/lit/ - Literature

>>13632786
>fragility

by not reading them and listening to pseudointellectial rhetoriticians

Its really just a handful of the most charlatan ones, which as it happens have disproportionate influence in schools. Namely Foucault, Lacan, Derrida, and Butler. Many of them are not so bad. But all those guys are fucking charlatans, sexual deviants, pedophiles, retards, etc.

They were appropriated by their mortal enemy and became propaganda for authoritarian woke utopianism. Only Nick Land has intentionally taken steps to prevent this from happening to himself

>>13632786
>>13632793
>>13632794
>>13632802
>>13632820
Reminder that these freaks lobbied the French government to remove age of consent laws.

>>13632824
Based and unspookpilled

>>13632824
What do you know about true love?

>>13632802
Specifically:

Foucault's historiography is entirely false
Lacan's psychoanalysis was a con intended to get as much money as possible from his patients until they realized he couldn't help them. His philosophy of language is passable but almost everything is pseudo-scientific to a level only Jung can rival.
Derrida not so bad, but overrated
Butler is an obscurantist hedonist

>>13632824
Also petitioned to legalize human sacrifice

>>13632845
based bataille

>>13632842
no arguments

>>13632824
That's probably the only good thing they ever did.
Reminder that aoc is a christo/feminist attempt at tyrannically regulating and prohibiting healthy human reproductive behaviors.

I haven't read much from these authors, but usually it's implied that French theorists paved the way for SJWism. I think that's only possible due to American readings of it (there's a reason Foucault caught on in the US) which strive for "authenticity" or "suspicion towards power relations" and project these concepts onto American egalitarianism and anti-racism which enable things like grievance studies, transexuality, and the like to become prominent within society. Due to the obfuscation of power within Anglo societies, people can point out the obvious (that you're subverting gender norms etc.) But not really critique it because of the acceptance of underlying liberal premises - in short, Power is calling for suspicion of power relations and gender norms (for example). People engaging in victimology are fitting into roles prescribed for them by Power as it seems to destroy intermediary institutions between the state and the individual in the name of authenticity, being yourself, liberty, etc.

Liberals correctly realized that postmodernism is the great challenge that has ever appeared against the Enlightenment project, by using the language of liberalism against itself and exposing how much of "rationalism" is indebted to hidden historical or genealogical foundations, the postmoderns expose the hypocrisies and inadequacies of modern political theory.

Conservatives jumped on the bandwagon because they are desperately dumb and didn't realize that what the postmodernists did was merely what traditional conservatives had been doing since the XVIIIth century when they first criticized the Enlightenment. They only think in terms of "muh SJW" and "muh gender theory" and are therefore unable to engage in coherent discourse.

>>13632842
Butler is also hypocritical as fuck given how she defended Avital Ronell based on her authority and influence in the feminist movement.

>>13632942
>exposing how much of "rationalism" is indebted to hidden historical or genealogical foundations
Any examples?

Modernists assume there must be only one modernist system (theirs) and so any variance from that is a criticism of modernism, and they cannot understand modernist criticisms of modernism. They suppose any criticism of modernism is postmodern/poststructuralist, and this leads to a lot of confusion among people who use a modernist framework.
For example: the tranny question. SJWs maintain there is such a thing as a male or female brain, like the most hardcore of religious right write in their science books. They believe that there are natural inherent traits which make up genders, just as the most backward of Amish know men and women have their place in the workforce decided by nature. They believe that bodies can be engineered to have a different range of sex characteristics and this should be taken as not some deranged Dr Munro type genre fiction but the next obvious step of science, just like any SEL watcher dreams of being taken poltergeist style into the internet body and soul, and they believe we should pursue science to that end in much the same way early eugenics proponents didn't really see the problem with dividing the world into morlocks and Eloi so long as the Eloi got Europe.
But they believe they are postmodern despite making claims about science and humanity and progress which would make a futurist blush for being too fond of modernist ideals of godless order. This is not because they could form a critique of modernism, but simply because they place themselves in opposition to another modernism. It is much like claiming the imagists to be postmodern because they do not map on to the futurists, when Pound created vorticism because he thought the futurists were not new enough and needed to think about more than war and machines and death to complete the future. Or claiming Joyce to be postmodern because Ulysses questions the grand narrative of earlier versions of the myth.

>>13633015
>For example: the tranny question. SJWs maintain there is such a thing as a male or female brain, like the most hardcore of religious right write in their science books.

That's because they're two sides of the same coin. 150 years ago we might speak of the former as "the religious left" because that's what they were.

