/lit/ - Literature

>>20549687
Evola and Guenon

>>20549687
milton friedman's stuff

>>20549687
This thing.

>>20549707
Are you 14?

>>20549714
He probably is.

>>20549687
The technological society

>>20549843
Yeah, I wish I could unread this one. Even Ted's stuff isn't quite as depressing.

>>20549687
Moldbug

>>20549687
I was worried this book would turn me trans (it did)

>>20549702
Just read Keynes afterwards

>>20549687
I ain't 'fraid 'a no fuckin' BOOK.

>>20549843
That seething propagandized machine cannot change anyone’s mind

>>20549707
Do it comrade

>>20549707
pussy

>>20551719
go home carl

>Trees are bad because they are large integrated structures with tissue hierarchy and that's FASCIST
>Fungus is good because its undifferentiated cells make it egalitarian and that's kind of like communism in a weird way
>Globalized capitalism is good because it makes people live like fungus and that's NOT FASCIST and strangely like communism
>I'm going to say the above in 400 pages using weird pomo poetics that are hard to parse because well-structured writing is FASCIST

There. I just saved you from having to read A Thousand Plateaus.

>>20549687
Evola and Guenon

>>20549687
Culture of Critique

>>20552644
Fuck, now I wanna read it

>>20554071
Make your your wife’s boyfriend also read it!

>>20552644
Deleuze, Adorno, late stage Freud, Foucault, Kojeve, and virtually every other onions-structuralist/critical theorist/etc. of that period can be explained by a consistent and dogmatic hatred of the thumotic aspect of the soul. because, a la Strauss's critique of German nihilism, thumos could inspire fascism if taken too far and for the wrong purposes. all these people just want to live like Last Man bugmen, in thrall to the erotic aspect of the soul, with technocratic structures managing all necessities.

that's it. that's the secret. now you can understand them, take what's good, see what they're missing, and discard the rest

>>20554340
very based, thanks comrade. curious how you feel about bataille and if you would include him among those others or if his pagan vigor puts him in a different camp. seems like a fringe case to me

>>20549707
This, when I was a 16 year old AnCap

>>20549687
probably some pro-vegan book, I'm too lazy to change my diet.

>>20554361
I've never read Bataille. but I'm willing to hear your take on him, if anything I said inspired you.

>>20554340
Dweeb alert ^

>>20554340
Calling Delueze and Foucault last men is an interesting critique considering both were extremely influenced by Nietzsche in their work. Can't say I really get your point about thumos, can you elaborate on how they enslaved to it, just generally curious about the point you are making.

>>20554409
Haven't read any of those you in any depth besides Foucault. Bataille is all about living in thrall to the erotic aspect of the soul but usually in a more Nietzsche type of way, religious/animalistic but still polymorphous and liberated from hierarchy. afaik deleuze loves him too but is less focused on the aspects of restoring and reinvigorating mysticism.any way I'm no expert but if you're into that type of thing it might interest you

>>20549687
this... all my friends are atheists and agnostics

>>20549687
probably a weird choice but I really don't want to become utilitarian

>>20555504
how do you guys talk? "Science bless you", "Praise Darwin"? must be a real thrill to hang around people that deny metaphysics. /sarcasm.

>>20555362
I'm starting with the Platonic conception of the soul. eros, thumos, logos, etc. just understand that the Greek concept of thumos, which can be thought of as "traditional masculinity", the impulse to strive over what one finds wrong, the passion to conquer, etc., is seen as completely bad because the Nazis were all thumos and no logos. btw, Freud lifts his entire metaphysics of the soul (the pleasure principle, death drive, and reality principle) from Plato, except he says that thumos is completely bad no matter what.

>>20555768
> except he says that thumos is completely bad no matter what.
Where do you derive this reading? I don’t see it in BPP

>>20549687
I would probably have to say a race science book, especially one that sufficiently proves aryan thesis + the differences among even white races, rather than a shitty IQ book like Bell Curve. But I don’t even know what that would be — de Gobineau comes to mind but he is likely entirely outdated.

>>20554340
W post

>>20556277
>Where do you derive this reading? I don’t see it in BPP
gets emphasized in Civilization and its Discontents

>>20554340
>Deleuze, Adorno, late stage Freud, Foucault, Kojeve, Strauss
and let's not forget
>Wilhelm Reich, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Karl Popper

According to all these JEWWWWWWWWS, absolutely nothing is worse than fascism. Nothing.

