Hey Veeky Forums, I want to talk about the inevitable fate of the far-right movement to fall into postmodern philosophy.
I find fascinating that most of people don't see this as possible and laugh when i talk about this, but the right wing postmodern movement is not only possible but inevitable.
Since the rise of far-right as a serious political movement but the lack of intelectual basis besides Evola, de Benoist, Eliade, Faye and some others, that lack of intelectual basis will lead to a new way of thinking, by stealing most of the ideas from 20th century new-left ideas, from Foucault, Deleuze, Derrida, Lacan, Adorno and so on.
Both ideas come from the same premises, and those premises are found on Saussure's works, from semiology and semiotics, the symbolism presented on his works and even him creating the idea of the Proto-Indo-European language makes it suitable for both Left and Right.
And I say without hesitating that all postmodern philosophy and structuralist/post-structuralist philosophy comes from Saussure, Lacan shows that on his works where he basically explains the unconscious using semiotics, Lacan sometimes makes Saussure more important than Freud.
Derrida as an example has theories on the usage of language that is applicabe for both and sometimes even more for the far-right, the lack of meaning and the structure behind it is not only a great premise for nihilism but also for a rise nationalism and search for meaning, even Evola says that nationalism rises from nihilism.
Foucault could be the greatest neo-nazi of all time if he wasn't such a cuck, his premises are based on Nietzsche (which is also a conection between left and right) and ALL HIS ANALYSIS ARE BASED ON THE CRISIS OF MODERNITY, of course his solutions are not even a little bit nationalist, but his analysis and usage of genealogy is more right-wing than any of the analysis made by right thinkers.
Deleuze's metaphysics are so subjective that fall into the Sausurreian basis.
Lacan looked like such a right-winger, using Hegel a lot doesn't help on that and basically talking about how the semiotics influencies on the structure of the unconscious makes you think that structuring a world based on morality and order would be greater than giving freedom, Lacan is hard to understand and he did it with purpose, for making his ideas appliable to every ideology.
And the only reason why Adorno wasn't a strasserist was because of his judaism.
Postmodern philosophy is based on nihilism, semiotics, subjectivism and most importantly, a despair that they fulfill with hedonism and moral "degeneracy" (i hate using that word but you got my point), and that's why the far-right will rise from those ideas, for a solution in a meaningless world
And Heidegger's philosophy made it clear that the far-right will only be more subjective and relativist with time, in some years we won't be able to separate a nazi from a new-left because they came from the same ideals
Hey Veeky Forums, I want to talk about the inevitable fate of the far-right movement to fall into postmodern philosophy
What exactly do you mean by far-right? I hate to be pedantic but I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing.
Every authoritarian ideology with a nationalist point of view, fascism in general
>inb4 USSR was fascist
>implying it was not
Except of course, "fascism" and the "naziism" of Hitler is the soft, bourgeoisie take on anti-liberal thinking whereas kamerad Stalin was a true revolutionary.
The only thing that made USSR different from other fascist countries was that nationalism was a mean and not an end
Incorrect, the USSR was a far more anti-liberal nation than any of the "fascistoids" of the West. Note that I am saying anti-liberal (as per Carl Schmitt), which I believe is a far better term than "fascist" or "reactionary" as one prepares to jettison modernity.
>jakobso1.gif
>.gif
>signifier doesn't ascend to the signified
why even bother then?
Lament the losses of meaning, truth, religion, nation, a state that doesn't get trolled by corporations that threaten to relocate at the first sign of a law they don't like, community, social behavior enough, and someone will desire to restore them, which is why the nazis are now in the parliaments of some European countries.
As you lament, ask yourself: when exactly was it better? So far I found no indication of the precise moment in history right before the reversibile or irreversibile fuckup.
Also there's the fact that linguists aren't Saussurian anymore, and they're puzzled that literary theorists and continental philosophers (except Agamben that disagreed with Derrida over this in L'albero del linguaggio and elsewhere) and the rest of the retarded pseuds don't know this.
Bush's "we create our own reality", Trump's "alternative facts" and Dugin's "special Russian truth" will be the legacy of the very useful, great emancipators of post-modernity.
You know that anti-liberalism isn't the most important thing on the fascist ideology, right?
This anti-liberal movement came along with Feder but wasn't important as the concept of people, land, nation and race, which the USSR didn't praise that much (only after some years in Stalin to unite the people), and just to remind that a lot of the nazis were pro-market, and of course they would be, why do you think the night of the long knives happened?
I think you just read a Hannah Arendt book on totalitarism and started shitposting about it
Please don't be a brainlet on my board
It is the most important feature in a metaphysical sense. Suppression and destruction of the free man is the logical endpoint of my beliefs.
If that's your definition of far-right, then pretty much any monarchist intellectual (Hobbes for example) could be used. The reason the far-right hasn't really latched on to any particular intellectual is because I don't think the movement really is just "authoritarian nationalism," and also because it's basically populist and reactionary at this point.
