/lit/ - Literature

>>23370906
im trans btw

Because they actually have something to problematize. Most right-wingers are basically perfectly aligned to the establishment, so they have no real reason to require being critical. Exceptions notwithstanding, of course.

All you have left is Zizek, as a direct result of the culture becoming ever increasingly leftist, which I know you'll claim didn't happen because it's not yet anticapitalist, which reveals your own intellectual acuity.

>>23370906
Couldn't have picked a more exemplary cast of characters to show why that's not case.

This thread again, nigga? bruh

>>23370906
Those who can do, philosophize

>>23370909
The essence of leftism is "the establishment, but more so".

left/right dichotomy has been dividing people since at least Roman times

>>23370906
There's nothing inherentky leftist about Sartre's existentialism. Hr just happened to call himself a marxist even though existentialism contradicts marxism. It was just chic to be a marxist back then. It still is, in fact

How would right wing philosophical inquiry even work?
>well, we looked at things, and it turns out everything is perfect the way it is, and any change in the status quo is unthinkable, impossible anyway, and morally wrong even if it could be done
Once you've read Pope's essay on man what left is there to say?

>>23370923
this

>>23370923
How do the two contradict? I don't ask this argumentatively, I'm just not familiar with existentialism.

>>23370928
Leftists have to gaslight that the status quo doesn't love them to maintain their underdog narrative. The right will get crushed by the state entirely while you cheer it on, seeing no contradiction.

>>23370923
>What is Critique of Dialectal Reason?

>>23370923
He in fact rejected his previous existentialism when he became a Marxist, calling it a French fad.

>>23370928
this, de Maistre and Haller is basically exactly what we have right now. Meanwhile, the Left's proposal of liberalism but more handouts and brown people, now *that's* revolutionary.

>>23370906
It is not, it had only wrestled control of the institutions from liberals after the second world war. You are not well read when you haven't ventured outside of the thought that's advocated in academia.

>>23370928
The right's position is pro hierarchy, and hierarchy will always exist. The current push for equality in all spheres of life in the west is nothing more than a massive experiment, with the right already foretelling its failure. The right's inquiry is the search and propagation of that which is superior, the right is not "against change", but against "degeneration" or decay, the quintessential logic of the right can be found in eugenics.

*Weininger’s in your path*

>>23370906
>philosophical inquiry
>literally informing them that you have no answers

perhaps the right speaks with actual authority. Maybe the plebs don't want answers they want solutions. They want the burger without seeing the cow be slaughtered. In other words mass psychology has a very limited attention span and can't be bothered with philosophical inquiry

>>23370906
>egalitarian liberal democracy isn't egalitarian, liberal, and democratic enough, and also, let me have sex with children
stunning, profound even

>>23370988
Why are rightoids incapable of seriously engaging with people they disagree with without resorting to crude strawmen?

>>23370938
Existentialism says that humans are defined by their own freedom before anything else, before "matetial conditions"
Basically, existentialism says that the subject makes the world what it is or ratger that the distinction between subjectivity and objectivity is not clear-cut. In that sense, I think existentialism actually places ideology, the 'superstructure' as marxists call it, which is derived from human consciousness as being ontologically prior to material conditions. Existence precedes essence and all that. Sartre tried to reconcile the two by arguing that "true freedom" or whatever is only possible under communism or something but I think it misses the mark

>>23371001
You're right anon, in a thread filled with stunning displays of honesty and good faith like >>23370909 and >>23370928, I should have responded seriously.

>>23370974
Plenty of leftists are not against hierarchy and see it as necessary

>>23370940
>what is the book where Sartre does a complete 180 and abandons his original existentialism?
Beats me

>>23370941
Yeah, hence existentialism is not inherently marxist. In fact, it goes against marxist determinism

>>23370909
This. Also most of the "dissident right" people (/pol/ chuds, groypers etc.) don't even realize how similar their vision of society is to that of the establishment. Sure, they have a problem with the current establishment, but their grievances seem to be mostly cosmetic and/or demographic in nature. I think that their preferred society wouldn't, in the end, be very different formally from our current one; it would just have a different value system, or a slightly different, more strict social hierarchy.

>>23371018
Value systems and hierarchical structures are important though.

>>23370988
Leftists don't hate liberalism because of that. They hate liberalism because they see it as being authoritarian for not letting leftist freaks freely brutalize people they disagree with.

>>23370906
Always funny to me that the left tries to "claim" Zizek as one of their own.
That guy is the least leftist leftist you could find. Or I guess you could say he's the most real leftist in a sea of fakes.

>>23371018
>don't even realize how similar their vision of society is to that of the establishment
What vision is that?

>>23370906
Most of these were secretly right-wing, especially Benjamin, Foucault and Zizek

>>23371022
This. Leftists like to pretend that human belief or consciousness doesn't matter becaysr Marx duscovered the absolute keyes to the secrets of the universe when he reduced everything to made up things like classes

>>23371018
The only thing they would change about america is fewer minorities and lower taxes.
Its basic bitch republican country club politics from any point in the last 100 years.

>>23371030
And didn't Adorno pretty much tell cops to crack some student heads in 68? lmao

>>23371025
I don't know. His opinion about mass murder being good because it brings about more 'freedom' is pretty retarded imo. In fact, the left's whole obsession with emancipation and liberation is abhorrant and what marks them as being not meaningfully different from a guy like Jeff Bezos in any way

>>23371033
It's a misconception that the only form of change is destroying private property. It's a very narrow-minded view of the world and change in general. There is change in the smallest things and everything constantly changes. People who winge over "real change" as if their perceived ideal change is more "changy" than anything else are genuine mental midgets.

>>23371008
Leftists on 4chan generally lack self-awareness, please understand.

>>23371028
Well, I think that dissident right people are mostly isolationist conservatives or fascists. So basically their vision of society is just a reactionary and racist version of social democracy (often without the democracy part, of course), along with a return to the social hierarchies that were enforced about 100 to 200 years ago. (Just like with Mussolini's Italy or with Franco's Spain or Nazi Germany.) Not a very radical vision imo.

>>23371050
You say isolationism like it's a bad thing. They don't want the US to meddle abroad. That's something leftists should agree with if they had any principles.

>>23370906
Right wing ideas are just censured more and right win intellectuals shunned, so they can not accumulate enough symbolic and cultural capital to produce ideas in systematic and open fashion. Most of notable philosophers from Plato, who supported hierarchy and eugenics, to Nietzsche, who did the same and also called for extermination of weakling and ill-constituted would be considered righ leaning. The connection between philosophy and left-wing values is jsut a historical construct.

>>23370909

>>23371022
But you can't pretend to be a radical if your preferred society is the one we currently have, only with stricter, more old-fashioned gender roles and sexual morality, and with a more racist hierarchical structure.