>>13633033
>150 years ago
I assume this is a reference to biblical literalists. They're not the only religious right who believes that and the Amish haven't been the religious left for longer than that. The particular religious right that has opinions on trannies though is very young. Fifty years ago you say tranny to any religious right or left and they're going to assume car transmission. The SJW movement grew alongside it in the 80s because they're both concerned with more modern issues.

its all a freudian tar pit. impressionable people gaining power in academia shifted from maintaining quality study in favor of pushing personal agendas and status. this means squandering any thinker they can shape into their id pol sexually charged vendetta against spooks they cant banish in their personal lives. its a cycle of broken people powertripping naive people. the average 'triggered sjw' for example doesnt realize they are the henchmen of one kind of prison foucault talks about. 'postmodern neomarxists' are well recuperated a decade after the summer of love. ripe for political recruitment, they get funding from more powerful people outside of academia. people have to understand this left and right meme shit doesnt apply to people who have money and influence, they created that simulation. they can play as both to get what they want and these are the type who has historical ties in literally 'influencing populations'.

>>13633051
No, I'm saying SJWism is an outgrowth of Anglo-American Evangelical Christianity, the current fervor is just the latest edition of religious revivalism, which has traditionally featured egalitarianism, feminism, concern for ethnic minorities, and so on.

>>13632786
Awful misreadings of Foucault and Butler filtered through three tumblr posts and one half-understood 200 level sociology class which is already just philosophy for brainlets with a heavy dose of bourgeois moralism.

>>13633015
That's why Land is so based with his IQ trolling

>>13632978
He's full of it.

>>13633015
What rot.

>>13633225
Why?

white people, crying out about white genocide since the beginning of their history while committing almost all the genocides that have happened in recorded history

>>13633116
I'd place it differently, because it developed more strongly in France and Britain in some respects which, while influenced by the American religious right to some extent, have their own historical imperialist faith to fall back on to a greater degree and have little place for the biblical literalism of the American revivalist period. The impact of the religious right and sjw left in those countries since the 80s is more prevalent than in the US in part because they give more room for the left to affect politics while also giving the extreme right more institutional support through longer incumbency than the biblical literalists could hope for.

>>13633245
exposing the iq fetishism of the left

>>13632857

>>13632824
was a bunch of French intellectuals, not just the postmodernists (Baudrillard never signed)

>>13632842
>Butler is an obscurantist
anon Butler is standard reading in undergrad, she is so far from obscurantist kek

>>13633280
kek

>>13633246
>just ignore the genocides or attempted genocides made by other groups who were less successful due to the fact that they were tecnologically inferior

>>13632786
A bunch of Parisian bourgeois with daddy issues being mentally corrupted by Jewish ideology.

>>13633292
>Baudrillard never signed
Why was he so wise, bros?

>>13633319
DAS RITE

>>13633316
Have another

>>13632786
I know there's a lot of hyperbole about it but what are some erudite takedowns of postmodernism?

>>13633299
...did you read "Bodies that matter"

>>13633322
one of the many perks of being completely politically uninvolved

>>13633358
There aren't many. That it inevitably defines itself in relation to modernism and makes itself prone to the technical apparatus of propagation and repression by such a default position is a pretty weak argument against it since it basically casts them as better modernists, as more open to empirical and pragmatic investigation.

Reminder that basically none of the famous Frenchmen associated with postmodernism used the word or had a concept of postmodernity, and if they did that is exactly what they were criticizing.

>>13633419
>oh wow bodies
>oh wow materialism
>performance? catagories?
>how can I keep up with all this obscurantism?

>>13633319
i said "almost all" because for every 100 genocide committed by whites (romans, british, spanish, etc) there was a one "genocide" done by other groups.
if you don't include the far east there is barely any genocides other than the one ottomans did and the Rwandan (weapons were sold to the hutu by the west btw)
>>13633332
there is a difference between languages families/groups and ethnicity retard

>>13633621
Funny you post a GIF of Indoeuropean expansion. I guess you're just ignorant of the Bantu expansion, Han expansion, Arab conquests etc etc. In fact any relatively homogenous language group is the consequence of invasion, genocide and subjugation. YT was just the first group of people to do it so well they felt guilty about it.

>>13633595
You know you are reading a badly-written book when most chapter feels harsher than that of Anti-Oedipus when she gives far more less meaningful concept

>>13633621
>the """""""""""white""""""""""" """""""ethnicity"""""""

retard

>>13633684
right now I am reading a badly written sentence... I've read AO actually it's much more difficult than anything Butler has written. I read Hegel in my spare time anon, you are not going to convince me that Butler is obscurantist

>>13633621
>barely any genocides
Because they were militarily and technologically incapable of doing it on a large scale.
It isn't a difference in intent, but in intelligence and capability.
It's like saying that monkeys never shoot people.