It basically seems that your analysis boils down to "postmodernism and the far-right are basically the same except for the nationalism and authoritarianism part." And I will grant you there are some similarities. Both of them are reactionary movements; postmodernism to modernism, and the far-right to postmodernism. Both start from a place of despair, but react differently to it. Postmodernism reacts with hedonism, and the far-right reacts by finding purpose in a hierarchy. Postmodernism reacted to the failure of modernism, the realization that man might not be progressing towards anything, by deciding that there is no inherent meaning in the world, or nihilism. The Far-Right reacts to Postmodernism by basically saying they will make meaning if there is none.
It would make no sense for the Far-Right in its current form today to return to Postmodernism, because the whole point of it was that it was dissatisfied with Postmodernism. It may agree with some of what the movement has to say (just like how Postmodernism shares things in common with modernism), but it will never embrace it because its entire identity was birthed out of a hatred for postmodernism.
No, it attacked other countries undergoing a socialist revolution and imposed russification where it could because the nation was the end, not the means, indeed the continuation of Russian imperialism by other means, hence the increasing disgust of Western Marxists with the Soviet Union, including those non-tankie postmoderns in France and elsewhere.
Sorry for not making it clear, but i'm not saying that far-right is basically nationalistic postmodernism, i'm saying they use the same axioms.
Basically, if we deconstruct the discourses of both postmodern and far-right, we will the same characteristics as subjectivism, nihilism, meaninglessness, social structure and development based on social tendencies, but the problem is that the far-right doesn't have a strong philosophical movement, Dugin (which is basically a postmodern far-right) and the french "New Right" aren't that strong and their theories aren't even that good nor important, so it is inevitable that the fascists (literal meaning of fascists) will lay down on post-structuralist philosophy and structural antropology
They are obviously not the same, but the right always used their enemies as means, so I think this will happen again but now on an academic sense
That russification was necessary to maintain the people united, this wasn't an end but a necesssary mean
The russians knew that keeping everyone as the same was better to control than leaving it as a lot of nations in a state, remember the failure that was the austrian-hungarian empire? It couldn't sustain itself, how do you think the USSR (that had even more people in it) would?
Perhaps you could give an example of a deconstruction of a far-right discourse, because as far as I know there are many "far-right" individuals who start from a place of objectivity. I agree that there is a certain postmodern flair to elements of the far-right, Dugin is a great example. But the fact that he hasn't really caught on seems to indicate that perhaps postmodernism isn't where the far-right will settle. I suppose time will tell.
I personally think that the far-right (or what I generally consider the alt-right) will produce its own intellectuals within a decade or it will morph into something new. I think ultimately as long as nation-states exist (and probably long after) there will be many people who like nationalism, and that this sentiment will persist in a new form of the far-right. Authoritarianism, likewise, is an idea that will probably never die simply because of how effective a good authoritarian leader can be.
I think what really separates the alt-right from previous nationalistic, authoritarian movements is its populist nature and its emphasis on race. In fact, I think the alt-right's central tenet really is that race is more than just a social construct based on skin color, and that although the majority of the alt-right is nationalistic and authoritarian, there is more disagreement over those than there is on "race realism." It's important to note that for the alt-right race is a more general concept than what Hitler had in mind, and in many ways is a more biologically rigorous concept (which many outside of the alt-right would say still isn't rigorous enough).
You are confusing science with philosophy
Biological racism is an important aspect on the far-right and it is the only point where they are more objective, because they see the facts like the gap between the iq of whites and blacks or the fact that blacks are a minority but commit the majority of crimes and... They can't deny, and most importantly, they embrace it as one objective fact that should determinate our society, but besides that, where are they objective?
Nationalism is no way objective and based on culture and feelings, subjective things that can be doubted and "debunked" using logic and reason, but they prefer the romantic aspect is there, they value more the feeling of love for the people and hate towards others than using reason or morals based on that (like utilitarianism or deontology)
Get any Hitler discourse and see that he always uses feelings, go to any debate and you will see alt-righters saying that society determinates moral degeneracy, you will see that the maxim premise is that society determinates the individual, just like postmoderns think
>the inevitable fate of the far-right movement to fall into postmodern philosophy.
that's a weird way to phrase it, seeing that the alt-right was postmodern from day 1, there's no need for any kind of fall when it already started there
Spencer always said that he wanted to create an "Avant-garde"
That summarises my point desu
Is the alt-right "far" right though? Everything people call alt-right these days appear too much tame and not capitalist enough to pass for what we know as "right". The blood and soil people with an exquisite twist of memes on the internet are more centrist than anything. Not many of them would actually push through to something like the Patchwork, or even the Chinese brand of economical value over social value, let alone complete deterritorialization in favor of capital.
i think what you call (economic) right is better thought as (economic) liberalism
>Is the alt-right "far" right though?
