/lit/ - Literature

>>8896545

Yes. You can comfortably ignore Deleuze/Lacan/Sartre/Derrida/Foucault/etc and not be any poorer for it. On the contrary, you can even end up richer.

Historically, the French were pretty good at philosophy. Several of Nietzsche's key influences are French.

That stops being true from the 20th century onward, however.

>>8760417

This guy is a retard who has been jettisoned by anyone on the Alt-Right with even a passing comprehension of Realpolitik. The time is most definitely not right for "Hail X" and "Le Roman Salute" - nor will it ever be for that matter.

Playing devil's advocate, they need to stick with what they've been doing - baby steps. You will only kill the Left's golden cows by lingchi (death by a thousand cuts). They say "open borders", you say "controlled immigration." They say "take in refugees", you say "let's help our own first (veterans/etc)" and so forth.

There's no going backwards, only forwards - employing Nazi sentiments/gestures in the modern day is fucking retarded.

>>8760441

Depending on the context, there's no such thing. When employed by journalists or the Left, the "alt-right" is an empty smear for anything to the right of fucking Trotsky/Marx/etc. Those who call themselves "alt-right" vary wildly - so in that sense it's useless. A few things they have in common are a general opposition to our 'politically correct' Zeitgeist - that's about it.

>>8648786

>I think part of the disagreement over his 'politics' is due to the fact that Leftists (correctly) criticize his relatively undeveloped anarchist theory, while the people who say his politics are good are talking about his political analyses of actual US politics.

This is, ironically, a very Leftist perspective. Most of those who hate his politics, do so because it overwhelmingly boils down to "The West/US/Capitalism is bad, whereas anything opposed to them is good, or at least not as bad." In that sentence I have summed up most of his books.