/lit/ - Literature

I'm not averse to it, I just haven't done it yet.

Many are adverse to reading in general or researching what their slogans mean. I find it hilarious they want to rail against postmodernism, when postmodernism holds some of the best arguments against the people they hate and for the things they like. They'd prefer to call modernist SJWs postmodern than read anything about it, and like to think that modern government is postmodern and survivalism is not. It's like watching opposite day.

>conflating all of the “right wing”
>thinking neo-cons and conservatives are the same thing

How to spot a brainlet

grouping "right wing" as some kind of singular thing is just as bad as grouping all leftists together which is the type of thinking that groups identity politics with the Frankfurt school in the first place

>>13028142
>>13028169
come on man you know what i mean

Internet right wingers such as those who populate /pol/ don't read or really even have a grasp on western cultural history.

I don't even know what they mean by degeneracy, they use modern decadent art in their marketing and they often just act in very degenerate ways themselves.

>>13028108
The (French) New Right borrows a lot from them.

If you mean Americans/reddit/4chan memesters, well, they don't read much at all, whether they consider themselves "right" or "left".

People here don’t understand that what is called right wing politics is actually an irrational its aesthetic movement.

>>13028217
All politics is irrational, it's based on feels, just like morality in general.

>>13028217
>something is inherently irrational
nice proof r tard

>>13028217
The alt-right are just radical aesthetes in denial. If fascism didn’t look so aesthetically pleasing, they wouldn’t care.

Even then, Nazism at least is very superficial in it’s aesthetics. That’s why they allowed Beethoven despite not understanding the politics behind his work, and it’s also why Hitler’s paintings are mediocre.

https://jacobitemag.com/2018/10/02/empty-realm/

>>13028174
I don't think YOU know what you mean. But go on, what do you mean?

Hi I'm le ebul neonazi. My (now) friend and I started the pedowood investigation threads on /pol/ in 2012. He's a phil major, and through looking at mkultra and hollywood we found walter benjamin being tied to jacob frank, and the whole "cia did modern art" thing is very much in the spirit of The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.

>>13028277
who gives a shit about Beethovens political views lmao

>>13028108
It doesn't because it operates on an underlying Marxism, so it can only be accidentally correct at best.

>>13028108
Literally how? Explain yourself OP

>>13028277
I think that superficiality is perhaps its best quality. Affirming the aesthetic to such an extent that the meaning becomes irrelevant. I'd love it if today's fascists appropriated Brecht, Shaw, Wilde, Eisenstein etc. as a show of supremacy of the aesthetic over all other things.

>>13028108
Glenn Beck and faux news unironically

>>13028217
>aesthetic movement
Just like everything else. Existence is a war over art.

>>13028754
You see, then they would cease to be fascists. You can’t be a fascist while claiming that you only hold those values for aesthetic reasons. To do so would be a confession that they’re a LARPer. The difference with Wilde and his contemporaries is that they didn’t pretend to believe in anything other than beauty.

Most right wingers are for the most part absolute retards thats why.

>>13028138
Very intellectually dishonest response.

>>13028108
It really doesn't.

Although the alt-right should be able to find some common ground with leftists on environmentalism, capitalism, and consumerism, the frankfurt school manages to barely touch on these topics while focusing on the worst ones:

- free speech means being tolerant and we need to kill the nazis and anyone who disagrees.
- someone how manages to be stuck up and pompous in their interests in music, literature, etc while claiming to be an advocate for the poor.
- muh entitlements. gimme free stuff.
- nothing is true bro
- instead of just disagreeing with implicit economic values, they just disregard economics entirely. muh irrational humans! muh math models!
- they hate western civilization and love intersectionality. muh books by old white men. huh aristotle and plato.

Read Ted, and then read Adorno or Marcuso. They don't care about remotely the same things.

>>13029046
And yet they run the world. Funny how nature do that.

>>13028277
And there's nothing wrong with aestheticism. Try yourself to find a belief that rests on a non-circular foundation. And if you say you've found one, allow me to respond and tell you why you haven't.

All our final political vocabularies are contingent upon arbitrary aesthetic preferences.

They're stupid.

>>13029106
Weird post to pick out for that ITT, what are you seeing that I'm not/is this a misquote?

>>13028108
The problem:
There's a rift between formative and informed philosophical thinkers in the academic world, mere academic activists, the general activists of leftism/rightism, and actual political leaders
Consider this:
We have figures like Marx, Derrida, and today, Zizek. These are your Philosophers. Take your pick. Leftists, Postmodernists, or Marxists who are philosophical inclined are going to read these guys in a proper context. Leftists with some intellectual consistency and who have a brain are going to work from these types of thinkers. (That's not to say all Leftist thinkers are of this quality, some of them are just trash)
But then, consider things like this :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA3VhoKCIkM
The "degeneracy," sexual liberation, intellectual degradation, cultural disintegration, all those things Rightists expound on are real phenomenon. Just look at this clip, there's millions of cases like it. These types are the activists, and they are not working from the same place as the Philosophers of Leftism/Marxism/Whatever (at least, not all of them).
And then, consider guys like George Soros, or Macron, or things like the Khalergi plan. These are the political leaders and the political actions, and they're very pragmatic. These people are weak in philosophy and pragmatic.

Notice, there's a disconnect. Think about what we're talking about, and who.

>>13028216
Oh yeah, forgot, we're in the 'basket of deplorables'...fuck off!

>>13028824
Since we're in a Frankfurt thread this is a very apropriate time to say that Benjamin was already making this criticism of fascism as it was arising.
It's mostly an aesthetic reaction to a political problem.

>>13028138
>postmodernism holds some of the best arguments against the people they hate and for the things they like
Care to provide some examples?

My favourite author is Julius Evola but I still read things by people like Adorno (whom I actually enjoy), Marcuse and Deleuze.
Obviously the last two aren't Frankfurt school, but just to illustrate the point further.

>>13029848
>And yet they run the world
I thought the kikes do that?

>>13030713
Jews are ethno-nationalists

Because there is no fucking time. I try to get a grasp of the fuckers that influenced the other fuckers I read first. Try to understand basic ancients phenomenology and traditionalists at age 24. I'll come the Frankfurt dudes later in life right now no time. You fags all pretend to understand everything ever written by age 17 and I struggle to understand Nietzsche for the 5th year now. You all are posers and this board is fucked

>>13030430
>lmao dude everything is relative you can do whatever you want

this a good argument against any sort of status quo and is how the the new left intellectually deconstructed the old values and implemented their own, all under the guise they are liberating society from subjective values all together.

>>13028108
depends, to some, mostly boomer tier rightwingers, anything that even remotely reeks of criticising america, american capitalism, individualism and, ironically, israel, is the personified devil "destroying our way of life and hating freedom" and thus not worthy of being read. those are the "letists are the real nazis" fools, they have completely bought us cold war propaganda. next, there's the brainlet neonazi larpers who dont read jewish authors. and generally, theres the voting base who doesnt read at all beyond facebook comments. it's sad, because wider reception of these works among various right wing circles could do wonders in developing an authentic worldview that goes beyond fuck muslims, fuck trannies and gibs cheap chinese imports. i've personally only read "the culture industry" yet, but i really enjoyed it.

>>13028108

I recently read The Dialectic of Enlightenment and I don't really see any of these things. My continental philosophy/Frankfurt School professor had a beer with me the other day and joked that every term he gets 5 or 6 students writing that all these philosophers in the continental school are all a bunch of dumb old white men so nothing they say has any value. He's a Marxist at heart and yet does not entertain identity politics or hatred for western civilization. Not sure what point you're trying to make with this post my friendo.