>>23371065
>the existence of a racist hierarchy implies the inclusion of other races in anon's ideal society

>>23371065
Straw man. One could say the same about your worldview "just what we have right know, only with more worker-participation in control of workplace"

>>23371050
>Not a very radical vision imo.
Go to some random person and tell him that this is what you think and then get back to me. If you can't do that then I suggest you try to somehow gain more self-awareness or explaining how your "vision" is so radically different from the average normie that you might as well be an alien

>>23371068
This. Honestly, all this whinging about who is the bigger radical shows, if anything, that these people are not being serious. They are just want to look cool.

>>23371055
I'm not making any prescriptive judgements in that post, it's descriptive. I'm also very aware that many leftists agree with right-wingers on the issue of isolationism generally, if not on its methods. (Also, I'm not a leftist, although most people here would probably view me as one. I actually hate leftism quite a bit, probably as much as I hate rightism) What I'm saying is that isolationism, or a reactionary form social democracy aren't very radical positions to hold in the end.

>>23371084
it is a weird badge of honor. Plus it rests on false theoretical principles - that economic determination is stronger than, for example, ethnocentric or that of sexual selection. No marxist questions this basic premise, it is taken as a given. It follows then, that the REAL change can be only in material conditions (from which everything follows) and not in the parapheral areas (culture, values etc).

>>23370906
They're mostly crypto-theologians sneeking in anti-Christianity or anti-Catholicism for the Enlightenment and German Idealism under the veil of philosophy. Once you see it you can't unsee it - they're not really better they are just more okay with making theologically irresponsible claims about the nature of reality and though this feels innovative and interesting when it's really just a manner of rebellion. Foucault was mainly a pedophile whining about it in surgically crafted philosophy that is esoteric theology.

>>23371065
If the system is the worship of the bottom biomass in the name of equality, and someone comes and say "let's not do that" and changes that system, they are, in fact, "a radical". But besides, who cares about being le radical when you can just be correct, there's nothing wrong with "stricter, more old-fashioned gender roles and sexual morality, racist hierarchical structures".

Like I was saying, the infantile brain of the masses needs factoids fed to their shit eating mouths in bite size portions. Only enough to fill their craving without upsetting their tummy. Inquiring about the causes of their problems is too complicated a subject for them. Just point to another group and blame them.

This thread is aptly demonstrating the inability of the right winger to understand complex topics, thus the relative drought in philosophical inquiry from their side (even if a big brain right wing philosopher COULD perform excellent inquiry, why would they if their base couldn't appreciate it?).

>>23371068
>just what we have right know, only with more worker-participation in control of workplace
Completely disgusting, not my preferred society lol. But yes, this is unironically what leftists want, which is why I view them as a bunch of brainlets, just like with right-wingers and the "dissident right" idiots. But yeah, I wouldn't think of the thinkers in OP's post as very radical either. Most of their work, despite a few interesting philosophical notions, boils down to your generic leftism, to essentially just "more workplace democracy".

>>23371097
>This thread is aptly demonstrating the inability of the right winger to understand complex topic
for example? let's have a honest and serious discussion

>>23371096
I actually don't care about equality or about human rights or about democracy, or about any of the things that leftists care about

>>23371097
Pointing to a nebulous "systemic"/unconscious prejudice that's never been shown to actually meaningfully exist (implicit bias doesn't track to any behaviours for example) is just facile pseudo-complexification to cover up inconvenient realities.

Progress is innate to and inseparable from humanity. Leftism is an acknowledgment of the human character as it exists, not some misty-eyed dream. Conservatism is a response to leftism, not the other way around. Leftism is nature, and conservatism is an insular rejection of nature. The simple truth is that leftism has the mechanics of human reality all on its side. Conservatism is an artificial imposition on that reality.

"Theory" isn't serious philosophical inquiry. It's just propaganda dressed up as it.

>>23371111
This is like when you guys say history moves "forward" and never "backward". It doesn't even mean anything.

>>23371111
good, then stop yammering and just lean back and let progress take its course

Marxists reject morality and thus the search for truth, which is normative. This is the opposite of the spirit of philosophy. They have no real values. That's why they're mostly happy to syncretize with liberal progressivism in a Machiavellian fashion. That's why their newspaper "Truth" was notoriously nothing but lies.

>>23371117
It means that human beings constantly try to change and improve the world they live in. If humanity were innately resistant to change, we’d all still be hunter-gatherers living outdoors and dying in our 20s.

>>23371097
>Inquiring about the causes of their problems is too complicated a subject for them.
Leftists generally think that they can know with absolute certainty the true causes of people's true problems, subjectivity be damned because it's all just material conditions or whatever. It's actually leftists who cannot handle complications. Everything must be strict and adhered to dogmatically.

>>23371131
The inevitability of change doesn't mean supporting whatever instance of change is happening at a given moment, nor does it mean that change can only occur in a left-moving direction.
I think at least one of the people in the OP's pic would very much disagree wit your conception of progress.

>>23371131
Many societies have become more right wing, including ostensibly Marxist ones like China. Change is multifarious and can include a return to what works rather than indefinitely continuing to build this weird monstrosity society the left is pushing us into.

>>23371131
technological progress has nothing to do with political views

>>23371119
That’s my general habit, but sometimes I meet people who could benefit from the reminder. Whether they believe me or not makes no difference to anything but their own comfort and happiness.

>>23371131
No shit. Leftists, however, have yet to master the art of telling the difference between changes for the better and changes for the worse.

>>23371138
Actually, the two are inseparable, but since that seems to be a bit over your head… if progress weren’t inherent to the human psyche, slavery would still be legal, women wouldn’t be allowed to vote, etc. This isn’t a hard concept to grasp. You’re just an idiot.

>>23371131
>It means that human beings constantly try to change and improve the world they live in
What about the humans that specifically do not do that? Something doesn't fit in your equation. Have you tried actually reading any philosophy at all?

However, what you say is interesting. What you say is like a leftist version of biological determinism, and I always thought it would be possible for leftists to eventually reduce everything to some vague human nature based on biological principles.
Also, you haven't explained what counts as an improvement

>>23371140
The real issue is that no matter what intellectual window dressing they decide to use, the vast majority of them have the politics they do because they are interested in maximizing their own personal comfort/pleasure.
It's why there is no need to engage with these type of figures. they are a distraction that prevents you from engaging with what the left really is.

>>23371145
There's more slaves now than at the height of the transatlantic trade. You've accomplished nothing.

>>23371145
>if progress weren’t inherent to the human psyche, slavery would still be legal, women wouldn’t be allowed to vote, etc.
What on earth is the argument being made here? How does slavery being illegal and women voting bring you to the conclusion that "progress" is innate?

