Read the Frankfurt School works

Which is irrelevant to the proposition when he was shitting on American pop-music which has a huge Jewish leadership

The whole thing is a hangover of Kulturbolschewismus, a rejection of any artform that demands the viewer question their relation to it.

I didn't say he had anything to do with that either, I just explained wherein the idea of Adorno and the Frankfurt school as dangerous subversives come from, that is, the less intelligent subsets of /pol/ confusing "degenerate" art with commercial art.

Absolutely sure, but then works like Ulysses are in this dangerous subversion which is why I hastened to clarify

This doesn't specifically relate to the Frankfurt School but a lot of what /pol/ thinks about leftists comes from this guy

youtube.com/watch?v=5gnpCqsXE8g

Some would absolutely agree with that, e.g. Neo-Romantics like Hamsun.

Adorno isn't bad. Habermas is the one bad apple in the Frankfurt school and the closest to the stereotypes on the Frankfurt school.

But overall the Frankfurt school is peanuts compared to Gramsci, Foucault and their followers. Those are true degenerates, not in the /pol/ sense but in the strict meaning of the word. It started as Marxism and it ended as some fetid purulence.

But this is just one dude... Obviously with a personal vendetta against a system that he felt didn't deliver for him.

Foucault was a degenerate in every sense. Also it doesn't help that he's responsible for that muh bodies garbage Ta-Nehisi Coates and all those other fags spew.

Many of the 68ers were originally inspired by Marxist intellectuals like the Frankfurt School. Many of those 68ers of once are now in positions of power (think of Barroso, Joschka Fischer, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, etc), even though most of them discarded any open affiliation with marxism. That does not imply that the Frankfurt School is behind "cultural marxism" but that there is a line of continuity. Add some conspiracy ideas and you're good to go.

this triggers the /pol/

UNNNGHHH THICKER

>itt: pseuds who think they're rebellious patricians because they read their undergrad crit theory assignment list

Try "The Authoritarian Personality". Look into who it was written by and funded by.

>That does not imply that the Frankfurt School is behind "cultural marxism" but that there is a line of continuity.

Is it presumed the reasons for 'cultural marxism' is profit, first and foremost? Is it thought, if there is some active push at all, that it is not purely naturally unconscious, would the main motivation be profit, and/or do you think the potential pushers, truly believe that it is the objectively right thing to do, for some ever less distant hand holding world vision of the future?

A surprising part of /pol/'s cosmology is lifted wholesale from 1950s red scare propaganda and John Birch Society material.

Foucault was a Libertarian Friedrich Hayek fanboi who went around campuses triggering communists (PCF=OG SJWs). Focault was the French Milo Yiannopoulus. I think the alt right could learn a lot from Foucault.

'Kultur Bolshevismus' was already a catchphrase in Nazi propaganda back in the 1930s. It refers to the exact same narrative: Jews pushing degeneracy, promiscuity, homosexuality, modern art, subverting the fatherland from within, etc., etc.

Going to America and selling paranoid cold war fantasies to gullible burgers is a long and storied Russian tradition.

pando.com/2015/05/17/neocons-2-0-the-problem-with-peter-pomerantsev/

That's an interesting theory.

This too. Not a Foucault guy by any stretch but I thought it was interesting that he wanted to work at the College de France, to be at the centre of power in order to prevent minorities from minoritizing themselves. Seems things didn't quite work out that way in the idpol era. Right Foucault would be a good look but I can't quite get my head around how it would work (it is admittedly a second-rate head). It's hard to criticize power Foucault-style when you already are power, no?

I don't know where I'm at on Foucault but his CdF lectures are pretty good reading. 'Truth is given to the subject at a price that brings the subject's own being into question' always stuck with me.

I don't know exactly, but in Dialectic of Enlightenment A&H work pretty hard to take the bloom off of the Odyssey, and I think this is why he accrues the hate. Modernism fucks with the sexy mysticism of mythology and gnostic seeking.

What I think gets overlooked is that Adorno was hated in his own time by the counterculture. Things like his classes getting disrupted by naked hippie women draping flowers over his head - he dies a few days later, IIRC - is a pretty crazy image. The masses turning on the elites and the elites condemning the narrowmindedness of the masses is always a page-turner. I think it's why all the signals got tangled in the 80s/90s with the final collapse of any meaningful distinction between high and low culture. Or whenever it was that that happened.

