it exists.The Schmittian position on this is irrelevant. In any case, it is only descriptive of the point at which the many competing ideologies (conscious or unconscious, I must continue to add) achieve a definite form within society. The monologue of Thersites ceases to be a subtle force on the psyche, and becomes (for instance) the voice of the proletariat only when the individual defines his enemy as the bourgeoisie. Outside of this definite enemy, it has its political effect on his psyche, in the pushing and the pulling, towards or away, from political ends.
>>25295710>>25295723>>25297469You can retch and cry and whine over those who acknowledge the political within art, but this is not a refutation. The individual composes art within his political reality. His beliefs are shaped by the society he exists within, his approbations and opprobriations towards suffusing the work regardless of his own intent. Even when he has made it his aim to obfuscate his own views, the politico-moral systems available to him are invariably the ones he draws inspiration from to write it. Is it an outright political piece of black propaganda, as with Defoe's "The Shortest Way With The Dissenters"? Then even hiding, his views reflect the politics of his opponents. A romance, as with Longus' Daphnis and Chloe? Among many other things, the way in which the system of chattel slavery, private property, lordship and royalty, are reified by the text; even the social system of love as constructed is perpetuated by it.Is this not enough? Then perhaps something more your level. Harry Potter, as apolitical or politically neutral as it may seem, is an essentially bourgeois liberal piece in which the so-called rebels are really the enforcers of the status quo, in which the greatest front to that status quo, aside from the villain's attempted rebellion, is a validation of the very same system of chattel slavery they critique in the Death Eaters: Harry gives the elf a sock, and in doing so, reifies the system in which freedom is purchased with socks.These are only four examples (including Homer), but to go on and on would be pointless. Make an argument of substance instead of a pathetic and vague "read more." Yes, very interesting, and not an argument. I doubt you have much more left aside from>tl;dr>r-read m-more...>p-politics is socially constructed...Or vacuous LLM regurgitation. But aside from all of this, I am extremely interested in seeing how the Friend-Enemy Dichotomy ties into your "argument." It couldn't be something vague you said because my post vaguely critiqued depoliticization, could it? And, by extension, it couldn't have been your LLM name-dropping and you not knowing enough to construct an argument? Hm?
This is probably not a chart thread, but contributing anyway.
>>25297469>>25297474Sorry, anon. This >>25295723 wasn't me.
>half the board has been /pol/lit for over a decade>"we need a general"
>>25297475You're not allowed to spam low effort charts that no one reads here. Pick one book and discussion it.
