I now understand why a book should be burnt.

[Haim Arlosoroff]

This is a 56 minute video about Ur-Fascism. Hilariously, the author references mostly Jews for the academic description of Semiotics thereby seeming to give an impression that the systematic study of processing symbols and formulating meaning is done compulsively by Jews. I listened to all of it, most of which is an interesting history of Umberto Eco, his book The Name of The Rose, and the philosophical concept of there being a flaw in language where the Thing-itself is lost in the multitude of words we use to describe it and the emotional intuitions we form around the words. For example:

• A Cat, whether we call it 'a cat' or its name, and the coldness of not knowing a furball's name when it is so damn cute.​
• Authoritarianism, whether we call it fascism like we do everything or a more abstract but less hated name, and the ability to water down the term fascism until it is a meaningless term rather than a warning.​

However by the end of the video, all 56 minutes, KyleKallgrenBHH has only used personal examples for things that are morally good and political rivals as examples of moral or logical failings. He wastes time with four jokes consisting of Thousand Yard Stares over the length of time he has made Youtube videos for and the lack of anything to show for it. He remarks about how you can recall references and honestly think you came up with the idea yourself when you instead read about it and forgot about the book. That books might just be a long conversations between other books over centuries, and that fragments of that conversation might become lost as enough of the books themselves become lost. And that if insincere people are allowed to converse among the sincere people then all convictions become nothing but mockeries. The interpretation of words can make an innocent thing heresy, or allow fascism to exist under the barest of false pretenses. There are many ideas discussed in this video admittedly.

But then, after a god-damn hour, he fails to understand that interpreting fascism solely based on its actions is like trying to define roses by their hue or their length alone. That you can form better and worse descriptions for things and that you will always find edge cases when you try to define things with the barest of understandings. Ur-Fascism was a doomed work because it was written by an Italian citizen during the time of Mussolini not a card-carrying member of a fascist party. Its like trying to figure out what policing was in our times by the complaints alone.

I listened for an hour, and all I got out of it was how hard it is to define fascism if you willfully refuse to understand why people turn to it. That Semioticians are people that seem to lack any value system for the assigning of one intuition around a particular description over another. That the youtuber doesn't possess the capacity to understand fascism emotionally, and so grasps for meaning in an hour-long video about assigning meaning and definition for things. He literally says "I do not know what point I am attempting to make, I no longer know why I made this video, nor who I made this for." Then he plugged his Patreon in an emotional about face, because his patrons voted for him to make this video and leftist youtubers are just fighting fascism for the money apparently.

Kiwifam, have you ever tried to read a book, watched a movie, or spent money consuming product where you came away with the sense that all traces of this filth should be physically removed, that the author and the work should be burnt, and that book burning can be a just and noble cause? Fuck this Youtube video, it suggests something exists but an hour later admits it doesn't know what the thing is but shrugs the admission off as a clever in-joke.

​

TL;DR: Why is book-burning super cool? You know it is, even if just for this post. You know I'm right.

 

[Vingle]

It’s fun to watch muslims freak out about their book being burned on the news.

 

[BanquetMegaBowl]

Books are gay

 

[Bonedome]

Burning books produces heat which warms those around aforementioned books that are on fire.

 

[L50LasPak]

Book burning belies the terrible truth we will never admit to ourselves: that most knowledge is infact useless, even ignoring the political and emotional reasons to destroy literature. There are a lot of books that deserve to be burnt without even factoring in a distaste for their subject matter.

Major libraries infact have book burning programs simply because they are so large and they cannot give the books away since dipshits will try to return them even though they're clearly marked "DISCARD". It seems heretical, but once you realize just the sheer scale of books that are constantly going in and out of these buildings even in the present day it becomes clear why these institutions had to put these programs in place.

Are priceless rare books sometimes destroyed by accident because some clerk filed them wrong? Probably. Could institutions use their book disposal programs to discriminate against knowledge that has lost favor in the current political climate? Of course. But what would you suggest? Archiving every single edition of ever single worthless textbook and throwaway exposition text the building ever gets its hands on? Just give the books away anyway and deal with the literally hundreds of people returning "lost" books on a regular basis?

_

This is to say nothing of popular literature. Everyone old enough remembers the era of Twilight's insane popularity, where it seemed like every girl and even a suspicious amount of boys had to have a copy. Especially the first book, which I, almost without fail, will see at every yardsale or secondhand store. I distinctly remember one resale shop actually had a row of eight of them all sitting together on the shelf. Even if you are one of those rare nutcases that still thinks Twilight was good, even you have to admit that nobody will ever buy this book again in those numbers. The vast majority of the copies in circulation are therefore worthless. I almost never see more than one on the shelf at any resale shop now, and I'm pretty sure its because the extra they receive are destroyed at their processing facilities.