WARNING: this thread is full of ZOG lackeys. Repeat after me!
ZOG CAN SUCK MY PRETTY WOG (Weenie of Giants)

Goddamn those ZOG lackeys, they're everywhere! How did they find us? They must have heard our critique of modernity!

>ducks under desk in combat crouch, forms pistol shape with hand

Cover me, I'm going in!

>pew pew

yeah, fuck foucault. but i don't understand the hate for Gramsci?

ZOG CAN SUCK MY PRETTY WOG

fuck off retard

hey man, they may have only read the assignment list, but you've only read the wikipedia page lol

>allowing the perceptions of the viewer to taint the surface of the art
Gross, if that's the cost I'll take my classical art ty

ZOG CAN SUCK MY PRETTY WOG
ZOG CAN SUCK MY PRETTY WOG
ZOG CAN SUCK MY PRETTY WOG

>Right Foucault would be a good look but I can't quite get my head around how it would work (it is admittedly a second-rate head). It's hard to criticize power Foucault-style when you already are power, no?

here's Zizek on the topic:

>This tension was already clearly discernible in the work of Michel Foucault, who serves as the point of reference for most of these authors: his notion of Power is presented as a neutral tool that describes the way the entire field of existing power structures and resistances to them functions. Foucault liked to present himself as a detached positivist, laying bare the common mechanisms that underlie the activity of passion ately opposed political agents; on the other hand, one cannot avoid the impression that Foucault is somehow passionately on the side of the 'oppressed', of those who are caught in the machinery of 'discipline and punishment', and aims to give them the chance to utter, to enable them to start to 'speak for themselves'. . . .

this i think is too generous. Foucault, i think, is totally enamored with power. he slips in his rhetorical flourishes in favor of "the oppressed" so that he can slip by unnoticed into the lefty pantheon. but he is fascist through and through imo, loves to feel his body penetrated by the iron laws of power, yearns for o'brien's boot to crush his latexed face.

Marxism vs Cultural Marxism

jesus murphy you need this one bad don't you

Good post user, thanks. Foucault fascist through and through? I wouldn't have thought that, but I haven't read him all that seriously either.

It is interesting, though, that the more philosophy preoccupies itself with the oppressed and the victims of the system the more the alt-right is likely to grow (unless this is the peak, but I doubt that). A Right Foucault would I guess direct them towards something genuinely creative or emancipatory, perhaps more like Nietzsche, than being concerned with discipline and punishment, which only ever makes the punishers look bad.

Foucault's a complicated guy tho. I wonder what he would have thought of the world today.

>Foucault's a complicated guy tho. I wonder what he would have thought of the world today.

>the more philosophy preoccupies itself with the oppressed and the victims of the system the more the alt-right is likely to grow

What did you mean by this?

its from The Ticklish Subject, a few pages into the second part, if ur interested.

I've only read Discipline & Punish and History of Sexuality, as well as bits and pieces of his interviews and some earlier works and—I don't know, overall he just seems to spend a lot of time admiring the efficiency of the deployment and auto-reproduction of power relations and knowledge/power and all that. it's all glittering mechanism to him, and it often seems a thing of beauty. that could be my own projections, though; I'm study marxism rn and its sometimes hard to remember not to get caught up in the subtleties of capital; i imagine MD's who study cancer feel the same way sometimes.

One of the most interesting things, is what people place value in/on, and of what quantity and quality is it that they place

Yeah, maybe. Like one of those Gavin McInnes things taken to the nth degree, where people become such hipsters that they just go all the way over, find Jesus, and began unironically (or is it?!?!?!) appearing on Fox, where they are treated in this weird way. I could almost see Zizek on CNN in a similar role, but whatever.

I mean, it's not exactly rocket science. Look at the election. The left imploded under its own collective desire to be on the right side of history. The whole time the other side was chanting, like a mantra, No Enemies to the Right. Left progressivism became hegemonic and the blowback to that led to Trump. Of course, very few saw this coming until election day.

