Does postmodernism unironcally promote fascism? Suggestions on further reading?

alt right fags get cringier with every post. why do you have to shit up a literature board with your subscribed ideology that is only fueld by hatred ?

> implying that hatred is not a good thing
hatred is what moves civilization. just study the oeuvre of alexander the great

every word is a made-up concept

McHale? He wrote a book on literary postmodernism but I think he missed or left out a lot. The problem is people approach postmodernism with weird reverence thinking it's arcane or mysterious, when it's mostly just a Talmudic reflection of the jews who have been so elemental in planting the seeds of it within our culture and later standardizing it through their ethnic influence within our academic institutions.

Incorrect.

what do u do, irl

Please provide posts with actual substance or leave the thread.

Not really. They're pretty much just academic names for something that any reasonably smart person would notice about societal trends and patterns of thinking on their own.

*sees one fashwave meme*

Uh is uh postmodernism FASCIST?

It promotes nothing. It is apolitical and merely descriptive. How can you promote a narrative after acknowledging the end of all narratives?

modernism does seem pretty inseperable from facism though, it directly brought about Mussolini/Nazi germany during the post WW1/Weimar era and seems to be leading to something similar now. It's all part of the same nihilist impulse, facist response system, along with materialist thought in general.

Is this thread about postmodernism in general, or just literary postmodernism?

>How can you promote a narrative after acknowledging the end of all narratives?

Life goes on.

Yes - Donald Trump is the ultimate postmodernist gesture.

What substance do you want? You literally didn't explain anything of your argument.

I'm who you're responding to but I'm not the OP. There aren't a great deal of distinctions though. What goes for literary postmodernism usually goes for postmodern philosophy and postmodernism generally.

> jews who have been so elemental in planting the seeds

When did this influence begin?

it's funny how the most oppressed group in human history keeps getting accused for goddamn everything

Stress is the most creative state.

Early 1900s at least, overdrive from the 1960s on. By publishing books that promoted hedonistic individualism, funding art movements that purposely destroyed aesthetics, and cultivating other degenerate forces, we naturally ended up in a state where whites hate themselves and have trouble ascertaining greater meaning and value in their lives and through their cultural institutions.

Except they're not. Any persecution jews experienced in the past was a direct result of the subversive and destructive behavior they engaged in.

>just study the oeuvre of alexander the great

Just rolled my eyes so had my body involuntarily did a cartwheel. Kys.

>funding art movements that purposely destroyed aesthetics
One man is responsible for this, and he was poor all his life.

>overdrive from the 1960s on
What triggered?

What man? I was pointing the finger primarily at things like dada.

Jewish consolidation of power over our institutions in media, academia, banking, etc.

Dada, exactly. Dada was funded by the jews lol?

>How can you promote a narrative after acknowledging the end of all narratives?
Except for the narrative of postmodernism, of course

>Hurr durr, all these minorities making literature is gonna lead to fascism!

>Unironically use race theory language and racial/ethnic truisms, ignoring the self-evident fact that a civilization that socialized such behaviour played a huge role in the Holocaust and German totalitarianism (read the Jewess Arendt!)

>Completely ignore the fact that Modernism (and several renown Modernists) were complicit in Fascism.

Fuck off back to /pol/, you under-read dilettantes. .

Of course it was, but it was more importantly led by jews like Tzara. As desert semites, jews cannot produce art themselves with any degree of merit, so they were trying to bring it down to its most base level, destroy the meaning and beauty historically behind it, and take it out of the aristocracy's control by making it a plebian venture anyone, including jews, could engage in and thus ultimately control the direction of.

>Of course it was
Explain how

No. But its a slippery slope to it. Let me show you.
Post modernism relies heavily on subjective thought
Which means you are the person who decides what is right and wrong
So moral relativism, great. Lets make a small bunny hop to egoism, where all actions are really ment to satisfy the self.
So from egoism, and moral relativism you state that anything you do is correct. So then we haphazardly stumble into identity politics .
So from the axiom
"I am always right"
We have
"Here is why I am always right".
Consider people who have the same traits coming together as a nation.
And now you have facism.

So what do you think.

>they were trying to bring it down to its most base level, destroy the meaning and beauty historically behind it

...as you're putting it, this thing, began with Cezanne.