>>13028108
The right, despite all their championing of free speech, have an overriding suspicion of the intellect which prevents them from ever actually enjoying the benefits of the freedom of speech they rightly venerate. Their long history of anti-intellectualism, their unfamiliarity with the history of ideas, is what has always made them susceptible to ideas that work against their highest values. For example, their love of the free market (and I know there are many right wingers averse to economic liberalism, but in America they tend to be for it) is at odds with their respect for tradition and family. Christopher Lasch, one of America's greatest conservatives, recognized this, but unfortunately his influence seems to be negligible.

why are leftists so averse to Arnold Gehlen?

>>13030812
They're not averse to him. He's a non-entity. Few people know who he is.

>>13030812

A literal WHO?

>>13030818
then why should i be open to Adorno when you declare his main conservative opponent, Gehlen, a "non-entity"?

>>13030825

Stop looking for pity points faggot, your women will be bred by superior black and Jewish seed, and your race will cease to exist in the next century. Get over it. Nigger.

>>13030829
so this is the power of views which support my own views on modern culture

>>13030825
I've read Gehlen. I'm saying that most leftists today have no idea who Gehlen is. If they haven't heard of him it's not fair to say they're averse to him.

>>13030839
memoryholing is peak leftist aversion.

>>13030837

Your views are the product of a bunch of old disgusting retards that listen to pseudoscience and repulse your own women away from you. That's why interracial dating rates in white European countries and the USA are at the highest point of all time. Not because DA JEWS PROPAGANDA CONTAMINATING INNOCENT ARYAN FEMALE MINDS REEEE. Grow up you fucking disgusting subhuman.

>>13028138

Wow, it’s like I’m back on https://www.reddit.com/r/chapotraphouse and I love it XD!

Edit: Holy crap! I got gold! I never got gold before! This is amazing!

Edit 2: Wow! 2 golds! I feel like I’m walking on clouds! Thank you so much, kind stranger!

Edit 3: WTF! 3 gold I don’t deserve this!

>>13030844
Not really. Memory holes are products of totalitarian states, left or right. In this case it's just a genuine ignorance of the man's work.

Because memes and right wingers don't read

>>13030851
This obsession with "chapotraphouse" is almost as deranged as the "discord tranny" one. The only place I have ever seen anyone talk about those people in my life is on 4chan, and almost 100% of my immediate personal cicle are leftists with whom I constantly talk about leftism.

name one (1) conservative other than Gehlen who he hung out or corresponded with.

all i can find are other fanatic jews/marxists like Brecht, Benjamin, Lukács.

its almost like he only criticized some symptoms of modern culture from conservative perspective to not alienate his audience completely, while privately remaining in milieu of absolute pozz-people like Ernst Krenek.

I guarantee you only heard this argument from a trannytuber. SJWs are the ultimate pseuds.

>>13028108
Brainlet and midwit right-wingers (aka Americans) don't read at all.

Prominent high Tory conservatives like Roger Scruton and new right thinkers like Alain de Benoist are actually quite positive about the Frankfurt school, especially about Dialectic of Enlightenment.

it's like there are much more interesting topics to explore than racking your brain over some kike buzzwords

>>13029862
I'm not denying that. The problem I have with the alt-right is that they pretend to believe in some moral values above all else, when in reality it's because they think fascists look cool and because the idea of an underdog nation vs. the world sounds romantic to them. If they admitted this, I'd respect them more. Although acknowledging this fact can be the first step toward distancing yourself from ideology, I've found.

>>13030236
This is an accurate analysis. Left/right is a bullshit dichotomy because there are so many variations and nuances on both sides.

>>13030950

>>13028142
That lizard is too fat.

>>13031046
quit it with the namefagging, bucko

>>13030950
Yeah, I'm left-leaning and I have no idea what chapotraphouse is, even though I constantly see it mentioned on 4chan. The right wingers on here seem to be most familiar with it.

>>13031067
You have to go back.

>>13031070
You have to go back.

>>13030737
This is pretty fair. Continental philosophy is an esoteric tradition maintained almost exclusively by leftist academics. It is only practiced in spaces intentionally rendered hostile to others.

>>13028108
are we not inundated enough by jewish filth already?

>>marxism applied to culture

wew lad, noticed that gayfaggots in tv and film has increased the last 10-20 years
not we'll get transfaggots

to normalize a certain behaviour, expose the subjects regularly to said behaviour

let the homofaggots marry
let the homofaggots teach anal sex to children
let the transfaggots read to children
let the male transfaggots beat up women, because muh gender

burn it all down

>>13028754
Fuck Eisenstein. Tarkovsky is the greatest Russian director.

>>13031029
But how do you know that there is no morality in aesthetics?

>>13031696
Look at the other artists mentioned. Eisenstein has more in common with them than Tarkovsky does.

too complicated and intertextual for "them", generally.

The frankfurt school has provided a wonderful resource of functional bogeymen for them tho.
Simpletons

>>13031701
Aesthetics are largely subjective. Compare aesthetic styles like gothicism, baroque and brutalism. They appeal to different people for different reasons. The way in which the aesthetes and even the decadents were able to form a philosophy around aesthetics was by simply advocating that you should appreciate what you find to be beautiful-- That can be anything.

Morality implies a degree of objectivity, so aestheticism must reject morality by default. It's why Wilde said that books cannot be "moral" or "immoral", only good or bad.

>>13031708
Why can the left never think beyond a single step of cause and effect? Recommending Eisenstein is a bit like someone recommending Riefenstahl. You say you appreciate them for their love for superficial aesthetic, but your own understanding of aesthetic is so superficial, you cannot see how meaning is inseparable from language. You like the artists you like not because of some objective sense of quality or beauty, but because of your political position. You think things are liked because of their form and structure, but the reality is that things are only truly liked for their content.

>>13031733
Wilde was also a fag until the last moment of his life. Also, as much as I disagree with what you're saying now, you're not addressing my point. Even accepting to some extent the idea that beauty is subjective, form and content themselves are not subjective. You recognize that Gothic architecture and Baroque and Brutal all appear different, and clearly speak to different people. But why do you end your consideration there? The truth is that aesthetic systems convey ideas about what is good and what is bad. By their existence, by their creation, they are implicitly statements of ought and is. It is the manifestation of a particular perspective, which cannot be stripped of its moral attitudes. So as much as one system of morality can be more or less true, then also can aesthetic systems be said to be more or less moral. Of course, there will be much disagreement over what is the proper morality, but that is the primary disagreement of life. There is no avoiding it. For the sake of secular peace, we have acted as though aesthetics has nothing to do with our disagreement, but of course it is not true. Nothing causes us to fight more than our aesthetic disagreements.

>>13031788
I don't disagree, but I feel as though the fact that there's such despite over what is and isn't moral is exactly why emphasising morals is pointless. There I'll never be a perfect morality that pleases everyone, so it seems better to appreciate aesthetic differences for what they are rather than trying to advocate for the superiority of one aesthetic over another. I may not like post modern architecture for example, but I can respect why some people find it appealing and I wouldn't want to take that away from them. Aesthetic styles should compete with each other as a means of strengthing each other through said competition. The problem with using morality as a measure for aesthetics to too great an extent is that this can lead to extreme cases where the destruction of certain aesthetics styles is advocated for. This is exactly what fascist regimes tend to do, which is why I accuse them of being "superficial" in their faith in aesthetics.