>>23371154
He is just clearly trolling

>>23371154
Because he has a totally not arbitrary end goal in which these two social changes that will surely last until the end of time lead to

>leftist goes full autismo-determinist
Love to see it.

>>23371154
He takes the rational human desire to problem solve and increase efficiency, and turns it into a inevitable universal mechanism leading toward his particular preferred society. Very common leftist way of thinking.

>>23371157
I'm just curious what he even means by something being innate to the human psyche. He's not reducing historical change to worldly forces like most marxists but claiming that there is actually something about humans that causes these changes. Idk, Marx talked about 'species-being' or something. Is that similar? Anything to not talk about ethics I guess.

>>23371157
Two examples I gave because of the rapemeat anon who didn’t get my larger point– the existence of civilization itself, and civilization’s ongoing ability to grow and change– that clarifies my point. Conservatism is quite literally just primitivism

>>23371165
I guess he also assumes that all the particular problems that can be solved are also innate in the human psyche

Everyone ITT who has bought into the "left" "right" dichotomy for a philosophical dialectic has failed philosophy.

>>23371169
How can one tell when civilization (whatever that means according to you) is "growing"

>>23371174
And your third option is?

>>23371174
Show us your superior model anon, I'm sure this one will stick.

>>23371174
But what else can we do, Mr. Empericus? Suspend judgment?

>>23371169
>the existence of civilization itself, and civilization’s ongoing ability to grow and change– that clarifies my point. Conservatism is quite literally just primitivism
Again, being capable of change or change even being inevitable doesn't mean that that change people should support every instance of change, nor does it mean that those changes will always go in a leftward direction. Slavery is a great example. One of the largest religions in the world has a sizeable amount followers that would gladly bring slavery back if they could, and given their demographic trajectory, there's a very good chance they could pull it off. That would be a change from our present situation, but would you consider that progress?

>>23371175
Line go up.

>>23371169
Also if you were really familiar with the thinkers relevant to this conversation, you wouldn't propose such a naive conception of progress nor would you appeal to binaries like that of civilization vs. primitivism. I;m happy that you're here to prove my earlier pint that "theory" is just window-dressing, and that the actual motivations of leftists are quite different than what can be found in these dusty old books.

>>23371173
I do. The human mind contains the seeds of all human cruelty and all human kindness. It couldn’t be any other way. I’m not saying that there’s some magical daemon of progress pulling our strings supernaturally from the background. I’m saying that human desire– a simple, utilitarian emotion– leads us, along logical pathways of self-interest and compassion, to reject cruelty as much as we can. Progress is “innate” because it answers our innate desires: social harmony, comfort, safety and fulfillment. Even conservatives are fighting against the grain of their own minds, repressing their apprehension of truth and living in denial. Hence the hyperbolic, uninformed, childish and violent anger that drives them– it’s the pain of denial.

Anyway, I don’t need to convince any of you. But out of compassion, I wanted to tell y’all that you’d be much happier if you stopped repressing.

>>23371191
>social harmony, comfort, safety and fulfillment
The four demons leftism is most determined to slay.

>>23371191
Why do you limit human drives to these only? Why cruelty, aggression, status and power seeking, war-like passions cant also be innate drives?

>>23371191
This is bait.

>>23371191
Well I guess I'll stop repressing and stop jerking it to horses. Thanks for the advice.

>>23371010
The fundamental nature of the left is a the revolt against all hierarchies and distinctions. Even if it never turns out that way in practice, the hope of the left is to create a raceless, casteless, classless society.

>>23370906
Both the modern left and right are shit and bland and they inquire about nothing. They are both merely a fake opposition to keep people divided and prop up the shitty liberal democracies and their corporate and financial overlords.
Oh, how I wish for that solar storm to wipe out all electronics so that it obliterates the financial market. Only then we shall be truly free.

>>23370906
Right wingers don't read, they watch Fox News.

>>23371334
Left wingers don't read, they watch breadtube.

>>23370906
Crazy how the only smart guy from this generation isn't pictured.

>>23370906
The right has great intellectuals like Leo Strauss, Alan Bloom, Alisdair MacIntyre etc. Horkheimer moved to the right towards the end of his life. Its just your average rightoid can't be bothered reading them and has no interest in anything intellectual. The vast majority of them are ragefilled 20 something year olds who are simply looking for someone to justify their hatred of minorities or validate their psychotic narratives, they are not seriously interested in ecomonics or conservative political ideas like Catholic integralists. They are just your typical gutter normie who hates trannies and blacks but is otherwise your garden variety of American liberal. They are anti-intellectual and unintelligent. The left on the other hand loves to think of itself as its enlightened and intellectual so they at least pretend to read. Although, if you look at the state of the online left today they are about as anti-intellectual and mentally deficient as /pol/.

>>23371356
>breadtube
What the hell is that? Is it some sort of commie knockoff youtube?

>>23371301
The simple way to understand the left is that it is easier to drag down than to lift up

I wouldn't call many people today philosophers, they are just sophists making peoples head spin around

>>23370939
The state loves both the left and the right. Stop kidding yourseld, chud

Intellectuals are bad, okay? What! But you’re so smart, aren’t you an intellectual? Aren’t you interested in ideas, and philosophy, and literature and… NO! You misunderstand. It’s very easy to be an intellectual, you start with a fundamental axiom or idea (just assume it’s true) and then you expand on the idea by writing books and essays. The next step is sitting in Parisian cafes and salons smoking cigarettes and having other people puff you up. “Wow, he’s so deep… the substructure of the integrand and bersurgundsweitsheish… at last I see…” Now with the patina of age and enough very smart and serious critics proclaiming your genius, congratulations! You’re an intellectual!

I said to start with a fundamental axiom or idea, but note, I did not say, start with a true one. All or most of the true ideas have been discovered, all of the low hanging fruit has been picked by the year 2024. It really takes a once in a century titan like Jung to come around and create an entirely new philosophical system and still be right. Intellectuals just pick an idea they like (not one that is true) and stick with it. “If we were to posit a cheese dimension you see… there is cheese everywhere! It is all around us!” But there is no cheese dimension… “Oh, ha, ha, ha, look at the unlearned pleb, look at this pseud! He hasn’t read Grouch’s Treatise on Cheesus. Is it too much for your small brain? Read a book.”

The problem with intellectuals is that 99% of them are full of shit, and often in highly destructive ways—see Karl Marx and John Locke. So intellectualism, being mostly detached from reality, is a typical leftist trait, because leftism in its most general terms is defined as disengagement with reality. When you see leftists decry the right for having “no intellectuals” it is because the right’s intellectuals are all dead. What more needs to be said? The right is the side of poets, because poets do not pontificate about cheese dimensions, but write what they see and feel. It is no mistake that the last great poets, the modernists of the early and mid 20th century, were all extremely right wing.