When everyone is a victim, no one is. This is why guys like Z or Badiou don't go for idpol stuff, but try to keep the conversation about capitalism or metaphysics: they don't want the oppressed to oppress themselves, or allow people to pretend that any of that impacts the real story, which is global markets and so on. Look at how Z will talk about Apple using transgendered bathrooms as a smokescreen for doing about Foxconn and so on. Stuff like this.

I actually liked a lot of redpill stuff, but Richard Spencer/Hail Trump! is pretty fucking disturbing.

hue

I read D&P, Order of Things, and the Hermeneutics of the Subject, plus other stuff from the lectures here and there and the reader. F isn't one of my favourite authors, but he's definitely a big deal. Like Z also and have read many of his works too, but not TS yet. Now this thread makes me feel like going back and reading him again.

I think you're right, that he sees power as this glittering mechanism, a thing of beauty. I think Deleuze and Baudrillard both felt this way about capital, and in the end they were so bewitched by this awful thing that they were thinking about that they wound up finding a kind of unholy beauty in it. Nick Land also, of course, maybe the premier case of this kind of stuff. I don't think it's your own projections at all, I feel much the same way sometimes.

The subtleties of capital/cancer analogy is pretty fucking on-point, I think I'm going to share that one.

>Yeah, maybe. Like one of those Gavin McInnes things taken to the nth degree, where people become such hipsters that they just go all the way over, find Jesus, and began unironically (or is it?!?!?!) appearing on Fox, where they are treated in this weird way.

Sam Hyde Syndrome

REPEAT AFTER ME: ZOG GIT YE GONE

>Habermas is the one bad apple in the Frankfurt school and the closest to the stereotypes on the Frankfurt school.

That is the most meaninglessness nothing sentence I've read in awhile.

>Apple using transgendered bathrooms as a smokescreen for doing about Foxconn
this is why the secular humanist have created the best society: they created a morality which is cheap, that people like and that people believe they have created it

swallow this

...

>Richard Spencer/Hail Trump! is pretty fucking disturbing
Really though what's this dude's problem? It's not even memes anymore.

I've always felt that way about deleuze and guattari as well, but with 2 caveats

1. i think the obsessional stuff is mostly bad air from guattari

2. i think at bottom they both maintain a pretty healthy commitment to real change and social action—this is to be opposed to foucault's sort of "neutral" appraisals of power and his pseudo-lefty lip service.

glad to know I'm not alone in this wildly unpopular opinion—this would be literal heresy in my department. nonetheless I'm coming at this problem in my work rn, but mostly tackling it in code, transplanting my critique of F onto the hapless figure of Latour, whose "ontology" of the social is basically similar to F's understanding of how power works, but who hasn't got a fucking clue haha.

and btw i hope you do write about this stuff, be "bewitched" is absolutely the bon mot. bewitching, charming, enchanting, etc. this needs to be the paradigm for a critique of these people, i think. i think also that its an important critique to make, because, while the left in this country has never really been strong since the depression, they had a chance to be in the 70s, and the import of Foucault et. al. really enabled the student movement to become the banal identity politician gender studies profs we all know and hate, allowing them retreat from any semblance of the political in favor a purely superstructural model of action. the linguistic turn is pure ideology, imo. but at the same time, I'm in an english dept., so idk how to get out of it at the moment.

because**

Yeah, D&G are special. AO and ATP blew the doors off what was becoming a pretty stale and formulaic brand of pomo despair for me that I acquired after digesting Baudrillard. I like Z because I do think the whole enchilada is about desire, and being a total fucking recluse I am averse to going outside and getting involved with mass politics. It's definitely a compromised way to look at things, so I mainly just stare at CNN and chain-smoke cigarettes and think about this stuff.

I'm saddened to think that criticism is heresy in your department. Haven't read much Latour, but I understand that he is a guy in these conversations, and I intend to get to him one of these days.

D&G are legit revolutionaries. ATP in particular is a book like no other. The only criticism of D's thought that I might be inclined to take seriously comes from the OOO/spec realism guys but this looks to me like more despair, although I am pretty much used to despair at this point and it does make for some excellent reading. I think it's also still too early for me to decide where I'm at on Harman and those guys too. They're building on Heidegger, who I'm pretty familiar with, but Deleuze is I think still the way forward.