>>13030430
SJWs are modernist because they believe that science is progressive and can change society into something better (the best example of this is that hormone theory of gender. Many modernists have used this to try to "correct" errors they perceive in the world, and think that people who dispute its value are antiprogress and antiscience)
Postmodernism contends that we never had to screen someone's biological matrix for someone to call you a faggot, you just had to act like a faggot.
Postmodernists tend to focus on how humans can have meaningful relationships with the world without the religion of progress (Heidegger's argument for the ontic rather than the ontological is precisely this: we have pursued the idea we are getting better and cannot admit we might be getting worse and that the newest is not the best) (while the modernists are famous for Make It New in Pound's words, and believe that a 1940s German will do better than one in 410ad, though that is clearly not the case)
Postmodernists embrace tribalism as a way to form meaning, while modernists refuse to believe they are subject to tribalism and so try to force their tribal practices onto everyone as though they were universal (see McLuhan, or Foucault, or Heidegger on the Bestand)
I was just going to post pics of Heidegger living like a medieval peasant drawing water from his own spring and wearing his smurf hat, but on the off chance you are genuinely interested, looking into the modernists and the postmodernists would help you see how modernists largely place trust in constant progress, while postmodernists tend to believe that primitive people are more likely to survive in the wild than someone who spends eight hours in a cubicle staring at a screen and be happier for it with no need to justify themselves through "progress". It feels mean to tell you to just start with Heidegger though he is the start of that turn from the religion of progress into an actual investigation of what is.

>>13031070
I'm a legionary and I've never heard of it

>>13031872
>appreciate aesthetic differences for what they are
You are completely failing to understand. The differences in aesthetics are differences in morality. I am not arguing the superiority of one aesthetic over another, not directly anyways. Aesthetics, rather, are arguments and apologies for particular moral perspectives. I am not using morality as a measure of aesthetics. Aesthetics are a language of morality.

First off the Frankfurt’s were varied in how many of them thought but to be honest their ideas can be transposed into the modern right quite easily. I suppose that’s only a consequence of The Right Britney the only option political intellectuals have left to engage with.

>>13028284
Yeah, this. They clearly have.

>>13032027
Progressives of today are making claims of social and scientific truths, which is diametrically opposed to postmodern moral and social skepticism of these very things. Science was used to push the agenda of anti-black propaganda during the modernist era and now its being used to push the agenda of more social causes than ever before. That might be stretching the effects of global warming or using it to sell sex change operations to suckers from rich white plastic surgeons but regardless The Right is the only place any true Intellectual finds themselves today. There’s really a renaissance among the right and people becoming interested in its thinkers and expanding on what conservatism can mean. While the Tea Party destroyed the NeoCon order along with Trumps presidency the progressives are doing it to neoliberalism. The only honest place left is on the right of today if you want to have self respect. The gift of moral relativity (at its inception) was that we could break free of these artificial boundaries of gender roles or race among many other things. It’s why second wave feminism rejected transexuals because they established gender roles. Now they’re muddying the waters and saying that they’re destroying gender while also enforcing it through hormones and commodified fashion products. The capitalists couldn’t be happier. However the second wave and this burgeoning fourth wave are both fighting science in their own ways while the second denied biological determinism the current one just gets it completely wrong. It’s generous to say their reading of male and female biological realities are flawed.

>>13028277
This is retarded

>>13031126
As it should be.

>>13030950
>>13031070
It's very popular and I hear about it in real life.
However, it's maximum normie-tier, so it's not surprising that some here are fully insulated from it.

>>13032027
I wouldn't exactly call Heidegger himself a postmodernist. How do you explain the postmodernists themselves largely holding socially progressive political views if they were really that radically skeptical of meliorism?

>>13030236
Good post

>>13028284
>https://jacobitemag.com/2018/10/02/empty-realm/
Articles like this frustrate me to no end. It's true that right wing histories of the Frankfurt School imbue the widespread intellectual reaction with a greater sense of intent and conspiracy than is frankly almost ever present in any ideological movement. But in writing this article, how can the author not realize the backwardness of his position? The outlook of not even the far right, but the near right, is that Marxist philosophy has drained our cultural dialogue of all meaning and soul. The Frankfurt School argued that this changes would be the result of Capital. And yet these effects were not seriously present until after those who influence our art and music were themselves influenced by this abstraction of Marxist thought. This deep level of cynicism has not grown out of any organic experience of the ordinary person, but has come only from certain and specific academic traditions. Before our film makers and painters and musicians were so deeply cynical, the structure and form of our popular entertainment was rather commodified, but its content was not. And it was the sincerely held cultural narrative which held at bay certain potentially destructive elements of industrialization and capitalism. It is only in the absence of a shared morality that our society has fallen to meaningful consumption. But this loss of shared morality did not come by any natural cause, but instead by the the belief that morality was already lost. Of course it was only lost by those who were breaking it, and used as their defense that no one else ever had it. If the right has any similarity to the Frankfurt School, it is because they accurately see the effects of the movement's self-fulfilling prophecies.

>>13032283
>The Right is the only place any true Intellectual finds themselves today
Not necessarily. You are viewing this as binary, and that one side must be positive if the other is negative. It is not so. The right are often guilty of the same kinds of things you describe and in many ways are shooting themselves in the foot by trying to rail against what would help them the most (postmodernism). Both the right and left are falling into arguments of modernism but the right particularly is failing because of its lack of favour for postmodernism. To think that modernist agendas can only be used by the left ignores the right's tendency to use preordained order as a key to happiness, much as the left does. A postmodern right could regenerate the right, but they are as adverse to that as the left is to the idea "there are no ugly women only lazy ones". Construing one side as better than the other glosses over the fact they are merely different polishes on the same heap of shit.

>>13032346
>I wouldn't exactly call Heidegger himself a postmodernist
This is like saying one cannot call Kant or other enlightenment thinkers the basis of modernism. You can say it, but so many philosophers and art critics will disagree over the past century that it becomes almost absurd and is viewed as intentionally or ignorantly contrarian.
>How do you explain the postmodernists themselves largely holding socially progressive political views if they were really that radically skeptical of meliorism?
Most do not hold socially progressive views. I don't know where you got that from. I think you may have been fed your definitions by people who do not read but claim to know their shit regardless of that. Foucault declaims the idea of social progress and argues many things from tribal society to be an improvement over modern inventions, and elevates the tribal as more humane knowledge than modern knowledge. Even those who clung to aspects of modernism (such as Marx who believed in inevitable progress to the end of history) such as Sartre believed in very regressive social ordering. Most postmodernists cite Heidegger as their basis, and relativism in art is certainly founded in Heidegger's Origins of a Work of Art. You seem to be one of those living in opposite day. Trust what people tell you less and engage with the texts.

>>13032684
How can post modernism help the right the most?

>>13032397
>Frankfurt school isn’t right wing.

Fuck off revisionist.

>>13028138

Postmodernism is expressly what they hate

Frankfurt School and Marxism not so much desu

They would hate Foucault who was a liberal capitalist more than they would hate Adorno

>>13030950
>almost 100% of my immediate personal cicle are leftists with whom I constantly talk about leftism.

>>13032027

>Postmodernists embrace tribalism as a way to form meaning

This is "not even wrong", postmodernism is beyond criticizing the inherent assumptions associated with tribalism. It criticizes the very fabric of the language needed to describe tribalism.

>>13032741
Heidegger was an archaist mystic, he was antimodernist. Regardless of his influence, postmodernists also frequently cited Marx and Freud as key inspirations. Sartre wasn't a postmodernist either.
>they weren't socially progressive
Oh please. I've even seen Derrida called a conservative meanwhile he called for a New International that radicalizes Marx's critique.

>>13028138
They're adverse to reading right wingers nevermind the left. I've listened to multiple podcasts around Ernst Hunger over the last few years and while the left academic ones actually have an interest in his ideas, all the earnestly right wing ones can be boiled down to " dude he was so awesome, he killed people in the trenches and I think he hated Jews too"

>>13033304
>podcasts
attacking low hanging fruits much?

and why should i waste time with adorno when we have McLuhan and Gehlen?