>>23371674
>The modernist poets were all extremely right wing.

Ezra Pound went crazy and became a fascist cheerleader, TS Eliot never got over his hangups about Jews, and Wallace Stevens was a Republican, but that’s about as far as conservatism in modernist poetry goes– erratic mood swings, ideological confusion, and narrow mindedness are the psychological hazards of art. Just because Pound’s intellectual failure made him a conservative doesn’t mean that his contemporaries and followers were. Or are you prepared to characterize Hart Crane, HD, John Ashbery (a very late modernist), Rilke, Akhmatova, William Carlos Williams, John Wheelwright etc as “extremely right wing?”

Because philosophy is garbage produced by the verbally tilted and mentally ill (who tend to be left-wing even outside of intellectual circles). Most of those within the intellectual right wing also resemble this general psychological propensity and produce zero fruitful works, but there's at least a minority that actually approaches the world in a scientific and data-driven manner. This minority is made even more obscure given that the left has a greater intellectual to non-intellectual ratio than the right.

>>23371701
Well yes, I just think all of that is based and redpilled, points in their favor. I noticed you omitted Yeats, wonder why? Couldn't think of anything bad to say about him? Outside of William Carlos Williams, the rest of those people are minor figures, not comparable to Pound, Eliot, or Yeats.

>>23370906
Because the left calls for change which promotes thinking, the right does not, I say this as a far right guy. However, the emphasis on material conditions inhibits metaphysics to a point which is why the best right wing thinkers are not philosophers but theologians and mystics.

>>23370915
So is the Right. “The wokes and muslims are taking our freedom, we need MORE freedom, MORE government” etc etc. it’s all the same shit

>>23371714
Honestly, Crane is the greatest poet of the 20th century and it’s not close. There isn’t a single thing in all of Eliot or Pound that can compete with The Bridge. I forgot Yeats because I’ve never connected with his poetry and don’t really know much about him. If he had right wing beliefs, he’s welcome to them.

>>23371001
Because you kind of bring it on yourselves by painting the entire right as “old, tired white men”

>>23371010
Althusser comes to mind

>>23371017
Which is why I oppose determinism in my writings. I used to hate existentialism but realized the existence-essence distinction is a false one but they work in tandem to draw up a canvas and then paint. Mankind will always be a unfinished work of art, and is not bound by any variable except what limits God puts on him.

>>23371018
Not necessarily. Incels have grasped that the different classes of people, which is not merely “cosmetic” can be divided between those who have sex and those who do not, which in order to create a just society, would have to be reorganized in a violent fashion not too dissimilar to any Marxist or anarchist ideology. The big problem is the ones on demographic decline do not fit the narrative of “poor brown people” and this angers leftists.

This thread is a helpful reminder that conservatives are useful for slave labor and nothing else

>>23371800
Not a conservative though, more of a reactionary

>>23370906
It's the other way around, one becomes an academic philosopher and then, as part of the babbling classes, gets to define what left- and right-wing means. One can make oneself look sexy and sophisticated by propagandizing one's own position as the enlightened, progressive, critical, anti-establishment, humanity-loving one...

By today's standards, many left-wing philosophers of the past would be seen as hardline reactionaries. They would be appalled by the dropping of intellectual standards in the name of equality and come across as ranting old men chasing the progressive youth off their lawn. They would defend hierarchies, discipline, centralized authority and other stuff that's le nazi - if they only could see what abandonment of those things leads to. Of course they would probably blame it on 'capitalism', a non-concept that's used as a placeholder for everything bad with the world. Pretty much what Zizek actually does.

>>23371826
I hope you get gang raped and never recover from the trauma.

>>23371800
political definitions are like toilet paper

>>23371858
Useful?

>>23371446
Broad stroke you’re painting there….right into a corner

>>23371705
Just say you’re a moderate liberal and go

>>23371856
Nice sexual fantasy leftoid, right up there with fucking little kids and miscegenation

>>23370917
Bimanual writers might build bridges for that reason.

>>23371018
Correct, the society was fine until the subversive elements took hold.
>no no no you actually need buligger government and more nogs

>>23371884
>Putting pedophilia and interracial relationships on the same level

Oh hey cool a literal subhuman.

>>23371893
Better that an intellectual anyday. Good thing the Khmer Rogue got rid of your kind.

>>23371893
>>Putting pedophilia and interracial relationships on the same level
they are on the same level

>>23371866
thin and close to shit

>>23371191
Based af

>>23371588
The bureaucrats and agents who make up the state think Trump is Hitler and Jan 6 was worse than 9/11.

>>23371446
>They are anti-intellectual and unintelligent. The left on the other hand loves to think of itself as its enlightened and intellectual so they at least pretend to read.
Yes that's true.

>Although, if you look at the state of the online left today they are about as anti-intellectual and mentally deficient as /pol/.
I agree with that too. I think part of it is they mine a lot from past thinkers but it's often a hodge-podge of ideas, often revived in an out-of-context way, or they'll use a guy from the 1960s in to justify something today but it's hard to make it "work" because the world has changed a lot, so you necessarily have to mystify things a bit.

I was thinking of the campus protests over Palestine and the anti-colonial discourse involved. The PLO was formed in 1964 and modeled itself on the FLN which had won in Algeria in 1962. Fanon had been a member of the FLN. But the PLO more or less failed totally. If you squint at it, the conflicts look kind of similar within an ideologically constructed narrative, but there are some holes in theory as demonstrated by the decades of actual history since then.

>>23371847
>By today's standards, many left-wing philosophers of the past would be seen as hardline reactionaries.
There have been people who say more recent left-wing philosophers have more in common with hardline reactionaries, like Foucault in the late 70s saying the Khomeinists in Iran have a "different regime of truth than ours" which makes them inscrutable in an interesting way (despite the fact that they'd have killed Foucault because he was gay). People say that Foucault was an anti-Enlightenment thinker and that is bound up in a lot of irrationalism (which is common in "right-wing" political thought).

But the history of ideas is also weird like that. Ideas are constantly flowing around like streams of water that are mixing together in weird swirls. Ideas move from the fringes to the center, and from the center to the fringe. They move from right to left, and left to right.

Clap-trapping faggotry is a nuisance when you have Nature trying to kill you, at all costs.

>>23373051
I think the anti-intellectualism stems from the fact right wing ideas have been verboten for so long that it ends up becoming a pressure cooker and they’re not allowed to voice concerns so it gets pushed down, becoming an ideological ulcer.

