REDPILL ME ON BAUDRILLARD

Capitalism has reached a industrial mode of producing images, and overwhelms people with these images which eventually become the very basis for the production of more images. The main mode of mediation in late capitalist society is media, and media produces simulations without a original model (or simulacra).

absolute garbage, a fraud and a conman.

I would argue that, certainly, the ultimately hollow nature of his ideas are a very fabrication of his own philosophy of the main modes of thinking of modernity being simulations of media itself. Ironically or not, he is a testament to his own thoughts

this

Attached: ic-5768.png (218x154, 35K)

kek

>Baudrillard: "The world is not what we think, it is what thinks us in return" — gigantic, unforgivable mistakes until the very last moments of his life. For it is obvious that the world is what we think AND what thinks us in return TAKEN TOGETHER. The world is everything! How hard can that be to understand? But Baudrillard, like all the French, was never averse to sacrificing logic for the sake of a good soundbite, and like the rest of them he paid the price, which was to have his books riddled with nonsense. So his formulation sounds cooler than mine, I'll give him that much, only there's this little problem with it — that his formulation's STUPID.

>The "consumer society" should have been called the "slave society", since there's nothing wrong with consuming, it is indeed the basis, the prerequisite, of all growth. Marx was at least healthy in focusing on production; Baudrillard's obsession with consumption is neurotic. Why not reduce it to zero and die of thirst in a few days, you fucking nihilistic little prick? Better yet just stop breathing; oxygen too is something that we consume.

> Someone asks, "What was Baudrillard's political position?", and a thousand little heads bury themselves in his books to try and find out. But Baudrillard has clearly no positions, not only in politics, but anywhere. He stops at the exact point where one would normally declare a position and... wonders. Because positions presuppose goals, and goals presuppose healthy people, you see. Or, to put it another way, he has no POSITIVE position. The furthest he goes is to refute existing ones, because his teacher taught him the existing ones are bullshit. But his teacher also taught him one goal that is not bullshit, and which should have been Baudrillard's political position if he had been a good student, and learned his lesson well: "The Overman is the meaning of the earth..."

>Baudrillard accused the artists of hiding behind the mystification of images, while he himself hid behind the mystification of words... all the while claiming that a word is not image, while not bothering to take the trouble to learn how the eye works.

>Baudrillard's obsession with production. He fucking hates it, like all pseudo-intellectuals. But production is just an abstraction from real activities which the people performing them love doing. How do you not get that and still call yourself a philosopher?

>Baudrillard's concept of hyperreality is bogus, a holdover from the last century when in order to become famous in pseudo-intellectual circles all you had to do was coin some stupid new word and tie it to a pseudo-concept, which became all the more believable because no one could understand it, and thus refute it. But all these tricks are up now. With my arrival on the scene, all pseudo-concepts will be laid bare — it is impossible to deceive me. One would have to have more intellect than me in order to do so, but if any such person arrived why would he need deception? Deception in this sense is only a tool of the weak — and Baudrillard was weak.
>His weakness can be seen in every single one of his analyses. Analyzing the consumer society yet failing to draw any conclusions from this analysis on how one should act when one found oneself in such a society. What good is the analysis, then, if no conclusions can be drawn from it? And what a pathetic little line he ends the whole thing with! "We will await for events to smash this white Mass!" He will "await" — i.e. sit on his ass while glued for information to the media he so flagrantly despises — while being ready to scribble at any moment. To scribble before and after — but to participate in the events, let alone be instrumental in bringing them about — oh, no. That work is too dirty for the clean hands of an academic. So let's just wait and scribble.
>All his analyses are weak in this manner, even the last one, in which he fails to draw any conclusions at all really from his game theory, even going as far as to assert that there is no reason to exalt the rules of the game! This screams to me: bad player, bad player, bad player! But what, deep down, did Baudrillard really know about games? The only game he played was the writing game, and in this, in this confined and limited context of pseudo-intellectual Frenchmen of the twentieth century, he was indeed a master. But the pseudo-intellectual game is not the only game there is, nor even the most important, and drawing your lessons for all games from this little narrow experience is bound to lead you astray.

THE ULTIMATE BAUDRILLARD REDPILL

Stop saying redpill you dip

>try to tell me one of his ideas comprehensibly
Americans are retards

HE MADE THE MATRIX THO

Attached: which pill.jpg (798x326, 91K)

Attached: raf,750x1000,075,t,fafafa_ca443f4786.jpg (750x1000, 80K)

No, he actually hated the films and say they got pretty much everything he was about wrong. Same can be said from Grant Morrison and The Invisibles which is the other influence they stole heavily from yet managed to completely miss the point of.