>>13633811
"White people murdered millions because they were SMARTER than everyone else, duh"

Not saying that western and white nations didn't technologically outpace other nations during the 14th-20th century, but attributing it to an inherent advantage in intelligence is pure pseud shit.

If anything most heavily contributed to white people's tendency to genocide it was the ability and desire to generate large sums of money thanks to corporations/large scale bank & lending systems/interconnected economies, etc.

>>13633939
>desire to generate large sums of money thanks to corporations/large scale bank & lending systems/interconnected economies, etc.
Those are all jewish desires and activities.

>>13632824
/thread

>>13633966
OK commie

>>13633966
Then why are all of the richest countries in the world either Islamic countries or predominantly white countries?

Keep dribbling the anti-semitic trash that's fed to you by people who are just as blind as you as to what's actually causing woes in the world today.

News flash, it's not immigrants, it's not the jews, it's not people with darker skin than you;

It's people and groups that amass large sums of money and do everything in their power to keep those sums growing, even at the expense of the general population and life itself

>>13633939
>If anything most heavily contributed to white people's tendency to genocide it was the ability and desire to generate large sums of money thanks to corporations/large scale bank & lending systems/interconnected economies, etc.


let me translate that for you

>if anything it was the fact that evolutionary pressures which favoured lower melanin production coincided with the need to innovate and find solutions for food production, storage, and other logistical problems, and the aggregation of these strategies allowed them to outperform africans who to this day suck the shit right out of a cow's asshole and make burgers made out of mosquitos

>>13634017
>predominantly white countries?
White countries are rich due to the fact that they have and had people with extreme intellectual abilities who created technological innovations which allowed to increase production.
And another group of (((people))) who were really good at commercial activities.
>It's people and groups that amass large sums of money
Who are they?
Can you give me their names and surnames?
Because i have the suspition that they all end in -stein.

>>13634050
We agree that white nations have outperformed African nations. That's not disputable. There's also a point to be made about white nations deliberately suppressing and exploiting African economies in the 18 & 1900's and up to this day, but that's a discussion for another time.

My primary point, and this is what I want to hear your opinion on, is that white people did not succeed because they were/are INHERENTLY smarter. If you think that 6,000 years of evolution is enough to create ANY appreciable difference in capacity for critical thinking, "IQ", or anything like that then I really don't know what good talking about this will do.

>>13634147
>If you think that 6,000 years of evolution

>There is some evidence that modern humans left Africa at least 125,000 years ago
>The recent expansion of anatomically modern humans reached Europe around 40,000 years ago from Central Asia and the Middle East

It's a bit more than that sweetie

>>13634095
White countries being where they are today is not simply the result of people with "extreme intellectual capabilities" generating wealth via ingenuity.

There's a near infinite number of political, social, historical and natural factors that got the world to where it is today.

Have white countries been one of, if not the, predominant scientific and technological forces of the past 500 years? You bet ya. And that's certainly contributed a whole lot to their current standing.

Have members of some white countries also exploited and murdered humans by the 10s of millions in order to achieve their economic goals? Yep.

Have the political trends of the past 500 years also allowed white countries to collaborate and bolster their own prosperity, some times with the oppression of others as a consequence of that collaboration? Sure

To try and reduce history to "White people smarter so they do better" is god damned ridiculous and so myopic that you must have lenses thicker than your skull.


And as for the anti-semitic stuff...

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Jewish people make up 30% of billionaires and top executives in the U.S.. I don't believe this to be any where near the actual number, but I'm open to statistics proving me wrong.

What does that mean? Do you think that there's a conspiracy of global jewish elites that run everything? Or is it more likely that the Jews are and always have been a tight nit group that tends to stick together and favor nepotistic practices?

I'm not saying that nepotism is good, but even if jews were 30% of the wealthiest individuals in the US (which they aren't), so what? Does that make them inherently more evil than the other rich individuals? Does that mean they have more power than their non-jewish peers?

This conspiracy shit gets so wrapped up in itself that it forgets to invent negative consequences of the supposed hidden realities of the world

>>13634223
It would only be inherently evil if you believe perpetuating capitalism as it exists is destroying planet earth and eroding most peoples will to even be alive.

Pro tip: it is

>>13634186
So you think that European dominance has been ongoing for the past 40,000 years? You think that even the European civilizations of 4,000-3,000 B.C. can hold a candle to Indus Valley, Egyptian, and Mesopotamian societies?