Cut off your balls, murder your children, molest your children, mutilate your soul, carve out parts of your brain, give up your very right to breathe of your own volition — any and all sacrifices MUST be made to prevent fascism.

FASCISM BAD. FASCISM BAD. FASCISM BAD. FASCISM BAD. DON'T ASK QUESTIONS FASCISM BAD.

Eventually you have to come to the conclusion these people are conning you and fascism is just not great for them. They don't care about you one way or another.

Perhaps fascism is the one thing that might stop them from ruling over you.

>>20556389
Ok?

>>20555521
Just know that Utilitarianism leads you to make horrifying aesthetic choices like putting your poorly-preserved geriatric carcass in a glass case for undergrads to be disgusted by for a century. Then you will never be tempted to accept autistic arguments for bad ideas because their logic is sound within the myopic scope of their own premises.

>>20556399
Death to Israel.

>>20556389
it's pretty much going to lead to a society where you're not supposed to care about anything, only consume. because the moral, passionate drive of you have been utterly annihilated for the safety of everyone around you. you're free to do whatever you wish, except impede other people's desires to do whatever they wish. if you were to embrace the thumotic aspect of your soul, you may start to discriminate between better and worse, stronger and weaker, or even good and evil. and that could lead to the Holocaust!

>>20554340
>lumping deleuze and fucking freud into the same group
Jordan Peterson let you down, anon.

>>20556473
yes they belong into the same group. they built the metaphysical foundations for globohomo. please cope harder.

>>20555768
It sounds to me like you should actually read what an author thought before having opinions on them.

>the impulse to strive over what one finds wrong, the passion to conquer, etc.
This is pretty much the entire point of Deleuze, and whining about how no one is doing this anymore is like half of Foucault (the other half is deconstructing Liberalism for the purpose of allowing others to reconstruct society such that people can have the impulse to strive over what one finds wrong, the passion to conquer, etc).

>>20556481
Freud, sure. Deleuze, no. The very first chapter of 1KP is a scathing critique of Freudianism, and every Plateau afterwards is too (in its own way).

Again, Jordan Peterson let you down.

>>20556473
>>20556486
>>20556490
The jew cries out as he gaslights you.

>>20556493
Have you ever read anything by Deleuze or Foucault?

>>20549707
I'm scared it will put me to sleep.

>>20554340
nice strawman brainlet

>>20556389
you are psychotic lol

>>20556486
Foucault's critique of power is meant to deconstruct the remnants of traditional institutions and norms as an oppressive, controlling force, regardless of the wisdom of their ends. when all institutions regulating morality are gone, there's nothing for you to overcome, and you're free to do as you wish. Foucault views self-restraint and moral impulses as a form of personal violence or even fascism. again, anti-thumotic.
>>20556490
Deleuze overthrows Freud in anti-Oedipus so he could bring his own sterile analysis that otherwise checks virtually the same moral and metaphysical boxes. at the very least Freud was concerned about libidinal forces running wild. Deleuze wanted to unchain them and democratize them, which dovetails well with global capitalism. if anything, Deleuze was far worse than Freud ever could, since Freud wanted to preserve some remnant of Christian morality. anti-thumotic.

>>20556493
The retard reverts to memes as he is BTFO

>>20556566
>deleuze
>democratize
lol

>>20556566
>Foucault's critique of power is meant to deconstruct the remnants of traditional institutions and norms as an oppressive, controlling force
No it isn't.

>When all institutions regulating morality are gone, there's nothing for you to overcome, and you're free to do as you wish.
I don't see what this has to do with either Deleuze or Foucault.

>Foucault views self-restraint and moral impulses as a form of personal violence or even fascism.
No he doesn't.

>Deleuze overthrows Freud in anti-Oedipus so he could bring his own sterile analysis that otherwise checks virtually the same moral and metaphysical boxes
No he doesn't.

>at the very least Freud was concerned about libidinal forces running wild.
>preserve some remnant of Christian morality
Make up your mind.

>Deleuze wanted to unchain them and democratize them
No he didn't.

>which dovetails well with global capitalism
Humorous how Deleuze was a massive critic of global Capitalism, but Jordan Peterson is a huge supporter of the Pharmaceutical Industry AFTER they literally put him into a coma with their poison.