Yes, they are 14 on streets but 88 on sheets, basically like any identitarian movement on Europe
>Everything people call alt-right these days appear too much tame and not capitalist enough to pass for what we know as "right"
Right-wing and Far-right are different, right-wing praises individualism and freedom while Far-Right is more nationalist, but both share the same hatred towards communists and both are generally more conservative on social census
> The blood and soil people with an exquisite twist of memes on the internet are more centrist than anything.
Blood and Soil was a volkisch movement when it began and with time became associated with the Nazi party, they are not centrists
>Not many of them would actually push through to something like the Patchwork, or even the Chinese brand of economical value over social value, let alone complete deterritorialization in favor of capital.
This is not far-right, you know nothing about the political spectrum
If you accept race as a real biological construct nationalism almost immediately follows as an objectively desirable thing, in the same way admitting that your sibling is 25% genetically similar to you makes you (or any animal really) have a vested interest in protecting their ability to reproduce. Love of self becomes love of a collective that is similar to you, aka nationalism.
If you simply believe humans are all pretty much the same genetically then nationalism is just "I happened to be born here," and would be less objective.
Based on what I've seen of the alt-right, I would say there is a lot of disagreement on what the individual is. It's generally agreed that race and sex have a huge effect on how a person acts, but neither of those things are "society." I would also say that the alt-right agrees that the members of a society determines what kind of society you get, which is why they advocate for ethnostates in the first place. Beyond that there is huge disagreements over what determines a persons ideology, preferences, etc, and what role society as a whole plays in that. Some say that society has no effect, it's all race. Others say within races there are different neurotypes that lead to different preferences for authoritarianism vs. liberalism.
There is a certain flair for the romantic and esoteric among certain segments of the alt-right, I'll give you that without a doubt. There's also people who are basically only biological racialists. For example, a youtuber at the center of an ongoing YouTube war between Kraut and Tea and the Alt-right at large, Alternative Hypothesis, advocates for white ethnostates, but is himself a gay atheist without any taste for the "spiritual" side of things.
Science and Philosophy aren't as neatly separated as you would like to think. Developments in Science often cause developments in philosophy, and more recently with quantum mechanics we're seeing a reversed process where our interpretation of it comes down to our philosophy at large.
sorry 50%, not 25%
You are thinking that every fascist party is racist, there are a lot of nationalistic parties that are pro race-mixing in favour of creating a racial identity to the country, and even though both are white and even from the same sub-race, Germans and Austrians are different and have their own forms of nationalism, there are the pan-germanics but of course there are austrian nationalists who see themselves as culturally and historically different from germans, race doesn't determinate everything but it is a important aspect of culture, which is more important after all and way more subjective than race
Also the relation between philosophy and science is confusing, to be honest none of both are really right because there aren't a consensus on that, post-structuralists hate analytics for trying to put everything on logic, while analytics hate post-structuralists for being too subjective and doing almost nothing to solve problems, while scientists still have the logical positivist mind of seeing metaphysics (and philosophy as a whole) as useless, while philosophers disagree with that
The only aspect where they can discuss together is on the branch of epistemology and that is not important for the debate we are having, because in the end the distinction still happens
>scientists still have the logical positivist mind of seeing metaphysics (and philosophy as a whole) as useless
That's not true M8.
I'm not that guy, but that is definitely and disgustingly true. I work in a physics department and my colleagues are both ignorant and spiteful towards most of philosophy. They range from utilitarians to an "empirical" brand of positivists where they will give you made up ontological conclusions from their data. The times of Schroedinger and Einstein are long past, basic science is not done like it used to be.
It has actually come to a conundrum where we can't really be bothered to give out proper interpretations to Quantum Field Theory (that is not to be confused with what Quantum Mechanics was during its conception), can't experimentally verify our predictions properly (it matches beautifully to data but what does the data "mean" anyway?), and can't even hold it subject to philosophy because our theorists somehow believe that what they do is not philosophy.
> Trump's "alternative facts"
why do people say shit ike this when trump never used this phrase. it was just said as ab off the cuff remark by Conway once iirc ye5 people try to frame it as some deliberate thing trump tried to advocate
I think we're sort of coming to an agreement here. The alt-right is the main form of the far-right at this point in time, but its not the only one. There is huge disagreement over the relationship between society and the individual within the far-right, within even the alt-right. There are postmodern elements of the alt-right but its not really the majority viewpoint, and I don't think the far-right/alt-right is going to come to identify with that group, especially since its kind of a dirty word with them.
ch-checked
>Germans and Austrians are different
The level of brainletism is off the charts.
>Is the alt-right "far" right though?
The discontinuity simply isn't there in Europe, they don't look up the definition of fascism on Wikipedia, they ask their grandpa
They see themselves as different, for me they are equal desu
...
even if it is not true it is well conceived, it's a phrase representative of the times, and it involves both left and right, both work with a different set of facts that often don't intersect, both like science as long as they can use it to push their narrative and just ignore it when it doesn't. it works well
>austrians
>german