I need a quick rundown on Foucault's concept of biopower and biopolitics

I need a quick rundown on Foucault's concept of biopower and biopolitics.
Should I read "Security, Territory, Population", "The Birth Of Biopolitics" or "Society Must Be Defended"?

Bump.

enjoy your aids

>I need a quick rundown on Foucault's concept of biopower and biopolitics.
From what I understand, its purpose is to destroy the race through the mass proliferation of cuckold pornography.

It's basically just 'muh feels'

t. im redpilled

Who rides, so late, through night and wind?
It is the father with his child.
He has the boy well in his arm
He holds him safely, he keeps him warm.
"My son, why do you hide your face so anxiously?"
"Father, do you not see the Elfking?
The Elfking with crown and tail?"
"My son, it's a wisp of fog."
"You dear child, come, go with me!
Very lovely games I'll play with you;
Some colourful flowers are on the beach,
My mother has some golden robes."
"My father, my father, and don't you hear
What the Elfking quietly promises me?"
"Be calm, stay calm, my child;
The wind is rustling through withered leaves."
"Do you want to come with me, pretty boy?
My daughters shall wait on you finely;
My daughters will lead the nightly dance,
And rock and dance and sing you to sleep."
"My father, my father, and don't you see there
The Elfking's daughters in the gloomy place?"
"My son, my son, I see it clearly:
There shimmer the old willows so grey."
"I love you, your beautiful form entices me;
And if you're not willing, then I will use force."
"My father, my father, he's grabbing me now!
The Elfking has done me harm!"
It horrifies the father; he swiftly rides on,
He holds the moaning child in his arms,
Reaches the farm with trouble and hardship;
In his arms, the child was dead.
Who rides there so late through the night dark and drear?
The father it is, with his infant so dear;
He holdeth the boy tightly clasp'd in his arm,
He holdeth him safely, he keepeth him warm.
"My son, wherefore seek'st thou thy face thus to hide?"
"Look, father, the Alder King is close by our side!
Dost see not the Alder King, with crown and with train?"
"My son, 'tis the mist rising over the plain."
"Oh, come, thou dear infant! oh come thou with me!
For many a game I will play there with thee;
On my beach, lovely flowers their blossoms unfold,
My mother shall grace thee with garments of gold."
"My father, my father, and dost thou not hear
The words that the Alder King now breathes in mine ear?"
"Be calm, dearest child, thy fancy deceives;
the wind is sighing through withering leaves."
"Wilt go, then, dear infant, wilt go with me there?
My daughters shall tend thee with sisterly care
My daughters by night on the dance floor you lead,
They'll cradle and rock thee, and sing thee to sleep."
"My father, my father, and dost thou not see,
How the Alder King is showing his daughters to me?"
"My darling, my darling, I see it aright,
'Tis the aged grey willows deceiving thy sight."
"I love thee, I'm charm'd by thy beauty, dear boy!
And if thou aren't willing, then force I'll employ."
"My father, my father, he seizes me fast,
For sorely the Alder King has hurt me at last."
The father now gallops, with terror half wild,
He holds in his arms the shuddering child;
He reaches his farmstead with toil and dread, –
The child in his arms lies motionless, dead.

Foucault was a blackpill nihilist faggot who thought power was pretty cool and shit, not really a SJW by any means. He was a fan of austrian economist Friedrich Hayek to boot

he was against whiteness and masculinity, ask /pol/

>He was a fan of austrian economist Friedrich Hayek to boot
You may not realize it, but you've just proven me correct.

>Foucault was a anti-western leftist

this is Veeky Forums not /pol/, you need to actually read primary source material to post on this board and not have everyone reading your post point you out as an asshat parrot

Is not getting obvious jokes part of this board's culture too?

Can someone tell me about how he apparently became redpilled? I'm also interested in what insights he got from Hayek.