>>23373051
>”different regime of truth than ours"
This is why the left gets labeled as subjectivists, which appears in a different manner in right wing thought in regards to non-materialist concepts of natural law

>>23370906
They truly are. Let's look at some of these "adept" leftist philosophers shall we? Deluze for example:
>We can follow the becoming of these doubles in mixed semiotics, which are interminglings as well as degradations. On the one hand, the passional love double, the couple in love-passion, falls into a conjugal relation or even a "domestic squabble" situation: Which is the subject of enunciation? Which is the subject of the statement? The battle of the sexes: You 're stealing my thoughts. The domestic squabble has always been a cogito for two, a war cogito. Strindberg took this fall of love-passion into despotic conjugality and hysterico-paranoid squabbling to its extreme ("she" says she found it all by herself when in fact she owes it all to me, echo, thought theft, O Strindberg!). On the other hand, the consciousness-related double of pure thought, the couple of the legislating subject, falls into a bureaucratic relation and a new form of persecution in which one double takes over the role of subject of enunciation while the other is reduced to a subject of the statement; the cogito itself becomes an "office squabble," a bureaucratic love delusion.
Wow, this is totally profound and not just wordsoup. I feel so much more knowledgable having read it. I feel like I should cut my dick off now and larp as a woman and also let unlimited third world migration into the West now.

>>23373708
I think I've seen this passage before. Did you find this through a Joseph Bronski article?

It blows my mind how intellectually stunted fascist and conservatives are rn. Almost every conservative and fascist post here is saying some of the dumbest shit I've read on here in quite a while. If you're going to be a rival to leftistm, try to be a worthy one like Nietzsche. Not some parrot who can't even get one fact on their enemy, right

To answer your question, OP. Delusions and ego as self-sabotage, most if not all right "intellectuals" has this to such a degree it's not even a fair fight. Like a toddler fighting against Muhammed Ali. For example, look at Zizek vs. Peterson, Peterson actually thought he could get away with doing almost zero research on his opponents stances and win.


>>23371191
10/10 post anon

>>23373853
>Nietzsche
Sorry, philosophy is still gay and would be better off if recognized as a form of art. If you are capable, be a big boy and study the work produced by people like Robert Plomin if you want to know where the best of us are coming from (in terms of the information that instructs our instrumental values, terminal values are almost entirely of an inert and inflexible nature).

>>23373596
I think the conservatives are right that the universities have become ideologically narrow and conformist. But it was also a kind of impersonal momentum that extruded all dissenters over time as faculty aged out -- and since the value of "knowledge" has been replaced by "safety," and your being "ethnically safe" endangers me and vice versa, the whole thing is just about to collapse as the ideology falls apart along ethnic lines.

>>23373853
>Not some parrot who can't even get one fact on their enemy, right
That seems to be a problem running around in a lot of different places. Like, just not understanding the enemy, not being able to anticipate their reactions to your behavior.

>>23373853
>For example, look at Zizek vs. Peterson, Peterson actually thought he could get away with doing almost zero research on his opponents stances and win
Good example. Peterson really disgraced himself that day.

>>23370928
Are you actually this illiterate to right wing thought? Pretty much the entirety of religious philosophy (i.e., almost all philosophical works ever written) can be grouped into "right wing thought" relative to Marxism (which is what most genuinely mean by leftism).

Also, the late 19th and early 20th century is rife with important traditionalist and right wing thinkers. Hell, Adorno had a significant amount of admiration for Spengler despite ultimately declaring his "anti-ideological traditionalism" toothless against the modernist and futuristic fascism.

This isn't even getting into the philosophical underpinnings of fascism (from Sorel onward). I wouldn't exactly call figures like Guillaume Faye or Dugin "embraced by the status quo" in any meaningful fashion. They are both figures who are violently opposed by techno-capital because at the heart of their writing is a reminder that people don't need to the consumerism that allows techno-capital to reign supreme. Instead a better life of simplicity, brotherly solidarity among your ethnic kin, and proliferation of a dialectical traditionalism offer a road forward among the ruins of global capitalism.

>>23371191
>Progress is “innate” because it answers our innate desires: social harmony, comfort, safety and fulfillment.
And this is supposed to be the "intelligent" leftist position? Why did it take so long then, and why did it not occur anywhere but the West? The desire to throw gays off a roof and seems far more "innate" than preaching tolerance.
If anything, progress is a very fragile cultural creation and has to be looked after like a sensitive flower, which demands not too little and not too much watering; pretty much all revolutions in the name of progress tended to destroy it.

>>23370906
Hobbes

>>23373853
>For example, look at Zizek vs. Peterson, Peterson actually thought he could get away with doing almost zero research on his opponents stances and win.
Zizek's where are the Marxists line wasn't the epic moment leftists treated it as. Peterson's response about the urvey was a sufficient answer; he didn't have to name them because they named themselves.
Zizek "won" the debate,i guess (I came out of it thinking psychoanalysis was a waste of time in general, and that Chomsky was the real winner.), but the fact that that moment became the big, viral moment shows how the left was desperate for the own version "feminists get owned" videos that the right has been able to mass produce.

>>23373853
>It blows my mind how intellectually stunted fascist and conservatives are rn. Almost every conservative and fascist post here is saying some of the dumbest shit I've read on here in quite a while.
You should explain why then. I haven't seen anything of substance posted by a leftist in this thread, and every comment made by them has been thoroughly refuted. What I see is mostly posts like yours, who say nothing at all. What I have seen from the left is that they are promoters on a intellectually bankrupt "tradition" who have achieved a potion of power, and uses that position to to force the world into thinking that it actually has some substance. In doing so they, they are able to to dismiss the views of others without any real engagement, which is exactly what you're doing.

>>23370906
>pic related BTFO every leftist philosopher before leftism was even a thing

Why does that one leftist in this thread constantly have to reassure himself and his peer that right wingers are all stupid, mentally stunted, etc? Like, we get it, you are insecure and haven't actually read any right wing author before.

>>23374175
Leftists are not tolerant, don't be fooled. Their idea of tolerance is childish and boils down to them believing themselves to contain the essence of tolerence simply by being left wing which means they can freely oppress the "untolerant"

>>23374816
Because once people see the emperor has no close, all they can do is violently insist that he's dressed.
But it's okay, academic leftism will collapse under the weight of its own contradictions and the fact that the coalition building aspect of intersectionality is total bullshit.

>>23373905
>which is what most genuinely mean by leftism
What leftists generally mean by leftism*
They certqinly don't do themselves or their tradition any favors when they insist that everyone except marxists are not "real leftists", especially liberals. There are more liberal philosophers than there are "leftist" philosophers. Maybe that's not a bad idea. I'm all for painting philosophy as a generally anti-leftist field, historically

>>23371093
I genuinely don't understand how this fact isn't more widely recognized. The theological undercurrents deriving from Hegel's grand project are all right there.