What about the Arabic and Indian scholars that made strides in mathematics, medicine, and astronomy centuries before the greeks?

Or the African philosophers that were idolized by Socrates and the like?

Geographic separation doesn't mean shit if you don't do anything with it for 30+ millennia

>>13634147
Not that anon, but I have a few words.
>My primary point, and this is what I want to hear your opinion on, is that white people did not succeed because they were/are INHERENTLY smarter. If you think that 6,000 years of evolution is enough to create ANY appreciable difference in capacity for critical thinking, "IQ", or anything like that then I really don't know what good talking about this will do.
First off, humans in Europe have evolved independently for anywhere between 37,000 - 50,000 years. This is more than enough time for differences in intelligence to evolve, regardless of how much of that is from adapting to a colder climate. Genetics have been found to account for 40-80% of variation in intelligence, depending on age. Someone's race and ethnicity can be predicted with +99% accuracy with a rather small part of the genome. Race predicts IQ very well, and IQ predicts crime/achievement very well. We have even begun to find intelligence genes themselves, and they occur at wildly different rates depending on race. When such an overwhelming majority of the research all points to the same conclusion that intelligence has a significant genetic component and that it differs between races, preconceived notions are often what clouds people's opinions of this subject.

>>13634284
>Or the African philosophers that were idolized by Socrates and the like?
Who, genuinely curious.

>>13634251
Hey we finally agree. But focusing on the Jews, who don't even make up a third of wealthy individuals in the world or the US, is such a god damned waste of time.

Selfish plutocrats are the issue here, and that includes the Jewish ones. But non-wealthy jews or not an issue

>>13634147

The behavioral characteristics which are advantageous for Africans historically (strength, stamina, aggression) as they aided in hunting and mating are also important in early Euros, but Euros had additional issues; for example, in order to expand the mating pool so that Euros weren't inbreeding in small family-sized tribes, they had to learn to live among each other, work collectively in an agrarian society. There were other survival conditions which required advanced problem solving.

Africans are scavengers, by nature. Being effective scavengers is their survival condition. This is evident both in Africa and in the places they show up as refugees. They'll work if they're bored and want to socialize, but they're (on average) quite useless on matters of the mind/planning. You will not find a single successful city run by a 100% genetic African, anywhere in the world..

White males had to plan, work, and suffer through winters to start and maintain a family, and it was normal for families to just die out due to weather, illness, etc, until very recently (the last century). The traits that allowed whites to survivve winters, the patterns of behavior that reproduced both on a social and genetic level, was as major of a leap in ability during the Neolithic farming revolution. The ones who could figure out how to survive in these conditions continued to reproduce, perpetuating that intelligence through European society in a sort of positive feedback loop.

>>13634284
>So you think that European dominance has been ongoing for the past 40,000 years?
No, i'm saying that human beings evolved for 100k years after going outside of africa thus they have different intellectual faculties on average as proven by IQ tests.
>Arabic and Indian
Both groups of Caucasians, what is your point?

>Geographic separation doesn't mean shit if you don't do anything
It leads to different physical and behavioural addaptations due to different environmental factors.

>>13634331
On the African philosophers bit, no individuals are specifically mentioned by name, to my knowledge. But plato mentions Egyptian schools of thought and sayings regularly throughout his body of work, and even spent a decade studying under Egyptian priest as a young man, as did Socrates and many of his pupils.

Hell even Thales is believed to have gained his early understanding of geometry directly from Babylonian mathematicians.

As for the race related intelligence portion, that entire field of study is such a chicken and egg shit show that I truly don't believe that it's possible in our society to create an objective study that's able to control for all possible variables that would affect results.

I could just as easily point out that Race is also a good predictor of an individuals odds of living in poverty, and that socio-economic status is directly linked to academic achievement and "IQ" (which is itself a loose concept that can be freely molded and prodded to fit the needs of a study). Minorities in America, especially black people, have a very clear and indisputable history of economic suppression in the U.S., and millions have been born into an inescapable poverty spiral.

>We've begun to find intelligence genes [that are dictated race]

Big ol' citation needed

>>13632842
Are you some kind of self-proclaimed 'philosophy journalist'? why don't you rate them on a scale of 1 to 10?
You've posted some pretty strong asertions about authors whose work you probably haven't even touched. Saying that Butler is oscurantist is a pretty significative evidence of it. It sure is not like reading a divulgative book by Carl Sagan, but it's not obscure by any means.
Anyway, any arguments to back your asertions?