>>13030995
is Dialectic of Enlightenment a good way to start reading into critical theory?
I'll have read some Nouvelle Droite (de Benoist and Sunic) before. I'm reading Against Democracy and Equality at the moment, and my interest has primarily developed around reading Spengler, Evola, Toynbee, Ludovici. I have heaps of books queued up right now, but I'm open to broadening my horizons.

I'd describe myself as far right and I've read the Minima Moralia several times, the Dialectic of Enlightenment, Education after Auschwitz as well as lot of works of Walter Benjamin (whose thought and prose I still admire a lot), a few books by Erich Fromm and a couple of essays by Horkheimer.

The thing is that here in Germany the Frankfurt School is generally seen as the intellectual fathers of the 68s student "revolt", so quite obviously you can imagine that most conservatives and right-wingers aren't too fond of them (even though most of his students misunderstood Adorno, but that's a running gag in marxism anyways). Not to mention their ambiguous relationship with the german nation. Also Adorno is rather to be seen as a classic liberal than an actual conservative or even reactionary. His criticism was only provocative towards the newly formed generation of hyper-progressivists who saw the evil in the bourgeois family itself. Adorno didn't love his country, its culture and didn't have anything left for authoritarianism. All he loved was his and his families bohemienne bourgeois existance and when he felt that his class would cease in the future he went on to write an apologia for it.

>>13029145
>Read Ted
who the fuck is Ted

>Why are right wing people so averse to reading

Because, in general, they value "belief" over empirical evidence. They truly believe that the "will" can determine reality. See also: the refusal to agree that words have meaning, the incessant generation of empty or malicious buzzwords, and the use of language for purposes wholly at odds with communication. See also "Lysenkoism", et cetera.

>>13033507

Lurk two years before posting, you little faggot.

>>13033531
answer my question faggot

>>13033546

why, he's the universally acclaimed author of Boku no Pico

>>13033554
answer it seriously faggot

>>13033443
>tfw ywn be a turn of the century quintessentially european jewish bourgeoisie bohemian.

>tfw will never spend an afternoon in a swiss resort discussing Karl Kraus' latest article on die fackel with a hook nosed viennesse qt

why live.

>>13032993
I've explained that above follow the quote chain
>>13033015
They don't understand what they're attacking are modernist principles, antithetical to postmodernism. I've also explained that in the quote chain.
>>13033028
I've argued and cited the basis for tribalism and authors who are postmodern and expressly use the term in positive contrast to universalist principles above in the quote chain.
>>13033186
I also dealt with those who still adhered to some of Marx's theories but where they differ from Marx's modernist stance as well. I've also dealt with how you can say that Heidegger (and now Sartre) are not postmodern, but everyone with any backing will assume you are being obtuse and potentially ignorant.
>>13033304
It is disturbing, though the fact they don't have a referent for their reference is a potential (though totally unused) strength. After all, I responded to the quoted posters above ITP

>>13033523
>Because, in general, they value "belief" over empirical evidence.
citation needed. Or don't you need empirical evidence to back that assertion?
>They truly believe that the "will" can determine reality.
which "right wing" are we talking about here?
on one hand you have classical liberal neocon free market types who believe in the free market and the self-made man, is that what you mean by will determining reality? the boomer mentality of get-up-and-go that so many non-neocons point out inherently rests on their unaccounted for privileges?
or are you talking about the other "right-wing", the ones more inclined to nationalism, authoritarianism, and share at least some common ground with leftists on their critique of capitalism? because when those right-wingers talk about "will" it seems more like a desperate attempt to psych themselves up to the ideal of having some agency over their lives.
>the refusal to agree that words have meaning
if anyone on the "right" refuses that words have meaning, it's the liberal types who bandy about the whole "sticks and stones" argument. the more widespread opinion held on the meaning of words on the "right" has always appeared to be an objection to the left redefining words (eg, that racism is prejudice plus power).
>the incessant generation of empty or malicious buzzwords
pot calling the kettle black. see above. both the left and the right have developed cliques with their own lexicons whereby it is nigh-on impossible for one to understand the other without learning the underlying ideological basis and how to code-switch between their usage of language.
>and the use of language for purposes wholly at odds with communication
etc etc. the left's subtle redefinition and reframing of words relies on that very change in meaning being obscured from the general public. it's their way of tapping into the pre-existing framework of the mass of mostly apolitical, moderate liberals to curry favour against their political adversaries. if the masses became fully aware of the left's reframing of language, and therefore the full extent of their ideology, support would drop massively.

and at the moment that's bad for both the ("""far""") left and right who would both see a solidification of neoconservative power, which neither want.

>>13033643
"pro-life"

>>13033649
"whiteness"

>Ted
>>13029145
>>13033531
>>13033554
You're not seriously referring to Kaczynski are you?
Am I just meant to fucking guess which "Ted" you're on about? While tell us to read something and then obscure the fuckin reading list?

>>13029145
>>13033666
how the fuck is Kaczynski alt-right you fucking cunt

>>13029145
You useless fucking prick, don't ever tell me to "read Ted" ever again

>>13033743
Ted is too moderate, as a right winger, I have found myself getting interested in the teachings of Charles Manson. Why is Manson so malligned by the media and the establishment? what are they so afraid of?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-P2aXAOBW4

>>13033730
Is this a joke? Have you even read the manifesto?

>>13028277
this but unironically

>>13033765
You cannot call yourself conservative if you have any appreciation of any kind of Manson, and frankly, nothing should be considered right wing that is not in part conservative.

>>13034211
maybe Manson is not 'conservative', in the usual sense of the world he is certainly is untimely in the nietszchean sense. The parallels between the manson story and the greek myth of dionysius are eerie and astounding. He used sex, racuous music and intoxicants, to hypnotise and derange, he even got his teenage maenads to rip appart celebrities. As an american, I feel closer to some primal force of life and death when I listen to Manson speak

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRH9Nf0-Bzw

>>13034231
Nietzche is anti-conservative. Dionysus is anti-conservative. Manson is everything conservatives seek to prevent. Manson is the nightmare conservatives warned the hippies about. And so is the Zodiac. Conservatism stands for tradition. Conservatism stands for peace. Conservatism stands for parochialism. Conservatism stands for family. Conservatism stands for structure. Conservatism stands for consistency. Conservatism stands for evolution, not revolution.

>itt: hurl insults at the right wing with literally zero basis

>>13028108

Wow, this thread surely has become a categorizing pile of shit. As for the OP, I guess you're talking about alt right, and those will refuse to see anything from the optics of class, even if it corroborates their views and specially if it derives anything at all from any field of sociology. If that sounds like it's limiting, that's because it is, a lot. But #NotAllRightWingers are like this, in fact, I think you'd have quite some fun looking up folks like Sloterdijk.

>>13034253
Leftists gained a cultural hegemony over the capitalist system in the 60s and 70s. So nowadays the conservatives are on the left and the revolutionaries are on the right. I am a revolutionary driven by hate of the system, hence I am a right winger. I am honestly pretty excited by the prospect of breaking all the rules and shocking respectable people(by that I mean the libs, who lack even what little dignity older conservative elites had) I dream of chaos and debauchery of realising impossible dreams. Only the devil himself can restore order.I believe in the wyrd occult iniciatic power of transgression and fear symbols

>>13034310
>Only the devil himself can restore order

but the devil was the first whig

>>13034310
No, you are not a right winger. You are confused. You are exactly as they made you. "The system" as you see it is an illusion. Conservatism can only ever mean tradition. If you are against tradition, if you are against what is old, if you are against stability, if you are against family, you are not a conservative. If you are not conservative, you are a fifth column within the right wing.