So yeah, I don't know how to get out of this either. Retreat from the political is indeed the situation, on both sides. And with Trump anything could happen. Part of me wants to try to assuage my more hysterical progressive friends, try a kind of cautious optimism; but I can't possibly expect him to live up to the impossible ideas he campaigned on, which only interested me b/c they seemed so much to be the voice of the zeitgeist: less pro-right than anti-left. It may simply in the end amount to as much reactivity and ressentiment as the guys they were opposed to.

It really is a sea change, I think. Last time I checked Foucault was the most-cited figure in the humanities because he is such a powerful critic of The Establishment. Trump in the White House suggests to me both a confirmation and a disappearance of that same establishment. Clearly he *is* Establishment (and the term is already almost completely useless, not because it's not there, but because it is available to both sides), and yet he is also a populist anti-Establishment guy. So we will form ourselves a new Establishment, For Real This Time, and...well, who knows.

I do feel that we need to get past the old Marxist paradigm, but there hasn't been anything to replace it. Lacan is a good look, and I like him. Heidegger maybe not so much; we're not going to escape technology, nor is there any need to.

Just my hot take. Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier, I was falling asleep last night. Take care user, and thanks for the conversation.

Well... then I guess they're right. JEWISH COMMUNISTS

>this is why the secular humanist have created the best society: they created a morality which is cheap, that people like and that people believe they have created it

I agree with this 100% also, for what it's worth. My own feeling is that this is the endgame of any tacitly or explicitly neoliberal mode of thinking. And it leads to progressivism, because (as Z says, etc...someday I will not need to namedrop these thoughts) capital is always going to be on the sides of progress in order to follow the markets. Put a promethean/homo faber cherry on top to charm the Randian Objectivists and you're good to go.

Better fantasy novel: Lord of the Rings, or Atlas Shrugged? At least LotR had the good grace not to include a 70 page manifesto in it, which was the least interesting part of that book. I actually like Rand's prose and think she had more going on than most pro-capitalist types, because she actually tried to attach a moral dimension to capital, the sublimation or hiding of which is actually what is required for capital to work: This Is Not A Chicken McNugget. Despite being the poster child it's harder to run Z's ideology-shredding computer program on Rand than, say, your standard go-to action blockbuster. Kind of interesting.

I read a biography of her, and she was, no surprise, a gigantically complicated, fucked-up, frequently unhappy, and pretty original person. Objectivism seems basically like pure nostalgia to me now but it's still fun to think about. And I suppose it must have been going on while Adorno et al were writing, I guess. Good thing none of those guys ever helmed the Federal Reserve or anything with an unironic perception of her in mind. That would have been really crazy.

You mean like Marx?

It might also be the case that what separates serious literature from shit-lit is the presence, or absence, of a manifesto. That's all deconstruction is, really: the detection and dismantling of the paradoxes inherent to all manifestos. Really good literature either sublimates this to a degree we don't even see, or is written by someone self-possessed enough not to need to project this, consciously or otherwise, onto a mass audience. This is to some degree what Adorno was thinking about, more with Foucault, and def with Z. But it's only really making sense to me now.

I fucking love Veeky Forums sometimes. Where else can you even talk about this stuff? (Besides the bathroom stall at Starbucks where I am now texting this from a stolen IPhone, wearing a sandwich board and covered with flies, of course.)

I take issue with Harman in that he has this tendency to look for more objects where his system does not require any. Compare his book Tool-Being to his essay on vicarious causation: on the one hand you have the Heideggerian dialectics of presence/absence perfectly self contained within the heart of the object, thus making every object an "agent" of change in a certain sense, then, years later, on the other hand you have real and sensuous objects split off from each other and vaguely united by a concept of allure which basically puts linguistic turn back on the table in the form of "aesthetics as first philosophy." he goes from heraclitus to zeno, basically; motion becomes an ("alluring") illusion of the play and transfer of sensuous qualities between and among static objects, whereas before it was constitutive of the object as such. and i am not totally sure why he felt the need to do so. i suppose he realized that the earlier position was leading him on the fast track to something like a "subjectivity of the object" which he rightly could have wanted to avoid, but now it's like, either we need a transcendental subject to observe all change or change is this thing that can only be written about. i don't know.