>>13634362
>[europeans]had to learn to live among each other, work collectively in an agrarian society

So did Africans. The closer societies got to the equator the less agrarian they became because, surprise surprise, growing shit in one of the most consistently hot and arid parts of the world is difficult. But African people, in both the north and the south, formed small agrarian societies that varied in size and scope.

Your second paragraph is baseless racist garbage so I'll just move on aside from "You will not find a single successful city run by a 100% genetic African, anywhere in the world" This is such a stupid statement.

First of all you won't find any city anywhere run by a 100% genetic anything, let alone a "successful" one.

Second of all, there are scores of advanced and prosperous African cities. Johannesburg, Lagos, Nairobi, the list goes on (not as far as those of other nations, but I digress).

"But wait" you say, "those cities are only successful because white people were in charge of them for a while". White people not only made up a tiny minority of any African country at any given time, but they also spent 100s of years violently taking control of any territory that presented even a minuscule economic opportunity. There's essentially no area of Africa with hospitable and economically fertile geography that wasn't colonized at one point or another.

>"White males had to plan, work, and suffer through winters to start and maintain a family, and it was normal for families to just die out due to weather, illness, etc, until very recently (the last century)"

All of this (minus the winter factor that you expound upon) is true for any civilization anywhere.

As for winters, thousands of cultures have had to endure winters throughout the history of humanity.

Native Americans had to endure bitter winters for thousands of years, especially those in modern day Canada.

What's their reason for not reaching the same level of technological sophistication as their 16th century European counterparts? Because you sure can't hide behind the "Muh need to think ahead to survive the winter" bullshit on that front.

it's an embarrassment to philosophy
only midwits are dazzled by it

>>13634439
>thus they have different intellectual faculties on average as proven by IQ tests

Citation needed.

>It leads to different physical and behavioural addaptations due to different environmental factors

So if you lump in Indians and Arabics with europeans, then what's your excuse for Asian civilizations that have been on the cutting edge of humanity for thousands of years? Do you think that humans in modern day Europre, India, Asia, the Middle East, and Russia all just happened to have similar environmental pressures that caused them to outpace and become smarter than African people?

Do you think that all of these nations came to be scientific and economic powerhouses in the modern world primarily thanks to intellectual advantages that are imprinted in their genes?

you can decry historical race dominance and whatnot, but its too late. you cant change what built contemporary technology and its trajectory. this model of intelligence wont give a shit about epistemological hearsay. the data pours out and it marches on. i find it funny how racism and diversity is all the hot talk but people dont understand the real world implementation of 'abolishing race'.

>>13634618
>The closer societies got to the equator the less agrarian they became because, surprise surprise, growing shit in one of the most consistently hot and arid parts of the world is difficult.


>But African people, in both the north and the south, formed small agrarian societies that varied in size and scope.

They never came close to achieving the complexity of non-African civilizations. Also understand that when I say African, I'm mostly referring to Bantu (which is the largest and by-far the worst ethnic group in Africa). Khoisans, Arabs and Berbers can also be found in Africa. Khoisan fled south for the same reasons that Berbers and Arabs remained in the north, the difference is that the Khoisan ran out of room to get away from the Bantu whereas Berbers and Arabs kept remainded in the north and northeast regions.

>First of all you won't find any city anywhere run by a 100% genetic anything, let alone a "successful" one.

Either you're a Jew or you're brainwashed by Jews. What would you call any city in Israel?
> There's essentially no area of Africa with hospitable and economically fertile geography that wasn't colonized at one point or another.

Hmmm. How did Euros end up colonizing Africa instead of the other way around?

>All of this (minus the winter factor that you expound upon) is true for any civilization anywhere.

Not Africa.

>What's their reason for not reaching the same level of technological sophistication as their 16th century European counterparts? Because you sure can't hide behind the "Muh need to think ahead to survive the winter" bullshit on that front.

Whites must have some other inherent property that makes them more advanced than those other civilizations. I am not sure what that is, but I imagine it is some combination of the societies and cultures of whites mixed with genetic/psychological dispositions which favor cooperation and non-homicidal competition.

>>13633458
So basically pic related?

The people presenting postmodernism are so unlikeable people have a immediate reaction of disgust.

>>13632786
Much of what is said about "postmodernism" actually refers to what American literary theorists of the 1960s and 1970s got from their hasty reading of middling translations of French philosophers. Most French philosophers lumped into "postmodernism" did not use the term, and most are clearly hostile to many aspects of postmodernism. furthermore, the political angle of postmodernism is complicated as authors like Deleuze and Foucault are obviously left of the French communist party, but authors like Derrida or Lacan are generally apolitical; their appropriation by American New Leftists hungry for culture war is a farce to say the least. most of these thinkers wrote in a difficult-to-approach style that was by no means unprecedented: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Bataille, Barthes and many others paved the way.