I burnt a copy in a bonfire the year I graduated high school. Someone or other's family had one they wished to be rid of, the fad was largely over, and we all hated the book. But I still remember someone demurring and telling me they felt bad about burning a book. It seems like a bad joke in retrospect, what with the fact that there is absolutely no shortage of this particular book on the face of the planet. Just because you take a bunch of words and print them on a piece of paper does not make them valuable. There's nothing inherently sacred about the written word. But even still, that random member of my group was bothered enough to tell me they felt wrong doing it.

Its the same deal with getting old books from relatives who have died. A lot of people I know react in horror when I tell them I threw out a lot of the books I inherited. But why? I went through them all looking for titles I wanted (Police Essential Evidence Library of Drugs and Poisons? Now that'll look good on the shelf.) so I knew what was in there. Resale shops did not need two more copies of Don't Sweat the Small Stuff, or yet another copy of proven hoax Go Ask Alice. Those are examples of literal trash, of interest to nobody, and I would be doing a disservice to society and the place of business by taking them there. So into the trash they went, and frankly that's where they belonged.

-

Society is very irrationally sentimental and the supposed sacredness of the written word. They seem to forget that in an era before computers, hundreds of thousands of titles were printed to be disposable. Paperbacks you might read on the bus, informational books that aren't actually very informative because they were meant to be read for trivia rather than any sort of deep dive into the subject matter. Serialized stories that are a chore to read because they have almost no compelling characters or situations and sold for $2 a pop back in the day. This doesn't mean every old book is worthless obviously, but there is a lot of unquestionably disposable trash out there. Disposable not because I'm ideologically opposed to its contents necessarily, but disposable because it was printed to be disposable.

 

[Kendall Motor Oil]

Ur-Fascism is a cornerstone of "leftist" thought and only because it redefines fascism to mean any enemy of the petite bourgeoisie and does so using academic language. Eco's entire book was a cope and seethe about how fascism was aschually just right wing germans and the trappings of "fascism" didn't apply to communism in practice. Imagine having to write a book to run cover for communist implementations because all of them became "fascist" and were all on track to do so from the outset.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

The simplest argument for book burning is anything that includes outright illegal material (most straightforward example CP), though of course you have faggots like Allen Moore having supposedly "tasteful" pedophilia.
The thing that is most annoying on the left is that they think the act of burning books is bad, but anything that is similar in consequence (or worse) is fair game for the "right" targets. So book burning is bad, but Amazon banning book sales or changing content of ebooks is legitimate.

 

[Osmosis Jones]

Trying to burn out ideas resolves nothing. You can't burn away ideas. Ripping ideas and ideologies out of societies by force has the inverse effect: it causes people to seek the forbidden knowledge, and it can cause radicalization since the ideas are not available to discuss. I value all of this awful political literature because it makes it easier to say that someone already had that shit idea 200 years ago and it didn't play out, here's the proof. Just think about how appealing communism might be if none of us could refute it using the countless crackpot musings of retarded commies of yore.

 

[Haim Arlosoroff]

Book burning belies the terrible truth we will never admit to ourselves: that most knowledge is infact useless

Thank you, people don't seem to get that we live in a world now where this is true. Where once the overwhelming truth was only a small minority of people could discuss topics and help society with their intellectual input, now we live in a world where everyone can just watery shit on a paper and it will get you a doctorate to something so long as society needs more representation of your demographic.

There is a signal-to-noise ratio problem in boosting everyone without filters. We are drowning in the rhetoric of everyone else drowning in the rhetoric until the dark sarcasm feedback of failure and depression shit-stains every message anyone can reasonable find. Democracy is killing democracy, and the only solution presented is more or less of the democracy rather than a counterweight of something else.

But I still remember someone demurring and telling me they felt bad about burning a book. It seems like a bad joke in retrospect, what with the fact that there is absolutely no shortage of this particular book on the face of the planet. Just because you take a bunch of words and print them on a piece of paper does not make them valuable. There's nothing inherently sacred about the written word. But even still, that random member of my group was bothered enough to tell me they felt wrong doing it.

The act of removing information, even when there are numerous duplicates, is seen as disgusting in an age of such sick hoarding. The death of information, and the work and lives it took to generate it, is such a reflexive fear nowadays culturally when we have the opposite problem today. We distress at the thought of getting rid of items and do not see the Hoarding disorder as a problem. We are drowning and are worried about dying of thirst. Hundreds of years ago we lived in a desert of words and carry the instincts of that out into the sea of mass information today.

