I have a fear of engaging in the works of thinkers and artists who killed themselves. Especially philosophical works

I have a fear of engaging in the works of thinkers and artists who killed themselves. Especially philosophical works.

What am I in for with this bad boy? Will it fuck me up?

Other urls found in this thread:

jstor.org/stable/2078796
archive.org/stream/leo-frank-case-reconsidered-nancy-maclean/leo-frank-case-reconsidered-nancy-maclean_djvu.txt
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

B A S E D
A
S
E
D
guy is a seminal alt-righter

you on't know nothin about nothin.

Not really. Fake news is not spectacle, if that's what you're getting at.

this. guy is required far-right and traditionalist reading

And Marx is required reading for Guy.

>all of these people glued to their phones, watching netflix, engaging in promiscious sex imitating their favorite sex scenes in porn, I tell you, they're absorbed in the Spectacle

not really. guy, evola and guenon are the trinity; they stand alone

Am I missing a meme or falling for bait? Debord was a Marxist. Is this your attempt at humour, or something?

Trolled softly

This fuckin thread. I don't know whos trolling who anymore.

Gee, I wonder.

You're in for /ourguy/

>(((wikipedia)))

Its a critique of consumer culture, TV stupefaction. 'The spectacle is not a collection of images, rather, it is social relationships mediated by images',

Its one of the most important books of 20th century philosophy, if you ask me. I think it still adequately describes the current era.

>he doesn't know

that translation sucks tho

Debord killed himself because he was ill, not because he was supremely enlightened

I read this book when I was depressed and found it impossible to make sense of the world and this made things worse.

it's a fucking pamphlet dude just read it

Wait, hold up, Veeky Forums is making /pol/ read a book about detournment from a radical Marxist and convincing them it's right wing politics? BAHAHAHA

Oh yes, totally, Debord is basically alt-right before that term ever came into existence. After him, pick up Bataille, total National Socialist sympathizer

why do so many retards not understand that deleuze, debord, foucault, etc. all literally paved the way for the emergence of the new right? oh yeah, nobody on the left actually reads, they just watch stephen colbert and skim hegel to feel superior en qui concernant their degeneracy.

i swear to god lefties are the most self-sacrosanct people alive.

Isn't that true though?

man, we owned /pol/ so hard over peterson not understanding postmodernism, we made them 360

The amusing paradox at the heart of this thread is that 'Society of the Spectacle' makes much of the same criticisms of society as Guenon's and Evola's 'Crisis of the Modern World' and 'Revolt Against the Modern World'.

Both of them criticize how various aspects of modernity such as consumer culture are obscene and lead to an impairment of general degeneration of society and impair quality of life and critical thought.

It goes to show how fascism and socialism are in many ways two sides of the same coin. Claim that the 1% is exerting negative influence over the country and need to have their wealth and power limited or regulated by the government and you're a radical leftist but then point out that the 1% is 90% Jewish and suddenly you're a Nazi.

...

Haha great use of the hat meme

Guy Debord is literally a Marxist

Debord was still stuck in the spectacle, read Marshall McLuhan instead

McLuhan was much more engaged in the spectacle than Debord, being a career academic and a popular public figure. Anyway, user should read both.

Debord directed films

And Spinoza believed in God; what's your point?

What about Debord's films? Are you implying they cause him to be stuck in the spectacle?

McLuhan's media appearances and rhetorical style is part of the point he was making. Debord was a literal cuckold who had very little insight, if you want some thing along the same lines but better just read Baudrillard instead, who was greatly influenced by Mcluhan.

There is nothing more spectacular than film. Even Nouvelle Vague-tier autism with shouldercam work presenting little vignettes of "authentic" daily life are not exempted.

You have it all figured out, don't you? Your attitude towards Debord is laughable as is your bullshit talk about McLuhan. No thanks, user.

>he thinks Debord is a "director"
laughinggirls.jpg

>Leading racists to Marxist literature
This doesn't end the way you think it ends, I can guarantee that.

It's no secret that Debord is a mediocrity, and Deleuze and Baudrillard and McLuhan are vastly more important for contemporary media studies.

They either become fascists or marxists, both of which are more productive and viable than Neocon """nativism"""

>Neocon """nativism"""
literally nobody on /pol/ or Veeky Forums is this

/pol/ ideology is without a doubt a neoconservative twist on '20s American nativism:

jstor.org/stable/2078796

(if the jstor doesn't work for you)

archive.org/stream/leo-frank-case-reconsidered-nancy-maclean/leo-frank-case-reconsidered-nancy-maclean_djvu.txt

>read Baudrillard instead

They become Nazbols

I don't understand what you think that link proves with regards to /pol/ being "a neoconservative twist on '20s American nativism", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. Neoconservatism and pre-war nativism are almost entirely diametrically opposed on a number of issues that /pol/ holds very highly, what you're saying is tantamount to saying a totalitarian spin on anarchy; it just doesn't make much sense intuitively. Unless you're going to explain what it is you mean by that, I'm going to call bullshit here. And that's not even to get into /pol/'s inherent anti-democratic, anti-Liberal bent which puts it at odds with both neoconservatives and old school American nativists, whether you're talking about Hoppean monarchic nu-/pol/ or straightforward national socialist original /pol/. A paper on how the KKK chose to lynch a Jew over a black one time 100 years ago is hardly a worthy justification for what you're saying. Anti-semitism was not some incredibly unusual phenomenon in 1920s America.

Nobody ever becomes Nazbol

i have jstor access because i didnt fall for the autodidact meme. anyways, from the title alone this article seems cancerous... they even call a jew "white" in the first paragraph.

ok so ive skimmed it and have no idea where you came up with:
>/pol/ ideology is without a doubt a neoconservative twist on '20s American nativism
probably the biggest fad on the board right now is NazBol. /pol/ is decidedly anti-neocon; not even the 'ancaps'/libertarians there actually support open borders or free trade. Have you ever even browsed /pol/?

Nazbol is not a fad, it's a meme forced by /leftypol/ in order to draw unwitting new users in from 4/pol/'s post-election flood.