>>20556566
It's been 22 minutes and you still haven't let us know which works by Deleuze and Foucault that you have read, anon.

>>20556590
>>20556605
>No he doesn't
you're not even trying to provide an argument.
>Make up your mind.
I suppose you can't read. Freud was anti-sex. Nothing I said contradicted itself.
>I don't see what this has to do with either Deleuze or Foucault.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws
>Humorous how Deleuze was a massive critic of global Capitalism, but Jordan Peterson is a huge supporter of the Pharmaceutical Industry AFTER they literally put him into a coma with their poison.
I really don't understand why you keep bringing up Jordan Peterson. I've never read anything by him. He's a non-entity to me.

Anyway, I've dealt with these type of tactics before. They're usually embraced by people who either have a moral axe to grind or were attached to these thinkers for pseudcred. There's no reason to be deceitful on an anonymous imageboard, anon. If you've got contrary ideas, spit them out.

>>20556615
Freud, Civilization and its Discontents
Foucault, Disciple & Punish and his Lectures on Security, Territory, and Population
Deleuze, Anti-Oedipus

I was mostly concerned about what they had to say about ethics and the human condition.

>>20556628
>you're not even trying to provide an argument.
You haven't provided anything to argue against. You made a claim, it is factually incorrect. Let's just take a really simple metric here: Foucault was against the modern medical industrial complex because it dehumanizes people and turns them into mere pawns for technocratic elites. The Jews did, well, literally everything they did during Covid. Mass quarantines at gunpoint, forcing people to get experimental gene therapy, condemning huge numbs of the elderly to die painful deaths. Does that sound like something that a regime using Foucault as a guidebook would do? No, it doesn't, because they aren't.

Let's do Deleuze: A big point of Deleuze's is that Capitalism is just one of many forces at work in society and the way to defeat it is to emphasize the others (such as the family, religious institutions, ethnic and racial networks, tribes, etc) by moving the objects of Desire towards the immaterial and away from the material: by doing so, we are able to smother Capitalism, which is only ever able to provide material things. And yet, we see that the Jews are constantly driving a ceaseless march towards ever greater heights of materialism, and an ever greater emphasis on Capitalism as the salvation of all ills, and an ever greater stifling of the family, religious institutions, ethnic and racial networks, tribes, etc. Does this sound like something that a regime using Deleuze as a guidebook would do? No, it doesn't, because they aren't.

Let's just do an even easier one because you're used to Twitter and big-thoughts are hard: How the fuck can you justify LGBT when Deleuze and Foucault both were constantly dunking it and the precursors to it (like Magnus Hirschfeld's Institut für Sexualwissenschaft stuff)? How can you justify the intrinsic identities necessary for Social Justice with the works of two philosophers who are supposedly an acid-bath meant to deconstruct everything?

They are totally using Freud though, but then you think that Freud is based.

>Freud was anti-sex
Dangerously anti-thumotic, anon.

>age of consent
And?

>I really don't understand why you keep bringing up Jordan Peterson
Because you're yet another moron regurgitating his garbage. I mean, come the fuck on "Deleuze and Foucault are what caused globohomo"? "Thumos"? Seriously?

>>20556636
You have read none of these texts; AO and D&P both directly refute your point.

>>20556677
>How the fuck can you justify LGBT when Deleuze and Foucault both were constantly dunking it and the precursors to it

Not that guy, but I'm interesting in hearing more about this.

>>20556696
In 1KP Deleuze and Guattari's example of how creativity can become stifled by merely rearranging existing forms (that's a really gay statement, but stating it better requires a huge amount of jargon) is "a woman with a mustache". LGBT, as a very specific sort of religious phenomena that takes weird sex and turns it into a sacrament, is this writ large. There's nothing new about "genderqueers", they're just annoying losers who will fuck anything that gives them attention. "Demisexuality" is an even better example of this: just take heterosexuality and rename it. It isn't even an attempt at making it LGBT's own by creating a weird class of sexual hylics who exist to pump out lots of babies and then freaks molest them or something.