Here's a four part series explaining how:

theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/11/15/tristan-tzara-and-the-jewish-roots-of-dada-part-1/

>The Occidental Observer is an American far-right online publication that covers politics and society from a white nationalist and antisemitic perspective.

Dada is modernist though, not postmodern

Perhaps, but I'm not actually saying it started here or there, or even with jews. Everything evolves out of something else and jews don't create things themselves. What jews do is pick up on things that are good for them and bad for their host population, then drive them in particular directions through influence, money, and so on. That's how they work, by shrewdly infiltrating, taking certain ideas, and subverting them to bring out results that are good for jews and bad for the society they live in. Same thing with postmodern philosophy, where you can point to Nietzsche, Heidegger, or whoever; you're not going to find a jew behind the inception of the ideas, but you'll find jews pushing the most perverse of the lot forward.

It's proto-postmodern.

Ooh, tell us more about what the ADL has to say!

Correct. These things all blend into each other, which is why trying to picking a particular start date or artist or writer, etc., or even trying to cement a definition down, is less important than understanding the forces that were driving it and what cultural phenomena led to the rise of the individuals associated with it, who were responsible for progressing the concepts forward and leading to world we live in today.

Hmmm what exactly is your problem with Weisse's take on White Noise? It sounds to me like she sees the postmodernism of DeLillo as upholding the very western value of individualism, or is your problem with the work being antinarrative?
>it allows us to see narrative not as a now-defunct system for explaining the world (as grand narratives attempt to do) but as a means of countering the loss of individual, meaningful experience so often associated with postmodernity

Also on the JQ how would you relate this work to it? Or am i missing the point somewhere?

Capitalism and Schizophrenia

This whole jew thing is fucking crazy. It's like you guys are talking about some completely distinct malevolent species.

>literally uses slippery slope arguememt
Besides that, following this same trend any group that seeks anything would be a fascist group who's nation is a nation of their shared idea.

I didn't say I had any problem with it, I believe I simply described it as 'not breathtaking.' I enjoyed that one actually and thought it highlighted a lot of important aspects of postmodernism in relation to Delillo's work.

The JQ is best understood as a kind of macro influence that over decades of jewish control of our cultural institutions has brought about certain cultural phenomena, as well as work from artists engaging with that phenomena or attempting to explain it. I wasn't specifically relating to that work or any other, but stating that the JQ is the most dominant force that led to the postmodern zeitgeist, as well as the most important aspect to study if one wishes to obtain a deeper understanding of that zeitgeist.

Wait until you actually dive in and start learning about them beyond the cursory glance afforded to you via networks and institutions that are predominantly controlled by, you guessed it, jews. These people aren't like you, bud.

thats what they are—the spawn of satan

If they're so capable, why not, instead, admire them?

Because when you actually come to understand the jew, you realize that there is nothing admirable about them. The jews are an inbred cult-like population that has for centuries and likely millennia been bred by their leaders to be what men more religious than I have described as, and what I can only agree is, pure evil. Now of course you aren't going to take my word for that and will certainly believe otherwise since you've been told to do so all your life, but I'm afraid it's the truth ... not that myself or anyone else who understands the jewish problem wants it to be.

>believe
I'm a postmodernist, I don't believe in anything.

A perspective that is, alas, all too pervasive, but thankfully dying and making way for the next movement rising out of the ashes of western postmodern civilization.

How old are you if you don't mind me asking?
It's just that as I get older I feel a magnetic pull towards meaning and tradition. My postmodern 18-24 years weren't wasted and I took some great drugs and had a great time but nowhere in that worldview is unironic happiness and fulfilment permitted.

>thankfully dying
Dying? It's at its peak.

Nah, and I was actually giving it more due than it deserves; postmodernism has been dead for years.

>at its peak
>dying
pick both?

No.

Nice try Satan

There are no ashes of Western civilization. Even Derrida would agree. It's all the same continuation.

It isn't really dead. It is 'dead' in the sense that its leftist avant-garde heyday of the 60s and 70s are well passed and the early developments have become institutionalised, but the same criticisms leveled by the left 50 years ago are now seeing a resurgence by what we call the 'alt right', which, interestingly, is marked by its uneducation. As such its not as well-reasoned but it's very easy to draw parallels between the social criticisms of the left and the right (against postmodernity).

I don't understand how you can say the alt right is 'marked by its uneducation' when it's literally the only side using reason, in that it contains the only people willing to address the reality of racial difference and state that the multicultural future the jewish left is leading white nations into is headed for disaster.