Hes triggering cucks like you

No idea if there's any truth to this, but from previous discussions about /pol/ I remember user saying The One-Dimensional Man was an important influence on leftist identity politics of the kind /pol/ complains about (while hypocritically pushing its own infinitely worse identity politics).

Also a lot of /pol/ talk can be linked to Gramsci's war of positioning. Of course, he wasn't actually a Frankfurt School member, but nobody ever accused /pol/ of knowing what it was talking about.

Sounds about right to me, and that is very interestingly phrased, so thanks for sharing that. Basically it's a kind of flight from the object itself, which is what seems to be Meillassoux's aim. Brassier likes nihilism as a speculative opportunity, this sense of thought being completely independent of correlation to reality, but I'm not really sure if this leads to anything else but Landian madness. Or just becoming completely numb. Maybe that's it. But I find that cosmic horror and antinatalism and the other literary sources spec-real guys work don't work for me, for some reason.

Not that it is by any means the case that philosophy and politics, or even philosophy and action, need have anything to do with each other. These may all be the death-rattles of '68ish stuff, the last gasps of heroic socialism. Doesn't exactly make the sun come out. And I can't help but have this feeling that it is a very French thing to do, to reject that which one desires in this fabulously seductive fashion.

Part of this also is this feeling that we are heading for some kind of common ground again uninterrupted by the presence of the object. I have found Rene Girard's theory of mimetic desire to be really attractive these days. That desire is this shared thing comes from Lacan and in a sort of reversed way in Baudrillard, but both of them are struggling with this notion of a Real that my own intuitions suggest should really just be laid to rest. I think it's all mimetic, that the real is the shared virtuality, and the unshared - the excruciatingly deconstructive and so on - belongs to an epoch that may already be passing.

I'm not in academia, though. I maybe starting to resemble Oswald Spengler, who I love reading, and going in a kind of more mystical direction vis-a-vis all of this. Part of the attraction to philosophy for me is this continual narrative of the Subject who keeps getting sucked into these conceptual paradigms in which there appears to be no escape, and then something happens in history from out of left field that nobody could have predicted and something entirely new begins.

Marcuse actually is responsible for that whole New Left idpol thing. That's one of the real Frankfurt School things that jumped out at me, but the rest not so much.

i am a cuck
i am triggered
it is spencer's hair which does this
it is shiny and sleek and masculine, like a bullet
or a locomotive engine
if my head looked like a bullet
perhaps i would not feel so lonely
i would be like the other bullet-headed ones
and we would have such good times together

It seems they noticed scholars of the Frankfurt School had broad, deep influence on academic culture in the 50s and 60s, particularly on the development of sociology. That part is undeniably true, though it can certainly be contested what exactly the pith of FS thought is.

Then they noticed the scholars over whom FS theorists and thinkers exerted profound influence were advocates of the following:
>moral relativism
>the deconstruction of gender roles and traditional nuclear family structure
>the deconstruction of white identity and parallel encouragement of non-white ethnic solidarity and anti-white identity hostility
>the deconstruction of the scientific method and a concerted, sustained attack on academic freedom
>horde immigration from the third world and third worldist positions in all socioeconomic fora
>a concerted, sustained attack on free speech, with particular emphasis on non-debatable facts that undermine leftist academic consensus

The second part is also undeniably true; it is the basic essence of all higher education in the West, and in the past few decades the basis of public policy as well. What is at issue, and is also irrelevant, is whether there is a causal relationship between the first part and the second. I for my part don't give a shit, and would wager that the fashionable nonsense of modernity is actually the necessary outgrowth of Protestantism. There is little in modern leftist thought that wasn't foreshadowed, for instance, in the Flushing Remonstrance nearly 400 years prior. I honestly doubt Jews were the cause of any of this. They're just the most obvious beneficiaries. And that's the greater concern, and one from which the cultural Marxism debate distracts: why they hold such broad power and influence in this society, and why that fact cannot be seriously discussed; why the only thing held in common by most human cultures in most human history is anti-Semitism, and whether there's a link between that and Jewish behavior itself.

If you simply take any modern debate regarding outcome disparity between blacks and whites and replace those terms with Christians and Jews, and you have exactly the same outcome disparity. Yet only in the former is it considered the result of hate and discrimination and exploitation, while in the latter, to even consider that very fair question, it is considered itself criminal.