>>13030236
>And then, consider guys like George Soros
Anti-communist banker
>or Macron
Banker driving his people mad with neoliberalism
>or things like the Khalergi plan.
Nonsense. And it's "Kalergi", you silly brainlet

>These are the political leaders and the political actions, and they're very pragmatic
2/3 are center-right, 1/3 doesn't exist.

>>13034326
I am a believer in the unity of christ and satan. the cycle of sex and death is the oldest and most primal tradition of mankind. I think about Codreanu and the Rumanian Iron Guard, he said that the true saints are those willing to embrace eternal damnation in the service of a greater cause.

>>13034342
>Soros
>Anti-communist
It's a good thing the left is obsessed with purity testing, because otherwise we might actually be in serious trouble.

>>13034355
He was obviously wrong. If good and evil are the same, how is there a difference. If there is no difference, there is no good, and there is no evil. Except what is a purer understanding of evil than a rejection of what is good? And who would ever choose evil, knowing that it is evil? So evil would deny itself as evil, so long as it could also deny good. What could be more evil?

>>13034360
>Soros
>Not one of the main private investors in destabilizing Soviet block

Fucking zoomers, go subsribe to pidipie or something.

>>13034372
i thought that wasn't real communism?

>>13028216
>the French right
Thanks for the laugh, I don’t think I’ve seen a single intelligent statement proceed from the mouths of those platitudemongers

>>13034374
What the fuck are you talking about, retard?

>>13034382
Real communism has never been tried, so Soros didn't destabilize communism, he destabilized a pretender that was giving socialism and communism a bad name. if you are for communism, and agree that the soviet system was a failure and obstacle to true communism, than the destabilization of the soviet bloc was one of the greatest possible steps towards true communism.

>>13034382
sjw liberals are not communists

>>13034394
social justice, as it is used by social justice warriors, is absolutely part of the reform marxism theology.

>>13034406
you´re right

>>13034406
where did Marx ever write about black lives matter or the me too movement?

>>13034392
So Soros was playing 2^8D chess propping up neoliberal policies and eliminating their opponents in order to accelarate capitalism so that it's inherent contradictions will tear the system apart and allow for new order to emerge?

It all makes sense now!

>>13034413
Marx is actually a right wing thinker by todays standards, can you imagine how disgusted he would be if he was alive to witness the tranny ridden cesspool that call itself 'the left'? at the very least, Marx was a national bolshevik. Believe me, before I read Karl Marx, I consumed soii products on a daily basis, I identitfied as 'queer' and laughed at SNL jokes about the orange man being bad. Marx gave me the courage and willpower to hit the gym and pledge myself to heterosexuality. thank you, Karl Marx.

>>13034413
>Marx=Frankfurt school=Birmingham school=intersectionality=SJWs

That's how American logic works.

>>13034422
or maybe he only cares about money and everything he does is with the intention of getting more money

>>13034413
No, no, no, no. SJW's are not orthodox marxists, they're reform marxists. Marx only really wrote about laborers, industrialists, mass production, agrarian societies, etc. But occassionaly he would frame it as oppressor/oppressed, and said that his ultimate goal was the radical equality of humankind and complete social unity, to the point that individuality itself no longer existed. So, many years after Marx, and after his whole revolution thing never quite took the way people hoped, some thinkers decided that it was because Marx was, like all people, only a product of his time. As much as he was right about that whole radical equality and revolution thing, he could only see in the terms of the oppressive ideology of his day. So, now, in knowing this, we can, they say, properly delineate the intersectionality of many different axes of oppression, and therefore begin the process of true liberating revolution, primarily by attacking the conceptual structures of ideology and building up a new language free of any sort of class or category distinction that might lead to any sort of possible injustice so that the singular social body of a total humanity without individuality can finally manifest itself as it has always been destined to do.

>>13034442
Then he's obviously going to subvert the labour movement. I don't see where are you going with it.

>>13034453
4/10, it's missing the term "sleigh of hand"

>>13034422
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n07/slavoj-zizek/nobody-has-to-be-vile
He's a so-called "liberal communist" according to Zizek. There's nothing contradictory about being a neoliberal in practice and a (crypto-)communist in outlook. Marx himself supported free trade. He saw the cosmopolitan, urbanizing, globalizing, mechanizing and socializing aspects of capitalism as essential priors to the development of communism. Trotskyist held the 20th century revolutions were betrayed and comprised deformed/degenerated workers' states rather than legitimate communist projects.

>>13034422
First you must realize that social democracy is actual a fabian manifestation of democratic socialism which is istelf a fabian manifestation of communism. It is less that he is playing infinite chess, and more that he believes himself to be playing infinite chess. The problem with this is that in some cases, his actions are incredibly dangerous and disruptive, and will happen to align with multiple other forms of post-marxist thought, giving a sense of momentum to all related ideologies.

>>13034467
You seem to think that was an ironic dig at boomer-cons, but I urge you to look through this thread and see how many people call Marx a right-wing thinker by today's standards, or visit a campus book store and examine their books on social theory and intersectionality. Also, re-read your manifesto and pay more attention to the seemingly vague tracts summarizing history and sketching out the future, not in slightly more practical near-term terms, but as he discusses the inevitable ideal society.

>>13034475
>The problem with this is that in some cases, his actions are incredibly dangerous and disruptive, and will happen to align with multiple other forms of post-marxist thought, giving a sense of momentum to all related ideologies.
His actions already gave momentum, results and profits.

>>13034472
liberal communist is a joke zizekian term like atheist christian

>>13028108

Postmodernism and critical theory is anathema to proper rightism.

The right doesn't see nation, culture and so on as 'social constructs' but as self-evident and essential. The right is about following natural law, or returning to it, not the belief that natural law doesn't exist. The right is about following a metanarrative, not critiquing the very concept.

How do people seriously think that opposites are the same.

>>13033568
Its perfectly understandable they ended up hating whitey, smhh goyish bavarian peasants destroyed the most sophisticated culture to ever exist

>>13034496
because you dont know what pomo means lol

>>13034492
Yes, "are" paired with "will happen" and "giving" implies not the future event of these things, but general, non-continuous "happening-ness", implying that not only has it happened, but the fact that it has happened multiple times is a trait, and that this will likely continue to happen in the future.

>>13034488
>but I urge you to look through this thread
Or I could ask my parents that lived under bolshevik and studied Marx, I think that would yield better results.

>I urge you to look through this thread and see how many people call Marx a right-wing thinker by today's standards
He was obviously racist, homophobic, anti-semitic and not exactely on the best terms with feminists. He'll be OK in the East, but problematic in the west.

>>13034504
Well obviously he's still funding liberals that would push through the free market he wants. Altough Orban stepped on his toes recently.

>>13034511
How could their experience possibly help them understand Western developments in post-Marxist thought? As you correctly point out, the Bolsheviks developed Marx in a completely different direction and so do not recognize the same kinds and levels of class distinctions as Western Post-Marxists do. The right-wing is not racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, or anti-feminist. Never has been. Conservatives fundamentally disagree with what these terms even mean. Conservatism is nationalist and has some concern for ethnicity in a positive manner, but as a matter of cultural norms, not of genetic material. Truly, there are few people more conservative than Orthodox Jews. This is, however, beside the point. If you disagree with Marx on his views about these things, but generally consider us to be on the same timeline of progress, then you are at least an inadvertent acolyte of post-Marxist thinking. Ideas have genealogies. It's not a conspiracy, but the natural, and often unintentional blending of concepts and terms.