Foucault also had a huge hateboner for the modern medical system. tl;dr it dehumanizes people by not seeking to treat disease, but rather people, which in turn means that the idea of "health" is destroyed as there is no health, just the person as a mechanism to be tinkered with. LGBT is this applied to human sexuality, with bizarre and arcane mechanisms and rankings and classifications. The Tranny is the most devious of them, however, as it is literally a creature of the medical industrial complex. A Tranny must CONSTANTLY be seeking the aid of medical professionals to keep them functioning, lest they descend back into being the gender that they actually are. They have an IV pumping petroleum products (hormones, immunosuppressants) directly into their veins. They are a walking science experiment. They say so, too. There's a reason why so many trannies are also transhumanists: trannyism is just the first step. It's not just dehumanization by action, but willfull dehumanization. What does a transhumanist do? Transcend humanity; they leave it behind. They become something that is not human.

Don't get me wrong, Deleuze and Foucault were fucking weirdos who can be used to justify a lot of really weird and really disgusting stuff, but they were opponents of the garbage that we live under, and their thought is not being used to defend it. The Age of Consent petition is a really good example, as both Deleuze and Foucault's opposition comes from the simple fact that if the government can decide when you can and cannot fuck, it can decide when you MUST fuck (remember that France was actually considering state mandated miscegenation camps after WWII).

Now reread that last bit and remember that the only reason that Britain and France didn't have armed men kicking down doors and jamming needles into peoples arms was the lack of funding for the project.

>>20556677
> Let's just take a really simple metric here: Foucault was against the modern medical industrial complex because it dehumanizes people and turns them into mere pawns for technocratic elites.
Foucault was only against power structures in the sense that they limited him from doing whatever as he wished, either through force or through indoctrination, active or passive. That's the Nietzschean inheritance. That's it. He's the kind of person who would call you a moralfag on 4chan today if you mocked him for his loli collection.
>Does that sound like something that a regime using Foucault as a guidebook would do? No, it doesn't, because they aren't.
Yes if you only care about finding ways to bend society to your will. The students of 1968 grew up to become the activists invading every fabric of your life to shove politics down your throat. I bet you're not even aware that the CIA pushed Foucault and his ideas in the United States to destabilize Marxist movements.
>Let's do Deleuze: A big point of Deleuze's is that Capitalism is just one of many forces at work in society and the way to defeat it is to emphasize the others (such as the family, religious institutions, ethnic and racial networks, tribes, etc) by moving the objects of Desire towards the immaterial and away from the material: by doing so, we are able to smother Capitalism, which is only ever able to provide material things. And yet, we see that the Jews are constantly driving a ceaseless march towards ever greater heights of materialism, and an ever greater emphasis on Capitalism as the salvation of all ills, and an ever greater stifling of the family, religious institutions, ethnic and racial networks, tribes, etc.
Where did you get your takes on Deleuze, Justin Murphy? Deleuze explicitly targets the nuclear family as a useful tool to support capitalism by repressing desire. Deconstruct the family, desire is unleashed. Too bad capitalism works best by playing to our libidinal impulses after reaching the stage of overproduction, since our wants are infinite in scale and depravity if left unchecked. Again, Deleuzian ethics marks a huge departure from somebody like, let's say, Aristotle, who identifies shame as the beginnings of moral growth, not some kind of enemy to be overcome.
>How the fuck can you justify LGBT when Deleuze and Foucault both were constantly dunking it
Foucault literally died of AIDS lol.
>How can you justify the intrinsic identities necessary for Social Justice with the works of two philosophers who are supposedly an acid-bath meant to deconstruct everything?
Deconstruction is a nihilistic force. When there's nothing there and no moral guidance, you pretty much can do whatever you want. Out of the rubble came identity politics. Oh, and LGBT+ politics is implicitly supported by Foucault and Deleuze, given that any sort of sexual repression is a form of fascism to them, at least at the individual level.

>>20551509
hes worth

Both sides here, the Peterson and the Deleuzian, are right in their critiques of each other according to Zizek.

>>20556839
Does Peterson actually engage with Deleuze? Or have I been pigeonholed as Peterson for some reason?

>>20556739
Thanks for the elucidation. I really do need to read Foucault.

>>20556842
He engages with Foucault, Derrida, and the whole Freudo-Marxist school of thought in quite a similar way, so it equally applies to Deleuze & that’s why you’re getting pigeonholed

But the Zizek (and his friend Badiou) critique is to say that we need “self-restraint” and a skepticism toward pleasure and relativism, IN ORDER TO overcome global capitalism. Badiou goes so far as to say that we need to begin believing in Platonic universal truths to fight against the democratic, relative epistemology of capitalism and its ideologues’ (including Deleuze, whom Badiou basically hated) support for total libidinal freedom (aka slavery to the market)

>>20556884
That's brilliant. Thanks for letting me know.