That's why /pol/ exercises every chance it gets to take a swing at the Tribe, even when it's obvious nonsense. Because their larger concerns are valid, yet they go wholly ignored.

The whole idea of a "red scare" is pretty stupid when you consider that it was entirely justified, as the Venona Papers proved. McCarthy was generally right on the money.

/pol/ isn't as wrong as many think when it comes to the Frankfurt School, but where they're right is pure coincidence.

Most of what they rail against is Gramscianism, but I suppose 'The Frankfurt School' and 'Cultural Marxism' suggests movements/multiple people, which perhaps lends itself more to the conspiracy-minded - as opposed to one Italian guy who wrote a load of shit in a prison cell.

More generally, it's moral/cultural relativism at large that seems to grind their gears. They still haven't realized that they can use this to their advantage though, which they would if they'd bother to read the likes of Nietzsche - as opposed to the many 20th century thinkers, generally French and/or left-leaning, who've been riding on his coattails.

>yet only in the former is it considered the result of hate and discrimination and exploitation, while in the latter, to even consider that very fair question, it is considered itself criminal

>that's why /pol/ exercises every chance it gets to take a swing at the Tribe, even when it's obvious nonsense. because their larger concerns are valid, yet they go wholly ignored

Holy shit user, that's some good stuff. I feel the same way in two senses. On the one hand, that trying to write about idpol and valorizing the oppressed tends to only perpetuate the same kind of thinking, because one can't talk about the position of the other and the marginalized without oneself presuming to know/not know about where these lines are. So trying to be on "the right side of history" (and this is dumb) just leads to a cycle of self-recrimination made worse for all its historical deafness. But you already know this, so I won't continue. Just that I found that stuff exhausting and it's why I started to look at things from the other perspective, because I felt it all starting to become familiar and recursive and even cynical.

Now you have this other side as well, the alt-right, which as you say, have these valid concerns, and which are going to get taken over by demagogues like Spencer - and isn't that going to bite them in the ass in the long run, if that hasn't started already? Nick Land was already saying stuff about this, how NRx (is that even a thing anymore?) is different from the alt-right, which is now in the public consciousness, but how long before it recurves back into a familiar sequence of talking points, strawmen, scapegoats and so on? Are they not going to get fucked by their least interesting media figures? Is that what they want?

I feel that to some degree it's because this is what people expect from politics, feel that that's how it's supposed to be done (who knows, maybe it is): that it's all a giant football game that happens every four years, but in which both sides play by completely different rules. It's a shitty analogy but w/evs. I always thought politics was a clusterfuck but only really began following events last year, and now I'm tempted to just back away slowly once again and go back to whatever the fuck I was doing before. But there really is no escape from it.

Anyways...good fucking stuff user. If you have a book or a YouTube lecture or something to recommend I'd be very interested. I am sincerely trying not to be a reactive fuckwit anymore and just be on one side or the other, lamenting x or y. But it's fucking hard when one is basically raised on deconstruction (and my eyes melt out of my head when I try to read Kant).

Everyone who replied to this post is wrong. /pol/ has that opinion because everyone around them parrots it, simple as that. You're overestimating the vast majority of them if you think they actually read or have knowledge of any of the things you guys are talking about here.

I think it's unfair to paint someone as a champion of the degeneracy of art just because they're into experimental music. Okay, I get it, you're not into Stravisnky, that's fine, but come on now.

Unrelated to your post, I was curious about the "1883" on your picture, and decided to check his Wikipedia page.

>By 1882 Nietzsche was taking huge doses of opium but was still having trouble sleeping.
>In 1883, while staying in Nice, he was writing out his own prescriptions for the sedative chloral hydrate, signing them "Dr. Nietzsche".

The absolute madman.

It must have been so easy to get free drugs back then.

>Tfw you'll never do cocaine with Freud

Might as well post this here, for some reason: why the Chinese like Trump. This is ripped straight off of Nick Land's blog, so if he winds up reading this: Hi Nick, we all think you're the cat's pyjamas, and thanks for all the wormholes.

andrewbatson.com/2016/11/21/zhao-lingmin-on-the-roots-of-chinese-elite-support-for-trump/

>OOO/spec realism
with is OO depressing?