>>23371753
I mean, I guess Sartre thinks something similar concerning transcendence(freedom, nothingness) vs facticity(limit, being). The main point is that you are never JUST your facticity just as you are never JUST pure freedom

>>23370906
Right-wing philosophy reduces to claiming that natural hierarchies exist or might-makes-right in its more vulgar form. There's obviously an element of truth to this, so left-wing thought needs more sophisticated tools to attack it.

>>23374597
Republicans get owned all the time, most Republican/fascist are just so delusional that they refuse to acknowledge it or aren't intelligent enough to know it. Zizek vs. Peterson is just an example of this type of delusion. The Right can't handle going against the majority of academia, so they have to live in a delusion (or once again are just too dumb) of giving morons absolute authority in their minds.This can best be understood with how fascist still love Hitler all these years later. If Fascists actually had a brain, they would realize that Hitler and similar figures like Musolini, made so many retarded decisions that Fascist shouldn't put them in a high pedestal. They would hit the books and think of a perfect leader and try to replicate them (of course this is still retarded but I'm not delving into the many prob of Fascism). Yet, every Fascist still loves the pedophile vegetarian wimp Hitler, an absolute loser just because he's responsible of many deaths. The fascist (and the right but with different political figures) are just inherently delusional, and their anti-intellctual dishonesty, whether on purpose or not, means they have to fake it when they certainly can't make it

>>23374608
You're delusional and biased, that's why. If I was a moderate or was a Republican again (when I was 16), I would still be absolutely ashamed at how dumb the Republican/fascist posts in this thread. I'm not saying this as a deflection to your point. It's important for (YOU) to notice how bad these posts are for yourself. Like for starters, look at the ESL's post. Besides their language skills being bad, do you notice anything else?

If you figured it out. That's what I mean, and I still respect (very loose compliment, they're still dumbass assholes) the ESLs saying something with stupid pathos, then the other republican/fascist anons in this thread.

>>23375087
No I need you to explain it. If it's so obvious, it should be easy to say.

>>23371169
>Conservatism is quite literally just primitivism
You do know that the height of Western civilisation, the Victorian era, was extremely conversative? More than 300, 400, or 500 years ago. Tribal, stone age society was extremely 'liberal'; if we want to use that term, the distinction of sex, for example, didn't really exist like it did years, years later. The men and women hunted together, and they also fought side by side against their enemies. The left has an obsession with hyperrealist narratives. Marx did and now you do. You're laughingly uncultured, however; you know very, very little about the world and allow other minds to construct it for you. I like neither conversative people nor liberal people, but liberals are much, much more irritating. They're extremely pretentious and have a whimsical, child-like understanding of the world. They are generally allergic to nuance, despite considering themselves to be free, critical thinkers. I'd type more, but I don't think you're all worth the time it would take.

>>23370909
>>23371018
How the fuck am I pro-establishment?
>Establishment pushes for urbanism; I support agrarianism
>Establishment pushes for open borders; I support closed borders
>Establishment pushes for multiculturalism; I support nationalism and assimilation
>Establishment pushes for LGBT; I support heteronormativity
>Establishment pushes for feminism; I support patriarchy
>Establishment pushes for secularism; I support Christian nationalism
>Establishment pushes for centralization; I support states rights
>Establishment pushes for DEI and Affirmative Action; I support meritocracy
>Establishment pushes for interventionism and foreign aid; I support isolationism
>Establishment pushes for free trade; I support protectionism and high tariffs
>Establishment pushes for exporting industry; I support investing in domestic industry
You can say my opinions are shit and the 1950s are never coming back, but I can't understand how you can say I agree with the ruling class in all my viewpoints. People are even writing books about how I'm the biggest threat to world peace and democracy.

>>23370909
>Most right-wingers are basically perfectly aligned to the establishment
Yes.
Most of them imagine themselves automatically becoming an alpha gigachad in an ethnostate. It's a sweet power fantasy.
You can guess what'll eventually happen in such scenario. The same struggles and power dynamics, same "evil elites" and everything but at least everyone will be white aryans.

>>23375087
Leftism is correlated with verbal IQ at -0.49, and hence, the right is more intellectual, arty, sexy, and erotic; leftism is grungy, uninteresting, and bland; they aren't radically outside the box. Liberalism, in its most pure form, is a sort of nihilism; it's the intellect admitting that it only knows that it knows nothing, hence, as an ideology, it is passive. The highest form of man is not liberal; liberalism is a transitional stage. Beyond liberalism, we shall know the truth and impose it.

>>23375376
This is a caricature of the right-wing people, step out your comfort zone; left-wing routinely mischaracterise reality, so expose yourself, be more open-minded.

>>23371035
>His opinion about mass murder being good because it brings about more 'freedom' is pretty retarded imo
I don't know where you got this from but I can tell you with absolute certainty that you have misunderstood what he was saying if he ever even said that

>>23374832
>once people see the emperor has no close
>right-winger is a brown ESL
Kek

>>23375390
So no social hierarchy in ethnostates? No meritocracy? No struggle, no conquest? All of the values right wing hold thight are a "caricature"?
Lmao.

>>23370906
Literally...
Not even the most radical thinkers of pre-1960 would be considered left wing by today's standards.

>>23375404
>No struggle, no conquest?
Right-wing value? God, no; right-wing people, in my experience, want to be left alone. The left is obsessed with conflict, no? Surely, is this not a part of Marxist thought, which is unmistakably left-wing? Right-wingers want to be left alone and are, generally speaking, conflict-averse. Right-wing people are not fascists, nor are they that similar to them. German social-conversative thinkers did not like Hitler. If you're serious about what you're telling me, read more, as this is not suitable discourse for real intellectual discussion. Left-wing stereotypes, in my experience, tend to be more accurate than right-wing stereotypes. In fact, you've displayed the same 'black and white' thinking that I memed earlier.

>>23371701
The only thing I'm willing to categorize Rilke as is hack.