>>20556884
>critique is to say that we need “self-restraint” and a skepticism toward pleasure and relativism, IN ORDER TO overcome global capitalism

maybe relativism but this guy sounds the same as Ted K. "FUN is le bad"

>>20556936
when your society is collapsing, yes, fun is LE BAD

>>20556936
Love, art, and science are more than permitted for Badiou’s republic, but not the nihilism of hookup sex, the junkfood of pop movies and shows, and the obscurantism of schizoanalysis and other mysticisms

>>20556756
>Foucault was only against power structures in the sense that they limited him from doing whatever as he wished
And here comes the flip flop: ACKTHYUYUALLY, Foucault wasn't a libertine libertarian who wanted to just totally nominalize society, he suffered from the AUTHORITARIAN MINDSENT (oy vey!).

>I bet you're not even aware that the CIA pushed Foucault and his ideas in the United States to destabilize Marxist movements.
And, of course, the Neo-Conservative heritage comes out, oy vey how dare the CIA destabilize the peaceful student movements! And, of course, we're back to Foucault being a nominalist acid-bath. You need to make up your mind.

>Deleuzian... departure from...Aristotle
Deleuze is an Aristotelian, anon.

>Deleuze explicitly targets the nuclear family as a useful tool to support capitalism by repressing desire.
Now you're just making things up. This doesn't even make sense. The family is an agent of stasis, and arrests revolution (of ANY kind in ANY domain) by channeling desire into cyclical loops that produce stability. Why the fuck would that benefit capitalism? The entire point of capitalism is unrestrained desire to fuel material acquisition. Capitalism would want to blast the family into a gazillion peoples to fuel itself and... oh... that's exactly what's going on... because the Jews in charge want to promote capitalism... and Deleuze didn't like capitalism... and they aren't using Deleuze as a handbook... Hm... It's almost like this has already been said.

>Foucault literally died of AIDS lol.
And, of course, LGBT isn't a real thing, it's just WHACKY postmodern neomarxist CRAZINESS and we can never actually pin it down so there's no point in trying to do anything, we can just stand by smugly and tut-tut while doing nothing.

>any sort of sexual repression is a form of fascism to them
No it isn't, both of them have wildly idiosyncratic definitions of Fascism, and both of them are totally fine with societies that control peoples sexualities. But, there is your key point: repression. That smug tut-tutting can only be achieved by a man who totally believes whatever whacky Jewish cause was being hyped up yesteryear. You totally accept that when some genderspecial says that they are "demi-queer" that their ideas are totally legitimate, they just need to be bullied for them. It's not that they're sad wrecks abused by Jewish capitalism, no they're just malicious and WHACKY, wanting to act out their desires (implying that they actually desire to get assfucked).

So, again: why bother having an opinion on these authors when you've never read anything by them.

>>20556972
>And here comes the flip flop:
No, I think he's a libertine libertarian, 100%.
>You need to make up your mind.
I don't see how what I said is contradictory.
>Deleuze is an Aristotelian, anon.
In what meaningful sense, especially when it comes to ethics?
>The family is an agent of stasis, and arrests revolution (of ANY kind in ANY domain) by channeling desire into cyclical loops that produce stability.
I agree. But Deleuze thought that the forces of desire could overcome capitalism (which still requires *some* kind of order to be in place in order to function). The problem is you're looking back with a presentist and are seeing flaws that Deleuze himself wasn't capable of seeing. I actually appreciate your reading of him. It is a great illustration of how even subversive forces can be subverted by redirecting them at themselves.
>Why the fuck would that benefit capitalism?
The point is that it doesn't once you can replace the nuclear family with other institutions.
>and Deleuze didn't like capitalism... and they aren't using Deleuze as a handbook... Hm... It's almost like this has already been said.
He was a product of leftist groupthink being pumped out by critical theorists, the kind of people who wondered why the Marxist revolution hadn't arrived yet and blamed traditional institutions for it. But they're absolutely using Deleuze as a toolkit. Hell, it seems like you're one of those quirky poststructuralist right-wingers, so maybe this article might be up your alley: https://jdeanicite.typepad.com/i_cite/2006/09/why_the_israeli.html
>And, of course, LGBT isn't a real thing, it's just WHACKY postmodern neomarxist CRAZINESS and we can never actually pin it down so there's no point in trying to do anything, we can just stand by smugly and tut-tut while doing nothing.
This attempt to pigeonhole me as a Peterson fan is getting old. There's nothing Marxist about the insanity happening today. If anything, it's more Kojevian. An endless cycle of managing social wealth by alternating between neoliberal and New Deal policies.
>You totally accept that when some genderspecial says that they are "demi-queer" that their ideas are totally legitimate, they just need to be bullied for them.
They're not legitimate, and they need to feel inner shame for it. Society has lost the art of sublimation and higher purpose.
>It's not that they're sad wrecks abused by Jewish capitalism, no they're just malicious and WHACKY, wanting to act out their desires (implying that they actually desire to get assfucked).
It's a little bit of both. Where do our desires come from? Turns out we're quite malleable, AND our desires are infinite in their capacity to grow.
>So, again: why bother having an opinion on these authors when you've never read anything by them.
Just because my reading is more true to the author's intentions doesn't mean I haven't read them. And your attempts to put in my worth is dishonest and getting old.