We solved the problem of too little input into society and culture, but we culturally and reflexively push democracy, inclusivity, and the sacredness of information hoarding. There has to be an answer that maybe isn't reactionarily turning to censorship or turning a blind eye to the political problems we have today. However politicians spend all of their days trash-talking each other when they could be writing laws and displaying them at the public for public approval and political action. Isn't it weird that politicians are all on twitter but none of them are posting potential laws that would solve issues they think matter? None of them? Its because they're drowning in the public clamor and not able to breathe. They are in a cultural riptide and are mentally carried off by it.

I don't have an answer beyond political censorship or book burning the groomers and their texts.

Ur-Fascism is a cornerstone of "leftist" thought and only because it redefines fascism to mean any enemy of the petite bourgeoisie and does so using academic language.

• What is the political opinion of the disgusted who believe society is morally disgusting? Not cruel, but literally disgusting. Monkeypox and AIDS could be stopped if gays enforced self-control on their worse numbers but the average gay will not and so the worse gays spread literal disease to mass society. Sores and pustules like something out of the bible, and society just says Love is Love about it. Now say 'Nigger' expecting a universal standard to be the moral and legal response.
• What is a strong-man and why do people tire of democracy sometimes?
• Does a people who can suffer privation without complaint deserve a future more than a fat slovenly people?
• What belief holds that classes are unsolvable but that we can morally compel those that have much that they should help those that can't feed themselves? Class collaboration through moral fervor rather than class struggle and a paradise in the hereafter, what do you call people who believe in this?
• Why are we sometimes drowning in inaction, when the masses all agree with a single answer overwhelmingly?
• Why are right-wingers seeing the oligarchs funding leftism and turning to strong regimentation of the economy?
• How can a people be fed by liberty? Can they morally chose to feed their children this way, when the store shelves are empty?
• What do you do when all the regular political parties are the same?
• Is Mother Nature larger than humanity, are her laws superior to ours? Do we not struggle such that the fittest survive, will we not always? What forces or moral compulsions make us soften the harshness of life? Should not a proper government include those opiates-of-the-masses in order to compel each and every one of us towards moral goals?
• When you see the great questions and the problems of our era, what is the complete and final solution to them?
• What are the forces of reaction once the Kingship is no more?
• Who are the people who believe that the most prized possession one can have in this life is a people, or a tribe? That moral laxity is a sin when the tribe is suffering?
• What is the political opinion of those who believe there is a mass conspiracy, and that only a collective fervor or fever forcing hysterical backlashes can solve the problems of the era?

Fascism isn't even hard to define, its just infantile nationalism in response to something. Its just a flavor of Reactionary Politics if they got serious about defining it, they're just so up their ass about it while pretending to be scared by it. The 'Wow, just wow" doesn't seem scared, it just seems prudish and holier-than-thou.

Eco's entire book was a cope and seethe about how fascism was aschually just right wing germans and the trappings of "fascism" didn't apply to communism in practice.

The idea that only fascism speaks Newspeak, when liberal democracy invents new departments to deal with 'malinformation', is morally repugnant to me. Ur-fascism says that fascism speaks of a tribe as if fascism invented tribes and nations, as if the Treaty of Westphalia was a fascist constitution. In the era of feminism we are supposed to think only fascists oppose the modern sterility, which if true only means fascism is the natural answer which can replace sterile society. Heroes are chastized under Ur-fascism, which makes Stalin a Red Fascist right? I meant that part might be true, but is it admitted to be?

The heroes of the Soviet Union must be shameful people under the logic of Ur-Fascism. Its so backward trying to define fascism from the outside inward, you either understand the soul of your fellow men and the multitude of differences there or you can't. Fascism is very simple, some might say that is its fatal flaw. These people cannot define what is in the hearts of many many people in society, and yet they are said to be the wisest.

Trying to burn out ideas resolves nothing. You can't burn away ideas. Ripping ideas and ideologies out of societies by force has the inverse effect: it causes people to seek the forbidden knowledge, and it can cause radicalization since the ideas are not available to discuss.

Ah, but given that then, if it makes me feel better, what is the problem? It may not solve the issues of our day, but as a great flare it signals the anger and intent-to-solve within the mass of people who turn up to them. Watch the 56 minute youtube video from the beginning, where the promise that the 'Ur' in Ur-fascism can be understood better and its important to do so, to the end, where he cannot and admits he cannot in a reference to the book The Name of The Rose, and tell me that doesn't deserve to be burnt or deleted if as you say it would not harm the information therein. What a waste of my time, it should be destroyed.

Fuck that youtube video, this whole thread exists because I watched a video which wasted my time. Maybe it should be destroyed, but doesn't that prove my point?