>>23375437
>Left-wing stereotypes, in my experience, tend to be more accurate than right-wing stereotypes. In fact, you've displayed the same 'black and white' thinking that I memed earlier.
Yes this has been borne out by several studies I recall eeing that asked people self identified as either left or right or whatever it was to imagine how a person from the other side would respond to a given statement or situation.
Those on the right were significantly better able to guess how the left would behave than vice versa

There's a mountain of worthwhile Christian philosophers. The modern day groups who call themselves "leftist" in some capacity all uniformly hate Christianity. They hate Christianity because they liken it with shallow performative displays; people who call themselves "Christian" only to permit lesbian women to preach in God's temple how we should tolerate sodomy between two gays, or perform invasive surgery on children so they may be more congruent with aggressive pedophiles. And yet these ideas (and more) stem from demonstrably leftist entities; subversive groups such as the Frankfurt School, or communist infiltration of a similar stripe. And that's to say nothing of the regularly-appearing, self-serving, gutless, rootless, spiteful tribe who overtly despise Christianity. These older groups undermine Christianity and convince newer specimens, people with the potential for intellect, that Christianity is some kind of immense failure. It's cyclical. It's subversive. Because of this system, only the truly intelligent and spirited look deeper into the past and sate their thirst for empirical evidence with the plain, obvious reality that for hundreds of years Christian thoughts, ideals, standards and cultures played a pivotal role in greater thought and philosophy.

"The left" is best summarized as a collection of tricked people, crawling on their hands and knees for scraps of truth that were determined hundreds of years ago by Christians, yet those greater truths have been deliberately obfuscated by evil people who despise Christianity. I don't even believe being a Christian is 100% mandatory to come close to the truth. I just know that Christians have done it, they have never been among "The Left", and if you'd like to educate yourself then you will end up reading the thoughts of a lot of Christians.

>>23371032
That's not what Marx believed tho, he wasn't one-sided about it at all, human belief is downstream from material reality, but the consequences aren't suspended in reality. He would say that the mode of production is already realized itself in a smaller way, but human consciousness imprints the way this is realized.

>"A spider conducts operations which resemble those of the weaver, and a bee would put many a human architect to shame by the construction of its honeycomb cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is that the architect builds the cell in his mind before he constructs it in wax.”

>>23375336
Let's use this anon as an example >>23375378


>Leftism is correlated with verbal IQ at -0.49...the right is more intellectual, arty, sexy, and erotic; leftism is grungy, uninteresting, and bland; they aren't radically outside the box

Terrible start, the verbal IQ "point" is nonsensical, and theirs a clear bias in believing the left can't make art. The Right and Left can definitely make great art of all different types. This anon thinking only the Right can only make, "intellectual, sexy, and erotic art", is so dishonest I can write 1000 words on why he's wrong. But for brevity, here are the main points.

conservative want status quo and are reactionary to what they deem taboos. Sex is usually seen as a taboo if it's written in a certain way. So, thinking only the Right can make sexy intellectual art doesn't make make sense. Look into book banning and what books were deemed unexceptable to belong in the U.S. to see why this is absurd

Socialism, anarchism, and communism are objectively more radical than conservatism. If you don't believe this, than you don't have any idea what the three main leftist ideologies are, and you don't know what conservatism means either.

The OP I'm replying to is clearly a coomer who thinks sexy art is the peak of artistic sensibilities

>Liberalism, in its most pure form, is a sort of nihilism; it's the intellect admitting that it only knows that it knows nothing, hence, as an ideology, it is passive. The highest form of man is not liberal

Bad grammar and this anon uses hence again because he doesn't know another way to transition to his point. The second part of this sentence is him admitting he has no idea what liberalism means and even what conservatism means. Conservatism is passive when in control, when its in control it's the most passive ideology. That's by design, and that's the entire appeal. The only reason the anon doesn't know this is because the U.S.A is majority liberal, so he thinks that because conservatism is on the offensive, that means they're inherently not passive. Very clear bias and bad understanding of both ideologies

This anon is also trying to be theoretical, which is pointless since I'm talking about something real. He also has leftist sensibilities and doesn't know it since he wants change. It's very ironic.

>The highest form of man is not liberal; liberalism is a transitional stage. Beyond liberalism, we shall know the truth and impose it

I agree, but a lot of people already know the point, but liberals and conservatives want their own status quo that are almost identical. Just look at the two most radical presidents in U.S. history who completely altered politics and American culture forever. Both democrats with very strong leftist convictions, FDR* and LBJ*

*Of course theirs exceptions by some decisions they made. Still, they're more left leaning than most democratic presidents

Last point, this isn't even the dumbest anon in this thread. Not by a long shot

>>23370910
Zizek is entirely anti-communist and pro-establishement if you've bothered to sift through any of his works and even on just a historical basis in his role in the dismantlimg of Yugoslavia. The extent to his affinity to the left is coming from the 1960s new left created by the ruling class.

He's still a good introduction to Lacan, but no actual novel ideas

>>23370909
>Most right-wingers are basically perfectly aligned to the establishment
This is a contradiction, because that would mean right-wingers are perfectly aligned with the left.

>>23371093
Zizek is a catholic crusader in the way he talks about Russia and the east. Your generalizing too much, read >https://www.lacan.com/zizshadowplay.html
Although he may not identify as a Christian, his understanding of being and his political views are defined by catholicism, and he has an affinity to lutheranism

>>23375947
Actually, I wouldn't even call myself conversative, as I am pretty liberal, but I'm critical, and I'm not emotionally committed like many others are. My grammar is fine, even perfect, and you didn't understand what I transcribed. Your reading comprehension is lacking. "radically outside the box" is what I typed. I didn't type unradical, tame, or the sort. I mean that they're, well, sort of.. Stripping society down to the base. Which isn't just the left in a contemporary sense but is also very, almost brilliantly, summarising the left's entire intellectual tradition. Marxism was built upon this: critique, critique, critique. But without conceding to any idea of reform, the civil structure is striped down to its base level, a more, despite technological prowess, primal structure; this is the epitome of leftist 'liberation'. Profound ignorance and an almost whimsical, childlike appreciation of man. They are very docile. This is all permeated by envy and hatred. It's a very chaotic, nihilistic, and particularly right now, deconstructionist intellectual tradition.

2/10 ~ come at me with an interesting perception. You're boring. All of you are. Honestly, the typical centre-left type is so, so boring, middling, and intellectually frigid, and probably because your positions are constantly reinforced by the elite, which is where these thoughts come from: "culture moves downstream." Not for a long, long time has culture arose the masses themselves, do they even have the ability?

>>23370906
because they are experts in careful denial of reality, which requires advanced mental gymnastics

>>23370909
I mean, that's why right-wingers are seen as conservative and vice versa

>>23376044
You're the King of Egotiscal Delusions. I envy you. It must be nice to be so stupid. You believe you're always right, even though all you write is gibberish delusions

>>23376242
>You're the King of Egotiscal Delusions. I envy you. It must be nice to be so stupid. You believe you're always right, even though all you write is gibberish delusions
NTA but you really need to tune down the chuuni cringe.

>>23370906
Shut the fuck up.

>>23376242
>You believe you're always right, even though all you write is gibberish delusions
Empty assertion, moving on. You've just been filtered.