Simulacra and Simulation

no u

baudrillard is not postmodernist, faggot

It's an uneducated idea of 'reason' by which I mean the non-academic sense.

Intellectual and moral destruction will always be followed by physical destruction. A metaphorical ash heap will be followed by a real one.

woah....

>postmodernism isn't metaphysically inevitable
As long as the human race survived to a certain point, with enough accumulated written history to compare, it would OF COURSE happen that we would begin to realise how everyone who thinks their worldview/narrative is correct turns out to be at least somewhat blind and mistaken, either ontologically or pragmatically. No plot was needed to hatch postmodernism, only time and communication. It's like how children develop theory of mind, you can't blame it on one kid in the playground, sooner or later every child realises that there are other perspectives out there who each feel as if theirs is the core of reality.

His work is frequently associated with postmodernism and specifically post-structuralism.

post-modernism hasn't shaped the world, only described it. within the world it describes cowards will reach to the comfort blanket of authority and bigotry.

>satan lying
Modernists were the pro fascists, postmodernists are the ones banned by the fascists who draw on the classics sold off by the fascists. It's very fucking simple
>modernism = machines r good le fedora utility monsters are just unloved
>postmodernism = maybe you wanted to be castrated if you stuck your dick in a conveyor belt, maybe you read comicbooks because you're a manchild

>Modernists were the pro fascists

not necessarily
i agree that fascism drew influences from modernism, especially futurism, but many modernist artists were pacifists

Baudrillard is a Marxist who tried to explain how capitalist culture functions.

That's not postmodernism.

he was a marxist at first and at first only! he completely rejected marxism in his later works and made enemies with the political left (foucault and derrida, for example)

foucault was pretty right-wing

>so they were trying to bring it down to its most base level, destroy the meaning and beauty historically behind it
yeah, since people don't want to keep looking at/doing Rembrandt style paintings for 400 years must be jews fault

> take it out of the aristocracy's control by making it a plebian venture anyone, including jews, could engage in and thus ultimately control the direction of.
I'm sure mass culture, higher incomes and 99,9% literacy rate are much less influencial than a bunch of jews. kys

really? proof?

afaik he was a turboleftist, but economically, culturally and socially.

>Inbred
>But manages to overpower le master race
Lol

>foucault was pretty right-wing

truly we live in postmodern times

the major voices certainly supported fascism, pound in england was writing praise for hitler when marinetti was writing speeches for mussolini, lawrence is pretty fashy, and hamsun wrote a whole book about how people couldn't call his support of nazis crazy. non-fascists like HD are rare, and most of the anti-fascists like mitford or waugh are anti-fascists to annoy their modernist associates and advocated antimodern styles to go along with it.
most of the people larping as soviet communist at the time didn't become modernists but surrealists, so it's kind of hard to find many of those who are modernist to counter balance.

selling off the artwork also made a lot of the emigres take it up in the postmodern world, so you get things like warhol copying the naked fawn shunned by modernists as too academic and classical even further down the line too. same thing in philosophy, it's the first time in a long time that a movement expects you to have read and got the reference in question, while modernism tried to build new reference points which of course collapsed.

Yeah, they've just been kicked out of over a hundred countries for no reason at all. Hmmm... I don't like their noses! That is it!

i still would not agree to associate modernism with fascism.

especially considering that the modernist movement peaked in the early 1900s (20-30s) and was already in decline when the nazis rose to power. the forerunners of the first wave of modernism, like kafka, joyce and woolf died before fascism peaked.

you're equating only nazis with the fascists. pound and HD literally fought and fell out as a result of his support for hitler, nancy mitford only exists because of decca and diana mitford, and waugh writes either side of diana's marriage to a guinness, while people like marientti and d'annunzio are writing directly for mussolini, and the nazis formed the exhibit which created degenerate art as a cohesive whole, before we get to sarfatti selling off half the renaissance to places that suddenly started using those references.

hamsun is before joyce and heavily creditted with being the forerunner of stream of consciousness, while lawrence and d'annunzio were contemporary and likewise are considered forerunners of joyce and woolf. joyce quotes marx in dubliners, sure, but irish marxism quit at the 2nd internationale. the trotskiites didn't even split til the 4th if you want a view on how out there griffith's politics are compared to woolf and joyce split with griffith pretty early and retreated from his early nationalism (note: national socialism of the kind he got behind resulted in a pogrom in limerick of the jews, and the kind of sentiment he backed in that city later backed franco and died)

lawrence and kafka are both directly influenced by gross, and his ilk are the reason hesse wrote that story about fascist vegetarians treeing him and beating him with sticks in the same way that nabokov describes oppressive modernism in soviet russia in cloud, castle lake. modernism is much earlier than you think it starts, it runs from the great exhibition to the end of the belle epoque roughly, which is why all the authors i mentioned are publishing earlier than the ones you did.