>>13033523
>See also: the refusal to agree that words have meaning
Oh no I heard a slur and now four hundred years of oppression are have landed on my shoulders. The leftist conception of the meaning of words is nothing more than an attempt to gain power via the colonization of social space.

>>13034533
But your scale is broken. Liberals today are not liberal. The closest they come to liberal is intersectional social democracy. Neo-cons are liberals. Soros' efforts have quite significantly pushed the political conversation much further towards socialism/communism than most people have noticed.

>>13034501
Why would you assist your enemies? Or do you think if they actually read it they'll convert to lefties.

>>13034550
>How could their experience possibly help them understand Western developments in post-Marxist thought?
To get basic levels of understanding what acutally is Marxism?

>As you correctly point out, the Bolsheviks developed Marx in a completely different direction
In one that was at least remotely related to the theory developed by Marx.

>The right-wing is not racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, or anti-feminist. Never has been
Step away from the computer and take a look at what you've just written.

>Conservatism is nationalist and has some concern for ethnicity in a positive manner, but as a matter of cultural norms, not of genetic material.
Conservatism (unlike Marxism) isn't real, coherent ideology. It's a very situational position that can be nationalistic, anti-nationalistic or hypernationalistic depending on time and space.

These type of threads are egregore that feed on replies. I would go as far as to say that they actually lower your IQ if you post enough.

>>13034605
It's entertaining to watch leftists champion a kind of intellectualism that is inherently elitist and hostile towards the working class. Patting yourself on the back for studying esoteric texts can never give you even the slightest bit of self-awareness.

>>13034584
There is a reason I am using the word post-Marxist. Marx would probably be appalled by it. There are still a few in the West today who consider themselves Orthodox Marxists, and they disagree vehemently with post-Marxist groups. But this whole conversation we are having demonstrates my point. The only people who talk more about who is and is not a real Marxist than conservatives are those whose ideas are developed after Marx's. You're purity testing right now. If you think conservatism is ever anti-nationalist then you have no idea what conservatism is. Further, hyper nationalistic is not a real thing. It is an illusion made up by those who oppose nationalism for things which are not, in and of themselves, nationalistic, most often to denegrate rival statists without objecting to statism itself.

>>13034625
All liberals and communists have, ironically, always been middle class mid-wits who argue against the upper class supposedly on behalf of the lower. The only exception are anarchists, who are sometimes from the lower classes.

>>13034625
Blue collar cogs have too much of the alienated false consciousness to grasp the truly emancipatory potential of Deleuze on flying wolf anuses.

>>13034562
>Liberals today are not liberal. The closest they come to liberal is intersectional social democracy
What the hell are you babbling about? By this semantic diarrhea one would say you are an American. I'm speaking about pro-democracy, pro-human rights, pro-austerity folks.

>Soros' efforts have quite significantly pushed the political conversation much further towards socialism/communism than most people have noticed.
Well take a look at this guy
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lajos_Bokros
>He is a full professor (Department of Public Policy) and former chief operating officer of the Central European University.
>He is best known for the so-called "Bokros package"; a string of austerity measures implemented during his term as Finance Minister.

Or this guy
>Jacek Rostowski
>Vincent-Rostowski joined the Cabinet of Premier Donald Tusk on 16 November 2007, and served as Finance Minister of the Republic of Poland until November 2013. He was named European Finance Minister of the Year in 2009 by The Banker magazine.
>From 1995 he has been Professor of Economics and was the head of the Department of Economics at the Central European University in Budapest during the periods: 1995–2000 and 2005–2006.
>Rostowski is a believer in free markets, as well as a fiscal and social conservative.

Or that guy
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/János_Kornai
>János Kornai, until 1945 János Kornhauser, (born 21 January 1928) is a Hungarian economist noted for his analysis and criticism of the command economies of Eastern European communist states.
>He is a Distinguished Research Professor at Central European University
>His 1980 book Economics of Shortage is perhaps his most influential work. In it, Kornai argued that the chronic shortages seen throughout Eastern Europe in the late 1970s (and which continued during the 1980s) were not the consequences of planners' errors or the wrong pricing, but systemic flaws.

See the pattern?

>>13034635
>post-Marxist
Why not post-Freudian or Cis-Alpinic? Where is the Marxist element in it?

>If you think conservatism is ever anti-nationalist then you have no idea what conservatism is.
Does the name Metternich ring any bells?

>Further, hyper nationalistic is not a real thing.
Deutschnationale Volkspartei?

>>13034667
Soros has also been one of the most influential forces behind the LGBTQ movement, behind mass migration, and behind multiple color revolutions. And do not forget his bank runs on England and Australia. Soros certainly plays the field, but his actions never result in any meaningful action towards conservatism. And again, your view of the positions is skewed, as is most people's. The free market is not particularly conservative, and neither, in a very traditional sense, is democracy. These men you have listed are Liberals, and yet they are called conservatives and run for office for parties that call themselves conservative. But then conservatives look around and ask, what has happened? Where is our tradition? Where are our trades? Where are our families? Where is our country? So these men you have listed are actually clear evidence of how Soros shifts the field of play. If these are the "conservatives" imagine what the "liberals" can be.

>>13034701
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Marxism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Marxism
These aren't just made up right wing bogeymen but scholarly terms.

Why are anti-intellectuals averse to the writings of convoluted, abstruse writers?

>>13028138
>>13030740
>>13031872
>>13032027
>>13032283
>>13032684
>>13034550
>postmodernism holds some of the best arguments against the people THEY hate and for the things THEY like.
The best part about this post is that you can replace THEY with any group, not just the right. Achieving your desired reforms is easy when you drop all notions that you are held accountable to any objective intellectual or moral standards.

If you're still reading this post, your eyes aren't flooded with tears of rage just from seeing pic related, and you at least have the capacity to educate yourself of the logical conclusions of applied postmodern thought in ones life. Go educate yourself regarding the content and history of the Frankfurt school and decide for yourself if they are intellectual heroes or con men.

>>13034701
Most post-freudian thought is not particularly political, and if political, they are almost exclusively post-Marx. The marxist element is the common ancestor of Marx within the ideology, and the relatively familiarity and cross-polinization with other post-Marx ideas.

On Mettersnich, you are deeply confused. In being against the Nationalist movements of his time, he was not anti-nationalism. He served the Holy Roman Empire and lived in an era of Empires. An empire is a nation of nations. Or, it is one nation which has supremacy over other nations or peoples. The Nationalist movements at that time were movements of autonomy from the various empires, or else there was the joining of various German nations into a new nation of Germany. So, metternich was against those natioanlist movements, but was not against nations in general, which is what it means to be an anti-nationalist.

The German Worker's Party was not hyper-nationalistic. It was a loose collection of all those who opposed liberalism, and especially communism. Only a portion of the party was conservative.

While conservatism does imply nationalism, your seeming confusiong that nationalism means conservatism, and that militarism or statism mean extreme nationalism (hyper-nationalism) demonstrates just how committed you are, without realizing it, to post-Marxian internationalism.

>>13034709
>LGBTQ movement, behind mass migration, and behind multiple color revolutions
So two liberal movements and group of revolutions with anti-Socialist undertones?

>Soros certainly plays the field, but his actions never result in any meaningful action towards conservatism.
Do you often have trouble with reading comprehension? I said he moves the field towards Capitalism and capitalism miracolously managed to shit on traditions and families even harder than Marx.

>>13034496
While this may be true of contemporary rightists, the origins of conservatism lies with historist critics of Enlightened universalism who argued exactly on the contingency of historical traditions, but not to say they shouldn't be followed, but to say they shouldn't be hastily replaced by intellectual schemes with no basis on reality.