So, thinking about postmodernism as a leftist movement that has precipitated modern American leftism with its root in the humanities is wrong. In fact, the New Left and its tendency towards extreme politicization and culture war emerged in the mid-1960s, before postmodernism as an intellectual movement even took root in France or elsewhere. They were hungry to apply some sort of intellectualism to their already deeply motivated beliefs.

>>13634776
>Deleuze
>obviously left of the French communist party
It wasn't obvious at all, rumours of crypto-fascism followed him his entire career in France.

>Lacan are generally apolitical
His concepts of gender and sexuality were hilariously conservative and anything but apolitical.

>>13634776
>Derrida apolitical
>The name of new International is given here to what calls to the friendship of an alliance without institution among those who, even if they no longer believe or never believed in the socialist-Marxist International, in the dictatorship of the proletariat, in the messiano-eschatological role of the universal union of the proletarians of all lands, continue to be inspired by at least one of the spirits of Marx or of Marxism (they now know that there is more than one) and in order to ally themselves, in a new, concrete, and real way, even if this alliance no longer takes the form of a party or of a workers’ international, but rather of a kind of counter-conjuration, in the (theoretical and practical) critique of the state of international law, the concepts of State and nation, and so forth: in order to renew this critique, and especially to radicalize it.
Sounds like the nuleft to me.

>>13634817
I'm curious about these rumors. Are you referring in part to Badiou's charge? I could see how followers of the Eclipse of Reason line--associating figures like Nietzsche and early 20th century "irrationalism," of which vitalism and a revitalized interest in Stirner played a part, with the rise of fascism--could accuse Deleuze of crypto-fascism, but when you think of his positive remarks on Althusser, the general thrust of C&S, and his work with the GIP and Hocquenghem, he's clearly left of the PCF.

As for the point on Lacan, The Law of Kinship: Anthropology, Psychoanalysis, and the Family in France by Camille Robcis might be of interest to you.

>>13634877
Reminding people neoliberalism came from French Marxists isn't good for their soul Anon.

>>13634890
Mont Pelerin and Bernard Henri-Levy are French Marxists now?

>>13634817
Reading Deleuze as a fascist seems pretty bizarre given for example his call to exorcise 'microfascisms' from every facet of life.

>>13634669
>Do you think that all of these nations came to be scientific and economic powerhouses in the modern world primarily thanks to intellectual advantages that are imprinted in their genes?
Yes that is the primary cause.
Literally the way your brain works lead to what you are capable of doing or thinking.

>>13634897
He was definitely an OG Sorel style fascist transcendentalist.

>>13632786
Foucault in a nutshell: I want to slam underage boipussy, so therefore ethics are a total fabrication of culture.

>>13634817
>It wasn't obvious at all, rumours of crypto-fascism followed him his entire career in France.
that's exactly what happens if you're left of the CP

>>13634897
You clearly haven't read Adorno, It's quite obvious how a fascist reading of Deleuze works, basically his childhood and early career is summarized in "The Authoritarian Personality".

>>13634917
elaborate please

>>13634930
what was he on the F scale?

>>13634930
To be fair, a lot of people aren't aware that before Capitalism and Schizophrenia Deleuze was exceedingly dull and practised a very establishmentarian philosophical thought.

>truediltom got banned
based
alt-r*ghtoids should stay away from Deleuze

>>13634919
>that's exactly what happens if you're left of the CP

*puts on special xray goggles that can see through bullshit*

>"bbut guys, REAL communism has never been tried"

>>13635027
>>13634897
Make sure you read Justin Murphy's book 'Based Deleuze' when it comes out

>>13634909
I'd like to know what you think the shared evolutionary factor that lead all of those disparate groups to evolve a larger mental capacity would be.

And if there is such a factor, why didn't groups such as the native americans (in both North and South America), Australian aboriginals, African people, oceanic groups, or any struggling ethnic group in the modern world also evolve with this evolutionary advantage?

>>13635044
>One could write an ebook called Based Deleuze, simply cataloging and explaining all of his many neoreactionary affirmations.
yikes?

>>13635044
hard pass

>>13635044
I've always loved /lit/'s reaction when people namedrop Murphy, It fucking kills people that a confused /pol/itician somehow managed to troll his way into getting a professorship at a decent university.

>>13632824
Age of consent is arbitrary and a phantasm of Liberalism anyway. As long as the person had already hit puberty, who gives a fuck?