>>20556972
>And here comes the flip flop:
No, I think he's a libertine libertarian, 100%.
>You need to make up your mind.
I don't see how what I said is contradictory.
>Deleuze is an Aristotelian, anon.
In what meaningful sense, especially when it comes to ethics?
>The family is an agent of stasis, and arrests revolution (of ANY kind in ANY domain) by channeling desire into cyclical loops that produce stability.
I agree. But Deleuze thought that the forces of desire could overcome capitalism (which still requires *some* kind of order to be in place in order to function). The problem is you're looking back with a presentist mindset, where you see flaws that Deleuze himself wasn't capable of seeing. I actually appreciate your reading of him. It is a great illustration of how even subversive forces can be subverted by redirecting them at themselves.
>Why the fuck would that benefit capitalism?
The point is that it doesn't once you can replace the nuclear family with other institutions.
>and Deleuze didn't like capitalism... and they aren't using Deleuze as a handbook... Hm... It's almost like this has already been said.
He was a product of leftist groupthink being pumped out by critical theorists, the kind of people who wondered why the Marxist revolution hadn't arrived yet and blamed traditional institutions for it. But they're absolutely using Deleuze as a toolkit. Hell, it seems like you're one of those quirky poststructuralist right-wingers, so maybe this article might be up your alley: https://jdeanicite.typepad.com/i_cite/2006/09/why_the_israeli.html
>And, of course, LGBT isn't a real thing, it's just WHACKY postmodern neomarxist CRAZINESS and we can never actually pin it down so there's no point in trying to do anything, we can just stand by smugly and tut-tut while doing nothing.
This attempt to pigeonhole me as a Peterson fan is getting old. There's nothing Marxist about the insanity happening today. If anything, it's more Kojevian. An endless cycle of managing social wealth by alternating between neoliberal and New Deal policies.
>You totally accept that when some genderspecial says that they are "demi-queer" that their ideas are totally legitimate, they just need to be bullied for them.
They're not legitimate, and they need to feel inner shame for it. Society has lost the art of sublimation and higher purpose.
>It's not that they're sad wrecks abused by Jewish capitalism, no they're just malicious and WHACKY, wanting to act out their desires (implying that they actually desire to get assfucked).
It's a little bit of both. Where do our desires come from? Turns out we're quite malleable, AND our desires are infinite in their capacity to grow.
>So, again: why bother having an opinion on these authors when you've never read anything by them.
Just because my reading is more true to the author's intentions doesn't mean I haven't read them. And your constant attempts to put words in my mouth is getting old.