>>23375966
lol
>>23376494
only right-wingers are hostile to political spectrum talk, wonder why that is

>>23375947
>Socialism, anarchism, and communism are objectively more radical than conservatism. If you don't believe this, than you don't have any idea what the three main leftist ideologies are, and you don't know what conservatism means either.
>proceeds to not explain how it is more "radical" for the idiots.
This always happens for some reason
>>23375916
Yeah, it really depended on his and Engels' moods, I know. But at the end of the day, they still insist on the economic or material condition being the "infrastructure" and have to make up excuses as to when they observe that is not the case in reality. In reality, it is all ideology. Religion tought man how to build his house and conduct his life since the earliest days. Economics do not matter, Marx afmits as such when he says that he considers it of paramount importance for his ideology to make the worker "conscious" i.e. initiated into communist doctrine.

>>23376044
>Actually
I envy your ability to completely dismiss that anon's pretentious waxing with such ease. Congratz.

>>23376630
When the only thing you are is a leftist and nothing else, then I'm sure everyone else will start to look like a right winger sooner rather than later

People who lie a lot are better at crafting lies?

>>23375947
>Both democrats with very strong leftist convictions, FDR* and LBJ*
Tell me, what is your opinion of such invonsequential politicians as, say, Reagan and Thatcher? Do you believe that "neoliberalism" is real and exists?

>>23370923
Almost all post-modernism is a contradiction to marxism and doesn't even necessarily lend credence to leftism either. The philosophy should have been totally amoral but French people are really gay apparently.

>>23375051
>They would hit the books and think of a perfect leader and try to replicate them (of course this is still retarded but I'm not delving into the many prob of Fascism)
You're not delving into them because you cannot think of any. You're alternative is basically trying to figure out how to make as many people vote correctly all the time. Sometimes, not even that, as leftists tend to be allergic to ethics

>>23375370
Leftists generally lack self-awareness. Also, considering one of them here apperantly used to be a fascist chud, he probably blames people like you as the reason why he doesn't have a gf or something. Pls understand

>>23370909
>the right
>aligned with the establishment
LMFAO, now that's fucking rich coming from a Leftist.
When will you troons realize that YOU ARE the establishment? Saying #BLM isn't revolutionary, its something the establishment does constantly because you dimwits lap it up. Get a grip on reality.

>>23376680
Never said those figures don't matter. They absolutely do. Their influences have made American and Brittish society worse. They're the opposite of the coin in many ways to FDR and LBJ

>>23370906
Why are they jewish?

>>23376242
This was embarassing. Other anon was right, you're a boring, mild creature; not even fit for slavery

>>23376760
Because, despite the left's rhetoric about hating the system, they're actually perfectly fine with the domination of a certain particular tribe over white civilization. Their philosophers all have to conform to this mindset.

>>23376630
We're not but okay

>>23376462
You're right. I have no idea why I typed that. It's totally out of character of me. Good criticism, anon

>>23374832
>will collapse under the weight of its own contradictions

now where have I heard that before

>>23376760
Only 1 of those (Benjamin) is Jewish

>>23370908
me too

>>23376760
Given that the most prominent figures on the right today are Strauss and BAP, you don't get to ask that

>>23370906
Leftism made sense 20 yrs ago when the label was interchangeably used with or imagined with individualism and free thinking, but as you investigate the left wing spectrum as a whole further you discover its pathological implications

/// Many central points of the concept were debated and challenged, such as whether the presence of a charismatic leader was a major influence on ethnogenesis /// This immunological tolerance can be influenced by intrauterine infections /// Planting trees helps offset carbon emissions, contributing to enivronmental conservation /// The room is lit by four fluorescent circular fixtures overhead, which reflect off the white lacquered surface of a large conference table like ring lights off a pupil /// As such, the solid stem auger was used in instances where bentonite was encountered in neighbouring boreholes /// Farley’s package last year included $15.14 million in stock awards, which also vest over three years with an ultimate value dependent on performance /// On weekends they hustle tourists on the waterfront /// What if the moment's prevailing mood is hard to pin down - sometimes voluble, sometimes glum? /// She loved the gracefully high ceiling, with its white-painted cornice, the heavy brocade curtains and comfortable chairs /// Though the name may make this degree sound like fluff, the course of study is quite rigorous /// She was asked a couple of questions about her private life and got a little prickly /// In those days, a trip to the West was an arduous journey /// He was attracted by the hothouse atmosphere of Britain's top schools /// Sounds of revelry came from next door /// And though early storytellers call her a "seamstress," conjuring visions of prim needlework in the parlor, she was, in fact, an upholsterer, a profession that attracted both women and men /// He would ask Congress to intervene and head off a strike /// It is stowed away for safety in some unused nook of the piano, which is rattling away by my side /// She seems to spend all her time yapping on the phone /// The single market would work better if it were not hobbled by frequent and often violent currency fluctuations /// His generally demeanor is that of a very dopey bear with a big appetite, usually thinking of food in the most inappropriate moments ///

>>23375916
This is just another example of him contradicting himself.

>>23376630
>only right-wingers are hostile to political spectrum talk, wonder why that is
Hey anon, what are the implications of intelligence having a heritability of 60-80%?

>>23370906
Try reading foucaut or deleuze, obtuse nonesense they have nothing to say so they hide behind this incomprehensible style of writing.
Asorno is kinda cool his critiques of modernism are what traditionalists and right wingers also agree with.
I like negri, his works on machiavelli are ineresting.
Rest are coal

>>23376740
Sounds like change either way. Not sure about the whole "for the worse" in regards to Thatcher. Sounds like you, like so many other self-absorbed leftists, just cannot seem to understand why on earth neokeynesianism, you know, the FDR school, fell out of favor with the monetarist school. It's also not certain whether you think liberalism, like FDR and LBJ, is good and leftist or that it's right wing or whether you think the Nazis were left wing because their economy was similar to the new deal.

>>23376044
>But without conceding to any idea of reform, the civil structure is striped down to its base level, a more, despite technological prowess, primal structure; this is the epitome of leftist 'liberation'.
Can you elucidate on this a bit more, and the whole stripping dociety down to its base? Genuinely interesting

>>23377855
>dociety
Oh that's a nice word to coin.
A docile society...

>>23377860
It was a typo, but I guess innovation most often happens by accident.

>>23377772
Deleuze is just cybernetics in too many words, but occasionally fascinating. Foucault is quite valuable social history. Why would right-wingers, for instance, be so allergic to his insights on surveillance and the establishment of central state power techniques? Do you all of a sudden learn to love government when it helps to own the libs? Hey, try not to be one of those proudly retarded right-wingers maybe?

This thread was moved to >>>/his/16616276