>>13632786
How does anyone read Hitler and conclude that he wants to kill all Jews, especially considering that he never said that?

>>13634776
>So, thinking about postmodernism as a leftist movement that has precipitated modern American leftism with its root in the humanities is wrong. In fact, the New Left and its tendency towards extreme politicization and culture war emerged in the mid-1960s, before postmodernism as an intellectual movement even took root in France or elsewhere. They were hungry to apply some sort of intellectualism to their already deeply motivated beliefs.
this, it's literally just copy-pasting poorly-understood French philosophy onto American Progressivism to justify the latest wave of religious revivalism.

>>13632786
>Where did all the [redpills] come from?
radical centrist j'ardenne peepee-somme

>>13632802
Lacan doesn't belong on that list

>>13634776
>Deleuze and Foucault are obviously left of the French communist part
these guys are only critics of the right, never social planners or utopians of some new left

>>13635073
migration partern, different climate
we know that brainsize is larger among people who life in cold environments, but there is also the factor of having the possibility to use agriculture
all of these were selective factors
as you may know, evolution works with absolutely random mutations that then are selected not randomly by the conditions present in the environment

>>13633332
Unironically this, the Mfecane was probably the most brutal and complete genocide in human history.
Most others are top down assimilations, tee Bantu expansion straight up killed and replaced.
Kind of based desu.

>>13633621
Embarrassing level of historical illiteracy.

>>13634490
>On the African philosophers bit, no individuals are specifically mentioned by name, to my knowledge. But plato mentions Egyptian schools of thought
The old conflation of Egypt and sub-Saharan Africa dodge, eh

>>13635542
No one said anything about sub-saharan here but you. Please do tell me how ancient Egyptians aren't related in any way to the African people of today.

I'd love to hear your reasoning

>>13635277
Beria pls go

>>13635617
They are the descendants of arab conquers?

>>13635625
not the ancient Egyptians retard, half of it was Numibia

>>13635617
The study was able to measure the mitochondrial DNA of 90 individuals, and it showed that the mitochondrial DNA composition of Egyptian mummies has shown a high level of affinity with the DNA of the populations of the Near East.[10][11] A shared drift and mixture analysis of the DNA of these ancient Egyptian mummies shows that the connection is strongest with ancient populations from the Levant, the Near East and Anatolia, and to a lesser extent modern populations from the Near East and the Levant.[11] In particular the study finds "that ancient Egyptians are most closely related to Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in the Levant, as well as to Neolithic Anatolian and European populations"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_history_of_Egypt
Are you posting from the early 90's before this sort of analysis was possible? If so dm me cause theres lots of temporal insider trading we can pull off ;)

>>13635641
Lmao nigger they were all white

>>13635625
And those conquerors were partially descended from ancient Egyptians

>>13632978
See: literally any text Foucault has ever written, but one need’nt go further than Nietzsche Geneology or Beyond Good and Evil to get a good understanding of the power relations that gave rise to Enlightenment rationalism. This is an old and rather commonly accepted argument that’s trickled it’s way down into virtually any discipline that engages with Enlightenment ideology after WWI. Modris Eksteins is a historian, for example, who totally incorporates this into his thesis in Rites of Spring.

>>13635647
So the Egyptians were a mix of all of the ethnic groups that surrounded them geographically. Shocker.

But that doesn't address my question

>>13635694
Nigger can you read

>>13635073
>the native americans (in both North and South America)
I'll go along with Guns, Germs & Steel ( which rips off Marvin Harris) a little on this one. If you transported draft animals and livestock to to the Americas in say 3000 BC, I think they would have made pretty advanced civilisations. Even without them, its still pretty impressive, way beyond Sub-Saharan Africas meagre achievements
>oceanic groups
Polynesians? Great, great sailors, considering what they had to work with. Compare that with SSA who couldn't reach Madagascar
>Australian aboriginals
pic related

Jesus isnt real and you wont go to hell for doubting Imago Dei you know

>>13635685

>>13635380
>evolution works with absolutely random mutations that then are selected not randomly by the conditions present in the environment

That's a very limited definition of evolution. The Peppered moth evolved due to habitat changes, darker individuals were selected for because of the soot landing on the birch trees outside of London.

>>13632824
It's not just the French being weird, this shit was kinda mainstream on the left in the 70s. You had the founding of the Paedophile Information Exchange in the UK and NAMBLA in the USA. Some saw it as a natural next step after the legalisation of same-gender sex. I think during the sexual revolution and it's immediate aftermath it took a while for people to sort out what kind of relationships had been banned because of obsolete social taboos and what kinds had been banned for a really, really good reason.