I value all of this awful political literature because it makes it easier to say that someone already had that shit idea 200 years ago and it didn't play out, here's the proof. Just think about how appealing communism might be if none of us could refute it using the countless crackpot musings of retarded commies of yore.

We're drowning in examples of stupidity. I just want to clear the brush away so that I can walk around. Its just info-hoarding past a certain point, and we're not going to Mars or space because of the rot of it and its promise of everyone getting a turn to speak. Burn it all. I hear your wisdom in having examples to point to and say we've tread this path and that path towards no where good, but burn them all and be done with these failures in communication.

 

[Dyn]

Book burnings don't remove books anymore the books are still on the internet where anyone can find them if they care enough to look, book burning is just a virtue signal for frothing retards to get together and circlejerk each other about how strongly they agree, and you can do that in any A&H thread without having to commute to the book burning.

 

[byuu]

I want to print out all these autistic long posts and burn them.

 

[Wormy]

Who is the saint that you would appoint as ultimate and perfect arbiter of what should be burned and shouldn't? Who should wield that much power?

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

No, there is not.

As tempting as it is to burn books on subjects like say, queer theory, the even better solution is to preserve them, and let the filth speak for itself.

That way, when intellectuals 200 years from now start whining about how wrong it was for us to ridicule/persecute/punish the author, we get to drag them to the museum and show them the pages, sandwiched between glass, where they described their twisted worldview.

Like how any and all sexual taboos should be pulled down, up to and including pedophilia and bestiality.

Or how we should murder people for not wanting to give up their property to the public, how merely being wealthy or well-off is a capital crime.

Or how judging people based on their character/merits, without regard to their ethnicity or nationality, makes you a horrible, evil person.

 

[Osmosis Jones]

@Haim Arlosoroff

Ah, but given that then, if it makes me feel better, what is the problem? It may not solve the issues of our day, but as a great flare it signals the anger and intent-to-solve within the mass of people who turn up to them. Watch the 56 minute youtube video from the beginning, where the promise that the 'Ur' in Ur-fascism can be understood better and its important to do so, to the end, where he cannot and admits he cannot in a reference to the book The Name of The Rose, and tell me that doesn't deserve to be burnt or deleted if as you say it would not harm the information therein. What a waste of my time, it should be destroyed.

Fuck that youtube video, this whole thread exists because I watched a video which wasted my time. Maybe it should be destroyed, but doesn't that prove my point?

We're drowning in examples of stupidity. I just want to clear the brush away so that I can walk around. Its just info-hoarding past a certain point, and we're not going to Mars or space because of the rot of it and its promise of everyone getting a turn to speak. Burn it all. I hear your wisdom in having examples to point to and say we've tread this path and that path towards no where good, but burn them all and be done with these failures in communication.

It's just YouTube. We've had people creating absolutely useless and contrived pieces of work since people started painting on cave walls. This is why we have academic sources, encyclopedias, and peer reviews. If we open the door to deleting so-called stupid and useless content, we now have to define what's stupid and useless. We have to sift through the deluge of dumbass shit to determine who did a good job of making a point and who didn't and we have to do it without bias. Once we open the door to destruction of information and ideas in one regard, it does not stop there. We'll have to clean up everything else to reflect it. If this guy didn't make his video, someone else would have. We'd then have to ban discussion of Ur-fascism specifically or make a blanket ban on discussing fascism at all to prevent these ideas from coming up again, or just get rid of the platform altogether.

People have to make determinations for themselves. It's a part of being human. Taking away the option to review information or an idea is, on its face, a removal of freedom and liberty. There are no circumstances where gagging people or ideas is a good course of action. It is  because we never burn books that we are even having this discussion. Our only hope against the future is the literature, ideas, and information passed down by both intellectuals and fucking retards throughout the ages.

 

[Sage In All Fields]

Yes, books of blasphemy or that depict immorality in a positive light should be burned. The only people who ever complain about this stuff are fools or foul, immoral people themselves, and their opinions do not deserve any consideration.

It’s fun to watch muslims freak out about their book being burned on the news.

 

[Wormy]

Yes, books of blasphemy

Ain't freedom of religion a bitch?

 

[Sage In All Fields]

Ain't freedom of religion a bitch?

Yes.

 

[Wormy]

Yes.

Too bad for you then. It's not going anywhere here. At least until the coup finishes anyway.

 

[Sage In All Fields]

Too bad for you then. It's not going anywhere here. At least until the coup finishes anyway.

I wouldn't be so certain, we're living in very exciting times, lots of change is coming.

 

[Wormy]

I wouldn't be so certain, we're living in very exciting times, lots of change is coming.

Glad I won't be alive to see it. Your world is a nightmare.