>you're equating only nazis with the fascists.

this could be the case, because my understanding of (initial, italian) fascism is quite limited. i could never put together in my mind what fascism as coherent movement meant. ive read about mussolini -- he seemingly had little clue what his movement was about, either, reducing it to a personality cult.

national socialism, then, was a mix of austrian antisemitism, socialism, reactionary nationalism, darwinism and nietzsche-sprenglerian decadence and übermensch views. it had little to do with modernism imo.

so what is fascism about, in your view, and what is its connection to modernism?

if they rule the world in some way, why did it take them over 1000 years to secure a tiny piece of land for themselves?

Who's saying there was a plot? It came about as a result of cultural forces created primarily by jews. White societies have turned nihilistic and overly self-critical to the point of self-destruction because our culture has been getting subtly, and is now being overtly, poisoned by an alien tribe of people.

Jews have evolved to be a parasitic class that can't survive on its own, it needs a host.

Seek help. I had a drug-induced psychosis where I made up stuff about Herzl working with Hitler to get to a claim for Israel. That was a distortion of the Havaara Agreement, which Herzel wasn't around for. Saying "JUST LOOK IT UP" are the words of someone who has absolutely no tangible evidence, and might even show a delusion. Anti-Semitism can just be a cultural delusion, though, and doesn't require a psychiatric illness like me.

>JEWS ARE KHAZARS WHO LIVED IN UKRAINE
>THEY'RE PARASITES WHO HAVE NO KINGDOM, AND JUST LIVE IN OTHER SOCIETIES
>OPEN BORDERS FOR ISRAEL! LETS DESTROY THEIR SOCIETY.

it's better encapsulated as a love of mechanization and systematization and a faith in progress and improvement of mankind through technology. nietzsche's rather against that which is why many of the postmodernists focus on him.

fascism believes that a utopian society can be achieved through modern means (from eugenics to making the train system work) and through the people coming together as a systematic force (hence all the clubs and marching and worship of mythical romans/norse rather than historical romans/norse)

pound's idea of "make it new" encapsulates the era because there was a hope that industrialization of humanity might lead to infinite progress or even to sustainable society, but postmodernism thought that hope was rather ground up by asking most any office worker or victim of heavy artillery fire.

antisemitic feelings aren't relegated to austria, and most of what you tried to list off isn't accurately any major influence on fascism compared to some of the writers i mentioned. darwin is closer than nietzsche, because nietzsche didn't believe that ubermensch was bringing someone towards some good new future, but rather a continuation of a role which a tribal being like man has needed since it had people worshiping golden calves on mountainsides and will need just as much when they worship images on screens.

it really is kind of a fedora movement, because at its core both fascism and modernism hold the belief that science or systematizing will save us where god couldn't. for postmodern nietzsche interpretation that usually is rephrased "modernists worshiped stupid shit just like everyone else and since"

the idea of nations at the time wasn't really very reactionary. that's why the nazis taking over german speaking parts of what is now czech rep etc seemed less like a provocation, because germany had only existed a small amount of time and had formed as a nation of german speaking people under bismarck from a relatively disparate group of kingdoms and the prussians.

Spoken like someone who hasn't the first clue about jewish behavior. Admitting to being psychotic doesn't exactly lend your perspective credibility though. Perhaps start by researching the jewish role in psychiatry.

>psychiatry
>Jewish
That's psychology

You have no clue how drug-induced psychosis works either. It lasts about a month and you're normal afterwards.

Psychiatry has historically been referred to as "the jewish science." Thus I repeat:

>Spoken like someone who hasn't the first clue about jewish behavior.

>Historically
By who? I think you're just falseflagging really. You're probably the same guy who spams Culture of Critique - or is that another Jewish subversion?

Jung was an Aryan, famalam. Freud is the Jew who did psychology and pscyhoanalysis.