>>20549687
Fear and Trembling

>>20556972
>And here comes the flip flop:
No, I think he's a libertine libertarian, 100%.
>You need to make up your mind.
I don't see how what I said is contradictory. Or neoconservative. I prefer Marxism to what we have now.
>Deleuze is an Aristotelian, anon.
In what meaningful sense, especially when it comes to ethics?
>The family is an agent of stasis, and arrests revolution (of ANY kind in ANY domain) by channeling desire into cyclical loops that produce stability.
I agree. But Deleuze thought that the forces of desire could overcome capitalism (which still requires *some* kind of order to be in place in order to function). The problem is you're looking back with a presentist mindset, where you see flaws that Deleuze himself wasn't capable of seeing.
>Why the fuck would that benefit capitalism?
The point is that it doesn't until you can replace the nuclear family with other institutions. Capitalism still requires structure.
>and Deleuze didn't like capitalism... and they aren't using Deleuze as a handbook...
He was a product of leftist groupthink being pumped out by critical theorists, the kind of people who wondered why the Marxist revolution hadn't arrived yet and blamed traditional institutions for it. But they're absolutely using Deleuze as a toolkit. Hell, it seems like you're one of those quirky poststructuralist right-wingers, so maybe this article might be up your alley: https://jdeanicite.typepad.com/i_cite/2006/09/why_the_israeli.html
>And, of course, LGBT isn't a real thing, it's just WHACKY postmodern neomarxist CRAZINESS
This attempt to pigeonhole me as a Peterson fan is getting old. There's nothing Marxist about the insanity happening today. If anything, it's more Kojevian. An endless cycle of managing social wealth by alternating between neoliberal and New Deal policies.
>You totally accept that when some genderspecial says that they are "demi-queer" that their ideas are totally legitimate, they just need to be bullied for them.
They're not legitimate, and they need to feel inner shame for it. Society has lost the art of sublimation and higher purpose.
>It's not that they're sad wrecks abused by Jewish capitalism, no they're just malicious and WHACKY, wanting to act out their desires (implying that they actually desire to get assfucked).
It's a little bit of both. Where do our desires come from? Turns out we're quite malleable, AND our desires are infinite in their capacity to grow.
>So, again: why bother having an opinion on these authors when you've never read anything by them.
Just because my reading is more true to the author's intentions doesn't mean I haven't read them. I actually appreciate your reading of him. It is a great illustration of how even subversive forces can be subverted by redirecting them at themselves. But your constant attempts to put words in my mouth is dishonest and getting old.

>>20554340
b-bap?

>>20557074
Yeah, and that's the point of Conservativism: it doesn't work. It's not supposed to. That's the entire point of Conservativism: to turn you into a useful idiot with no real opinions, thoughts, or feelings, just vague managed opposition. I mean, come the fuck on, just look at what you've argued here: Deleuze and Foucault are both evil anti-semitic authoritarians, but they're actually whacky hyper nominalists that want to deconstruct and fuck everything because something something Freud, but actually Freud is based because Judeo-Christian values repressing "degeneracy" (which can never be defined so as to not alienate potential members of the big tent), simultaneously shilling for Marxism and Capitalism as long as a Jew is in charge, and on and on and on.

And then, we aren't supposed to read the weird French schizos who say no to that because, again, if a Jew is in charge, it's based. Worse yet, their whacky guides to deconstructing oppressive structures enforced by Semites and then reconstructing your own society are heinous not only because they might lead to a society not run by Jews, but even more horrifying, they might WORK, and you wouldn't just be a smug tut-tutter on the sidelines, you might actually have to take actual positions and stick to them!

It's boring. This stuff was a snoozefest in in 2010, it's a snoozefest now.

>>20549687

>>20557131
>Deleuze and Foucault are both evil anti-semitic authoritarians
I haven't argued that Deleuze or Foucault are authoritarians. Rather, that they're useful nihilistic idiots. Also, where are you getting this idea that I'm philosemitic? I strongly feel that you're arguing against some straw man instead of engaging with what I'm saying.
>but actually Freud is based because Judeo-Christian values repressing "degeneracy
I can recognize better and worse. Freud and Marx are secularist garbage, but at least there's some moralistic bent to him. And stop calling them Judeo-Christian. That's cringeworthy. Judaism is antithetical to Christianity.
>they're actually whacky hyper nominalists
This is exactly what I've argued. I've never changed from this standpoint. The problem about advancing nominalist schools of thought is, well, it's not true, and they can be repurposed against you.
>And then, we aren't supposed to read the weird French schizos who say no to that because, again, if a Jew is in charge, it's based. Worse yet, their whacky guides to deconstructing oppressive structures enforced by Semites and then reconstructing your own society are heinous not only because they might lead to a society not run by Jews, but even more horrifying, they might WORK, and you wouldn't just be a smug tut-tutter on the sidelines, you might actually have to take actual positions and stick to them!
Are you done with your soapbox yet?