/pol/ jokes deserve to be called out as shitty jokes

/pol/ is all about jokes, except they're taken seriously: accepting /pol/ humor leads to later accepting /pol/ itself

just look at what Veeky Forums has already became: people are seriously talking about being "redpilled", asking about "cultural marxist" conspiracy theories, talking about "cuckoldry" and memeing Evola (probably without reading him)

fucking pathetic, you should all choke on a piece of bread or something

Lol someone is triggered.

You say The Hunger Games, I say The Sot-Weed Factor
You say Twilight, I say The Recognitions
You say Divergent, I say The Magic Mountain
You say Harry Potter, I say In Search of Lost Time
You say Perks, I say Women & Men
You say John Green, I say shut the fuck up
You say Cassandra Clare, I scream Thomas Pynchon!!
You say Fifty Shades of Grey, I fucken punch you in the face

92% of teenagers have turned to YA and memes. If you are part of the 8% that still reads real literature, copy and paste this message to another 5 threads. DON'T LET THE SPIRIT OF Veeky Forums DIE

He is right. Go back to /pol/ now, nigger trigger

>More importantly, he had now also liberated himself from the paranoid leftovers of his own studies in power. It was only the attitude of methodical calmness, acquired late on, that enabled him to formulate a concept of regimen, disciplines and power games devoid of all compulsively anti-authoritarian reflexes. When he states sententiously in the same interview, recalling his beginnings in abstract revolt, ‘One not only wanted a different world and a different society, one also wanted to go deeper, to transform oneself and to revolutionize relationships to be completely “other”, he is already speaking as someone genuinely changed who, light years away from his beginnings, remembers his confused longing for complete otherness. With this turn of phrase he is beyond irony, even beyond humour. In his way, Foucault repeated the discovery that one cannot subvert the ‘existing’ – only supervert it. He had stepped out into the open and become ready to perceive something strictly invisible for an intelligence conditioned in French schematicisms: the fact that human claims to freedom and self-determination are not suppressed by the disciplines, regimes and power games, but rather enabled. Power is not an obstructive supplement to an originally free ability; it is constitutive for ability in all its manifestations. It always forms the ground floor above which a free subject moves in. Hence one can describe liberalism as a system of disciplinary checks and balances without glorifying it in the slightest – but without denouncing it either. With the calm severity of a civilization trainer, Foucault states: ‘Individuals could certainly not be “liberated” without educating them in a certain way.’

>Foucault had gone a certain distance along this path by newly covering the universe of ancient philosophical asceticisms in a series of meticulous rereadings of mostly Stoic authors – unimpeded by the ubiquitous barriers of critical kitsch, which sees domination in every form of ‘self-control’, and immediately suspects any discipline in one’s way of life of being a self-repression that doubles an external repression.

>People took all those analyses of asylums, clinics, police institutions and prisons for a slightly outlandish form of social critique and lavished praise on its lyrically drugged fastidiousness. None of his readers understood that they were always also ascetic exercises in self-shaping in place of a third suicide attempt, and possibly even the author himself was not always aware of it. His insistence on the anonymity of authorship aimed in the same direction: if no one is there, no one can kill themselves. The bafflement was therefore great when the older Foucault sidestepped with the irony of one who had detached himself, shaking off his critical and subversive followers.

>/pol/ is all about jokes, except they're taken seriously: accepting /pol/ humor leads to later accepting /pol/ itself
Even when the jokes are at /pol/'s expense? My post was one of them, and it was a reference to how silly their worldview is. Dude, no need to be so uptight.
>just look at what Veeky Forums has already became: people are seriously talking about being "redpilled", asking about "cultural marxist" conspiracy theories, talking about "cuckoldry" and memeing Evola (probably without reading him)
I think a significant portion of those posts are made by one sarcastic guy. Unfortunately these people are part of the site culture, so they'll have at least some presence everywhere. But I really don't think there's some sort of takeover in progress.

Anyone who thinks Society Must be Defended didn't completely BTFO left-wing identity politics doesn't read.

Go with Society Must Be Defended > Security > Birth of Biopolitics

A-And don't forget to read Agamben and Carl Schmitt.