It would be much more interesting to see why the Japanese love Trump so much.

youtube.com/watch?v=0eMEQmDffYM

Do you mean, why do I find it depressing? Because I guess I still like Heidegger, that's all, even if he seems quaint and old-fashioned (and there is that whole Nazi thing going on as well, but does anyone really want to get into this? I don't.)

Heidegger's worldview is I think pretty much like Tolkien's, I think, and I can't deny that as much as I like philosophy, I would hate to someday have to choose between continental philosophy and Middle-Earth. The more philosophy I read, the shittier life looks; but even worse than this would be the feeling of reading Tolkien and have him put a cup of tea in my hand and say, buck up there kid, it's not really so bad as you think. Even though I would be by that point an Orcish fuckface with a boatload of reasons and not a cool and welcome guest at Rivendell.

Just sentimental, I guess.

Thanks for posting. Will listen to this. This is another one of these things about the modern left, and Z has been saying this for years: the Anglo-American/Western left is not the universal left. It's worth considering how the rest of the world feels about this shit before we jump to conclusions and make up our minds and Hit The Streets and so on. Not that I could be induced out from under the rock I live beneath with a backhoe. But w/evs.

Fake, but mandatory. You've probably seen this already.
youtube.com/watch?v=ZbM6WbUw7Bs

I've only read Adorno in depth. And ira not like that by any means. Seriously, did you even bother to skim the Wikipedia page? Adorno actually railed against cultural relativism as well as against the dehumanisation of everyday existence under capitalism. In minima moralia, he warns us not to romanticise non western cultures as they all exist within the capitalist system.

Adorno called cops on hippies

Imagine being so turbomemed you think that dork Richard Spencer is the one true fuehrer, a superior being worthy of devotion. i bet a fair percentage of /pol/acks would feel honoured to lick whatever overpriced footwear he happens to be wearing

Everybody knows Spencer is an irrelevant clown.

Everybody knows the alt right is led by the triumvirate (Bronze Age Pervert, Menaquinone4, Kantbot2000)

>Forgetting the emperor

>a libertarian is the leader of the alt-right

If he's not NatSoc then no

>Sam Hyde
>Libertarian

You need to follow his Facebook, my man. That's where the mask really slips.

You realize Hyde is dating a transexual Jew right? the guy is a comedian.

Holy shit some of this stuff is insane. I'm only seeing some of these feeds for the first time. Kantbot had an AMA here yesterday and I had no idea what was happening. Apparently an NRx-er? I read some of the blog. Pretty interesting.

I used to think that the people who had the answers and made the most sense worked in university departments. Apparently they're all on Twitter. Things you learn.

They're going to have to take his phone away at some point. There's no way we will get an entire presidential term live-tweeted like this...will we?

Adorno was the least Jewish Frankfurter

I think Sam Hyde is not a real person but a simulacrum like one of those evil android comedians in Philip K Dick novels. 'Sam Hyde' happens to be the name of a trickster demon figure in New England folklore. Coincidence?

Sam Hyde is the future.

>I used to think that the people who had the answers and made the most sense worked in university departments
Hahahaha... Ah... The mistakes of youth...
Sam is more like an enforcer than anything else.

I still don't know who the fuck Sam Hyde is supposed to be?

You could use google?

He said he was being ironic. Dudes trying to rile people up. He's being un pc and 'punk rock'. Why base your opinion of a whole movement in a few clips taken out of context? I think the Alf right and spencer are quite reasonable and have great ideas but the mainstream media is really biased and won't give them a fair chance.

Richard Spencer is fat and therefore morally deficient and should be disregarded.

Serialism is fine you retard, and Schoenberg is one of the greatest composers of the 20th century. Serialism has essentially run it's course but it's important that it was done.

>It's just intellectual wankery,
You sound like the degenerate now.

>and literally wallowing in ugliness. He hates beauty.
wrong

>Those are true degenerates, not in the /pol/ sense but in the strict meaning of the word.
The strictest meaning of the word is Mad Max. Moral "degeneracy" essentially means "things I don't like", same with aesthetic or artistic "degeneracy". The only objective measure of "degeneracy" is things like corruption, the inability of the state to carry out it's ordinary functions etc.