I don't see why the right couldn't go back to such a posture.

>>13034550
>The right-wing is not racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, or anti-feminist.

Oh yes we are. Don’t insult us like that again.

>>13034802
Hahaha, you actually believe color revolutions are anti-socialist.

And it is not the free market which is anti-tradition. It is modernism that is anti-tradition and has slowly been eroding belief in tradition. All modernist ideologies, and especially "post" modernist ideologies, erode tradition. It is the lack of tradition which renders the free market destructive. Without tradition, people have no motivation beyond themselves. This is neither inherent to the market, nor capitalism. It is not the mechanism of trade which undermines traditional value. It is things like LGBTQ, mass migration, revolution, social media, etc. You may disagree with his analysis and viewpoint, but there are many writers and activists who agree that liberal economic policies combined with post-Marxist cultural influence is the most effective route to the classless international society.

>>13034813
Fascists are not right wing. To be right wing, you must be conservative. Fascism, particularly German fascism, is not conservative. Something cannot be both Modern and Conservative. The conservatives in Germany were fooled, but it won't happen again. Conservatives are slow learners, but we have a long memory.

>>13034870
>Something cannot be both Modern and Conservative
>A society that wishes to preserve its core tradition of modernistic practices
Checkmate, atheists.

>>13034764
>THEY
>replace with any modernist movement
Does not work.
The right are not necessarily modernist but any contingency in which they succumb to modernism will not allow postmodernism to be their best form of attack or defense, while any in any event where they are not modernist would be so inclined. I'm baffled why you could not see this before posting.

>>13034852
>Hahaha, you actually believe color revolutions are anti-socialist.
What else would the Velvet Revolution be you utter imbecile? Or don't you know who was Milošević? Or do you think Ukraine somehow re-polarized between the Orange revolution and Maidan? It was either aimed at socialists directly or at the remaining cadres.

>And it is not the free market which is anti-tradition.
Bury the head into the sand if you want. It´s either capitalism, prosperity or technology. Traditions arose as optimal behaviour for certain material circumstances and now we live in radically different material circumstances. Logically we try to adapt to the new conditions, but they change so fast each generation lives in different world.

>people have no motivation beyond themselves
>This is neither inherent to the market, nor capitalism
hmmmm....

>combined with post-Marxist cultural influence is the most effective route to the classless international society.
Oh yes, the intellectuals like Baudrillard or Žižek that have greater power over the masses than the advertisement agencies, the mass media or the culture industry.

>>13034965
>Oh yes, the intellectuals like Baudrillard or Žižek that have greater power over the masses than the advertisement agencies, the mass media or the culture industry.
What is your specific materialist explanation for capital pushing this stuff then if not for the pressure from activists influenced by the likes of Butler?

>>13034870
I disagree. Fascism is just proactive (social) conservatism; the non-cucked, non-passive version. Fascism and conservatism both have social traditionalism as the goal but disagree on the size and role of the government.

Fascism is right wing.

>>13034958
Are you ESL? I'm having trouble parsing your sentence while giving an honest effort, and I desperately want to answer you correctly. My best-guess interpretations of what you said are either:
>(1) modernist movements cannot utilize post modern tactics to advance their goals
This is so self-evident, it would be an insult to anyone's intelligence to state explicitly. If this is your issue, then I will be explicit for your benefit only: ['A' cannot use ~'A' tactics.]
>(2) the right does not subscribe to modernistic practice in all facets of their lives. for facets that they hold modernistic views, post modern tactics are not advantageous; for facets that they hold non-modernistic view, postmodern tactics WOULD be advantageous if employed
In the post-modernistic world view of power groups competing for power, the right being one such group, this makes sense to the extent that increasing the arsenal of potential tactics one may employ is advantageous. In modernistic world view, the greatest fault of the right would be that they do not employ modernistic practice in all facets of their lives, not that they do not employ non-modernistic tactics to wrestle for political power. I was tempted to say this is yet another potential insult to one's intelligence to address explicitly, but for those who are not proficiently educated regarding the fundamental differences between modernism and post modernism, saying such would be a disservice and only be ego fluffing.

Modernism is the subscription to the assumption that our sensory experience of Nature is fundamentally objective, that we are able to perceive things as they are. We may use these experiences to form logical hypotheses for events and formulate abstractions that allow us to traverse our lives with a means of analysis and control, and continued, active experience will allow for the refinement of these abstractions in order to better describe reality in an ever-improving fashion. Post modernism is the rejection of modernism's claim that your sensory experience of Nature is fundamentally objective. In the place of this assumption, it is posited that our sensory experiences are merely interpretations of what may or may not be reality, and all experience is subjective. It follows that there are no methods for establishing causality, formulating disprovable hypotheses, or justifying any moral and ethical standards. Improvement is not a concept that can be employed by post modernism, as such a notion requires the existence of an objective value system. These core differences make direct dialogue between these two categories of thought impossible as they do not share the assumptions that are required to do so. A modernist cannot have discourse with a post modernist using an objective value systems as this is not valuable to a post-modernist. A post modernist cannot have discourse with a modernist with claims that are subjective as there is are no objective metrics to use for support.

>>13028108
i'm about as right wing as it gets and i very much admire the work of adorno, kracauer and simmel

>>13035339
>i'm about as right wing as it gets
Give me a quick run down of some of your views. Especially the radical ones.

>>13035339
Is this on the basis of their content’s interest or quality, or is it because of their corrosive anti-proletarian politics?

>>13035333
>>13035333
>This is so self-evident, it would be an insult to anyone's intelligence to state explicitly
It's precisely why your supposition that replacing THEY with any group will not work.>>13034764
Read your own post.

>>13029848
The bourgeoisie proper is not wedded to any political, ethnic or religious agenda. It exists simply to propagate itself as ruling class.

>>13034326
if we make it tradition to break and replace everything that is old then conservatism can be anti traditional. your thought appears to be stuck in 1899, try reading more.

>>13035339
>kracauer
In 1930, Kracauer published Die Angestellten (The Salaried Masses), a critical look at the lifestyle and culture of the new class of white-collar employees. Spiritually homeless, and divorced from custom and tradition, these employees sought refuge in the new "distraction industries" of entertainment. Observers note that many of these lower-middle class employees were quick to adopt Nazism, three years later.

(1/2)
>>13035439
You know what, that's a fair point. I will grant you that it is a non-rigorous statement as it stands; I will now restructure it in a more qualifying way so we can get past the hang up of it being a 4chan post I made in a limited amount of time so no one else misses the forest for the trees. If you issues with the revised definition, bring them up as well so we can qualify it as much is needed

>>13034764
>postmodernism holds some of the best arguments against the people THEY hate and for the things THEY like.
The best part about this post is that you can replace THEY with any group that can potentially adhere to a post modernistic framework, not just the right. Achieving your desired reforms is easy when you drop all notions that you are held accountable to any objective intellectual or moral standards.

Let's examine that a little more closely too, while we're at it, since we're going to be sticklers here
>holds some of the BEST arguments
STOP. This right here is the sin of those who claim to apply the post modern framework. A post modern argument cannot be made to a modernist (at all, really) using a metric of value. Post modernists reject objective, measurable values, and thus the concept of something be the BEST is non-existent in their framework. Let's grant them a pass on this one exception and continue. A post modernist cannot posit that an application of their arguments is EFFECTIVE because their sensory experience of the arguments application and resulting outcomes are subjective, and thus open for interpretation. There would be no universally valid way for them to reach a consensus on its outcome, or that it had even been applied correctly in the first place. Let's grant them a pass on this one exception and continue. The post modern arguments that were put forth could now potentially not be the best ones that could have been used, having had less effective results, and the consequences of such a situation would lead a modernist to discard them, as they are, in order to formulate new modified arguments that will address the shortcomings of the original ones. This step is not necessary for a post modernist, as they may simply put forth the original arguments with a new interpretation as to their consequences, or claim that their original application was incorrect.