>>13636922
They were all banned for good reasons, so they didn't really work that out now did they?

>>13636934
no

>>13636922
They haven't gone away, just underground. The child tranny stuff is a stalking horse for them. If kids can do something as life changing as puberty delay followed by feminisation surgery, why criminalise, say a hand job? And if thats OK why not a blow job? You see the strategy?

>>13636922
Except children can't consent

>>13638038
see >>13638002

>>13632786
Postmodernism is cancer on all fields

only people that like postmodernism are postmodernists

postmodernism is the unironic equivalent of those retarded wojack memes of "tfw too smart for X"

>>13632845
That is unironically based. We already practice human sacrifice in the form of war for muh country, why not be upfront about it.

>>13638111

>>13638113
Found trhe postmodernist
>why don't we just make X BUT IN A RETARDED WAY

>>13638112
Our political economy is different to the Aztecs anon, won't fly

>>13638136
Interesting excerpt, but human sacrifice doesn't need lead to cannibalism. It might have purely religious purposes.

>>13633299
>>13634535
>implying obscurantist means obscure
surrounded by soods

>>13638111
go to bed america

>>13638102
What are you talking about

>>13638148
>purely religious purposes
not sure I believe in that m8. excerpt is from Marvin Harris, Cannibals and Kings, which shows how tightly they are bound up
heres another passage:

If the cow more than the ox is the symbol of ahimsa, the sacredness of life, perhaps it is because the cow more than the ox is endangered by the sentiment that it is “useless.” During times of hunger the cow stands more in need of ritual protection than the draft oxen. Yet from the point of view of the resumption and continuity of the agricultural cycle the cow is actually more valuable than the male draft animal. Although it is not as strong as an ox, it can in emergencies pull the plow as well as someday produce replacements for animals that succumb to thirst and hunger. Under duress, therefore, the cow must be treated as well as—if not better than—the ox, and that is probably why it is the principal object of ritual veneration. Mohandes Gandhi knew what he was talking about when he said Hindus worshiped the cow not only because “she gave milk, but because she made agriculture possible.”

>>13638184
this shit right here

>>13638193
Indeed you could argue anything purely religious must be very political.
Your argument makes sense for a preindustrial society, but we've practiced mass human slaughter for so long, so well and with so many instruments, that effective human sacrifice doesn't seem that far off. And neither does cannibalism, but I think it would rather be a fringe consequence not many people would be involved in.

>>13638215
If theres a global collapse, cannibalism will be routine so dont lose hope anon

>>13634147
> If you think that 6,000 years of evolution is enough to create ANY appreciable difference in capacity for critical thinking, "IQ", or anything like that then I really don't know what good talking about this will do.
Substantial population changes can take place in a single generation if the selection filter is high enough. People have a misguided notion that evolution is a slow process of novel beneficial mutations spontaneously occuring. That's a single aspect of it, important, but not the primary driver of differentiation between geographically distant groups. Most of the differences between groups are in the frequency of shared alleles, i.e. group A has 80% allele X and 20% allele Y, whereas group B is reversed. Repeat for 10s of thousands of alleles. The difference in function of allele X and Y may be very slight, for most polygenic traits any single allele alters the trait by less than 1%, but in combination these differences are important. This is why you can create hundreds of dog breeds, why there are beef cattle and milk cattle, etc. etc. Cognitive traits are no different.

>>13638241
Yes I will keep waiting for that. Thank you for you kind words.

>>13638211
and this - Tom O'Carroll was a big PIE guy and convicted pedo
https://tomocarroll.wordpress.com/2019/05/08/desmond-is-truly-amazing-and-hot/

do you see the link now?

>>13638302
glad I could help
*files teeth into points*

>>13632842
big brain man here

143 posts and nobody addressed the OP

>>13638349
>answers are not in my curated bubble therefore void. cannot parse. error.
care to address the question then?

>>13632978
Cartesian dualism. The notion that the material world is secondary to the autonomy of soul/mind and the latter dictatesthe reality of the former. That the natural light guides us universally and what is concluded through reason is universal. This is a specifically western conception of reality that comes from the early Christian appropriation of Platonism.

>>13638149
an obscurantist is someone who intentionally obscures the meaning of something, therefore an obscurantist work is by definition obscure. Neither of those posts used the word wrong anon, are you esl?

Here you go anon:
https://youtu.be/QLSYo_YDVVk

>>13632786
fascistoid are whining bitches if you decomnstruct any of their beloved traditional values they start crying muh white genocide

>>13638594
based