>Agamben and Schmitt
my nigga

Source? Thanks though, I can definitely see the connections to Hayek, as well as some reasons why the right might do well to read his works now.

You Must Change Your Life by Peter Sloterdijk

>My post was one of them, and it was a reference to how silly their worldview is
You might want to get off that high horse, champ. Let's play a little game: I'll pretend to be a /pol/lack and my goal is to defend one statement. You, on the other hand, are supposed to dispute that statement and thus prove that /pol/ is wrong. Alright?

/pol/ says: Mass third world immigration is bad for the Western countries. Therefore, mass third world immigration should stop.

Prove /pol/ wrong mate. It should be an easy task, considering your superior intellect. After all, /pol/lacks are imbeciles and every opinion/theory they have is necessarily wrong, right?

Thanks. Is Sloterdijk as redpilled as he seems?

His ex-assistant is now near the top of AfD in Germany. Take that as you will.

Thank you. I'm actually preparing for Agamben, my last book was Political Theology.

Agamben is a pretty cancerous writer, desu

t. had to read homo sacer

I've been away from this thread for a while now but yes, oh god that just makes me more intrigued.

This board hasn't degraded so much that we swap memes back and forth. We actually have either read the source material, or a reliable secondary source near it.

So I invite you to either rephrase your comment in such a way that you ask a question that contributes to the thread, or simply kill yourself.

Just read history of sexuality if you have no prior experience with Foucault. Its a neat read that addresses his concept of power in short.


I can give you a five sentence little shitty rundown.

>Power used to be about exercising the ability to kill, wound, maim, or punish. Kings and Big Guys are powerful because they can kill you.

>Power is now about optimization and improvement. Doctors and teachers are powerful becuase they can tell you how to be healtheir and smarter. We don't need to be threatened to obey.

Fuck off /pol/. You're worse than the niggers you demonize. At least they stay off other boards and don't shitpost, unlike shitheads like you who try to force your ideology through repetition.

It's fucking fine to hold far-right positions, but at least do the thinking yourself. The reason you're becoming so hated is that you don't really examine the position you hold and you have a tenuous connection to reality at best.

If its not the jews, its the t.cucks or the sjws. We hate you because you substitute feelings for arguments and impose yourself - in effect just making you the obverse of the tubleristias you so revile. There is literally no problem with doing that on /pol/, but don't think its not a containment board.

...

Schmitt is a great read, especially the crisis of parliamentary democracy.

You should read it if you want one of the most concise critiques of liberal institutions made. Its fantastic food for thought if you want to understand how some of the logjams of legislative democracy come about.

...

>A very good antidote to the chicken-soup banalities of Alain de Botton.

hook'd

Not an argument Mr. Cuck.

Thanks.

bump

Awww, poor you, did she cheat on you with a Chad?

Don't worry, even if you never find true love again you can always settle for sucking homosexual dick in a bathhouse.

this t.b.h.

Thanks.

This is fucking Veeky Forums ya moron

Sloterdjik is Sam Hyde confirmed

I need a rundown on his concept of boipucci

Not that user, but I'd also suggest you read The Concept of the Political (and the essay The Age Of Neutralisations and Depoliticisations) for a more theoretical-intellectual critique of liberalism, imo CPD is much more rooted in the specific context of Weimar crisis in the early 1920s and Schmitt using the concrete reality of the regime to attack parliamentary democracy (see passages like "who would believe that decisions are still being made through reasoned open debate rather than in smoky rooms by leaders of interest groups"?).

I personally found Schmitt fascinating for his re-conceptualisation of liberalism, but I would also advise you not to get caught up too much in his seductive rhetoric. Ie when he blasts liberalism for reducing everything to economics or morality, when he despairs at the diluting of the friend/enemy distinction, you should ask yourself - why is that bad, why should it be regretted? Basically there is imo a strong moral underpinning to Schmitt's writings, but he doesn't make it too explicit.