(2/2)
>>13036392
Why do post modernists get away with this? A post modernist framework allows them to apply any framework because the contents of their communication are not required to be objective, consistent, or even honest. If you don't believe me, how effective could a post-modernist argument be in the hands of a practicing modernist? It would be unusable to them because their framework is more restrictive, prohibiting such as argument from propagating on the basis that it is in direct conflict with its core principal of sensory experience being the irreducible primary. How effective could a modernist argument be in the hands of a practicing post modernist? It's effectiveness would be limited only by their ingenuity and the subjective opinion of the judge(s), as a post modernist is not objectively bound to intellectual rigor, consistency, or honesty when communicating their arguments and ideas. A post modernist may apply arguments that are formulated upon assumptions that directly oppose the ones that characterize their own framework because what they present are not actually the arguments themselves, but facades of communication and wordplay that are meant to persuade the observers and judges through their subjective perception of them rather than the objective implications of their application.

>>13035063
>What is your specific materialist explanation for capital pushing this stuff then if not for the pressure from activists influenced by the likes of Butler?
American civil rights movement primarily, then mass culture and primarily shift from rural/survival values to urban/self-expression values. And who is Butler?

>>13028277
>That’s why they allowed Beethoven despite not understanding the politics behind his work

>>13036923
Both of those are intertwined so thoroughly with the expansion of academic power over everyday life that they might as well be the same.

>>13036392
>This attempt at restructuring
You're missing why postmodernism would work against the modernists they hate. If you replace modernists in the previous sentence with a premodern movement, it again falls down.
>STOP. This right here is the sin of those who claim to apply the post modern framework
No, what you conceive of a sin here is because you made the mistake above of assuming that it works as an argument against all potential movements, rather than in the specific case of against modernist ones. Your attempt to universalise the statement is the problem.

I'm convinced nearly all "cultural marxists" were actually right-wing reactionaries.

>>13035676
How poor is your logic? You cannot have a tradition of anti-tradition. But what should I expect from someone who thinks a date in time has any bearing on what is true or false.

>>13035254
You have just said that Fascism is traditional by wanting rapid change. Modernism is incompatible with conservatism. There is nothing passive about conservatism. The roots of tradition must be watered daily.

>mouth breathers are averse to reading
What a shocking truth

>>13034965
>this reactionary attempt at color revolution is clearly evidence that Soros's support of the other color revolutions is not a support of socialism, because I misinterpreted a statement about the so-called liberalism of color revolutions to be about the impossibility of any color revolution not being socialist

>traditions are simply a matter of economy
No wonder you cannot see how the market is not inherently anti-tradition. Traditions are not a result of the market. They are collection of practiced values. What is valued steers the economy. Progress is an illusion. Something like progress can only be measured by qualitative values. Do you think it coincidence that we try and measure "quality of life" not quantity of life? Tradition is the only vehicle by which values are reliably carried forward. So as much as some new model or ideology might put forward new ideals and values, it is unsustainable unless it puts forward a new tradition. As much as change and revolution and progress itself are the values, then no tradition can be established. In the West, the people no longer believe in tradition, and so buy things only for their immediate and quickly passing desires. With tradition, however, the market is restrained automatically not by government, but by individual desire. What is against tradition is not desired. It is not the ability to buy and sell goods without tax or imposition that causes people to buy specifically the things they do buy. The perception of value is the driver. Tradition defines value. If there is no tradition, there will be no consistent definition of value.

>>13035333
Modernism is not objectivity. Nor rationalism. Nor empiricism. Modernism is the belief that through these things a secular, new, previously unknown truth can be discovered liberating us from old and out of date ideologies. Modernism is not a belief simply about the state of the world, but particularly about the relationship of the present to the past.

>>13037444
>You cannot have a tradition of anti-tradition
yes you can if the only continuity between generations is that they continuously remove traditions as they identify them

>>13037566
That's not a tradition. That's just change. That's anti-tradition. That's post-modernism. Tradition is not a passive thing. It is an active renewal and tribute to what has been found to be good.

>>13037572
>It is an active renewal and tribute to what has been found to be good.

now imagine 'what has been found to be good' is the breaking of these cycles of renewal

/lit/ has become OFFICIALLY left-wing.

How?

Was it planned?

Where did it come from?

Honest questions here.

>>13037583
That is a belief that nothing has been found to be good, and that nothing ever can be found to good. It's not simply against prior tradition, but against all possibility of tradition. Please, could you for once consider you argument in full. Consider its logical consequences. You are arguing that 1+1=\=2 because 2 is one number, and 1+1 is two numbers.

>>13034392
That fills out my bingo board

>>13037614
Not sure if you could tell, but that one was ironic

>>13037594
The Peterson-Zizek debate actually got people to read Marxist texts.

>>13037594
/lit/ has always been one of the more left leaning boards on this site faggot.

>>13037622
Sincerity is not requisite to win The Game

>>13037629
The high population of humanities majors will do that

>>13037625
>to read Marxist texts.

>>13037637
If people who study the humanities mostly come out left-wing, clearly something had gone wrong in Western thought.

>>13037719
Yes, Marx. But Also, Martin Luther and Calvin.

>>13033523
Hilarious considering that left wingers do everything they can to change the meaning of words to fit their worldview. They certainly throw tantrums at the classices.

>>13037730

>>13038353
Case in point.

>>13037594
Didn't that Evola thread get hundreds of replies and stay on the first page for days?

Why are /lit/'s rightist fags so alarmist?

>>13028108
How else can they weaponized their ignorance to 'win' the culture war?

>>13037594
>this newfag not knowing who started the Zizek and Striner memes
If anything the debate with Peterson means that Zizekposting is coming home

>>13034453
>Marx only really wrote about laborers, industrialists, mass production, agrarian societies, etc.
Marx started identity politics by inventing the "proletariat" and the "bourgesie" as identities that went beyond national and cultural boundaries. Modern Identity politics wouldn't exist in a marxless world.

>>13038979
Marx didn't invent the proletariat. The Romans invented the proletariat. It mean that class of people which was primarily useful for breeding. He also did not invent bourgeoisie, which had been a term across Europe since the 1100s or so. It's true modern identity politics wouldn't exist without marx, but it has much less to do with his discussions about class, and more about his insistence on a perpetual dialectic of class struggle, most easily summarized as oppressor/oppressed.

>>13037600
you're trying to reduce a HIGHLY abstract social argument to logical principles you gay reductionist cuck

>>13039541
I don't think you understand what abstract means. And our debate is literally about the partial identity or non-identity of two ideologies. It's not reductionist to say that the words matter less than the underlying structure, but objectivist. Furthermore, reductionist is only an insult to brain-addled post-Marxists.

>>13037719
It's entirely possible to legitimately study the humanities and emerge right wing; the structures in place in American universities are essentially designed more to churn out 'leftist' activists than to study the humanities

>>13028108
Am I wrong in thinking that the Frankfurt school are opposed to anything actually right wing, eg. monarchy, patriarchy, actual christianity(or another traditional religion), white(read: majority) identity politics, etc. ?

Why would any rightist read their material on the off chance there is some stuff buried within that they sort of agree about.

>>13039996
The Frankfurt school despised modern consumerism and pop culture--the right agrees with this.
The right should read them anyway to understand the modern left. Although most of the pesky leftists who teach gender studies at Random State University are more Foucalt influenced than Frankfurt school influenced