/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14179066]

Personally the most enlightening book I've read, in consideration of modern geopolitics. I've found that most traits are found on this board; particularly mysticism and bizarre sexual pathology. The Authoritarian Personality "invented a set of criteria by which to define personality traits, ranked these traits and their intensity in any given person on what it called the 'F scale' (F for fascist)." The personality type Adorno et al. identified can be defined by nine traits that were believed to cluster together as the result of childhood experiences. These traits include conventionalism, authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, anti-intellectualism, anti-intraception, superstition and stereotypy, power and "toughness", destructiveness and cynicism, projectivity, and exaggerated concerns over sex.

[Anonymous No.14179085]

Always took this to be the most embarrassing and out of character thing Adorno did, since I normally respect Adorno. Psychopathologizing fascism is such a bitch move, and it plays right into the hands of the Fordist apparatus and the era of "management." I always wonder whether Adorno just needed money or a position in the US or what the hell was going on there.

This kind of thing can be fine in small doses but the last 70 years of fascism research has been recapitulating the same thesis. Basically, liberal democracies on the British and French models are good, deal with it, and if you don't deal with it, there must be something wrong with you, so if I'm a liberal democratic intellectual living in a liberal democratic society that rewards and promotes me for being liberal democratic, I'm going to write psychopathologizing treatises about how if you're not liberal democratic you are probably a lame loser who never got laid, which analysis then perpetuates the managerial apparatus that employs me and thus our shared ideology, so that a few years later someone can write the same book and perpetuate the process all over again.

At some point when discussing the subject of X with an opponent who firmly believes in X, you have to stop going "Ever thought that you only believe in X because you're a loser? Huh? Huh? Ever thought that? Huh? Ever thought about that, that you don't really think X, you just think you think X because you're lame and bad?" At some point you have to address the actual fucking ideas.

[Anonymous No.14179095]

totally embarassing compilation with no rigor at all, the f-scale tests he administered were like some shit you'd expect to see in a women's health magazine. the frankfurt school's playbook was always to lay out a totally false premise as legitimate through framing, then extrapolate on the false premise for hundreds of pages, sweeping the unwitting gentile up into a whirlwind of total bullshit and when they land they don't even know how they got there, but they sure feel like shit.

[Anonymous No.14179102]

>>14179095
>the f-scale tests he administered were like some shit you'd expect to see in a women's health magazine.

Fucking kek, that captures the vibe I felt while reading it too. Partly because they used the very warm and fuzzy technique of armies of research assistants carrying out an ideological program, so some of the content is actually written by some true believer.

[Anonymous No.14179104]

Why would you ever read that? It's Adorno's worst work.

[NAZBOL GANG No.14179108]

>>14179066
>Fascists are Authoritarian

Fascists are basically Anarcho Capitalists who hate Jews

[Anonymous No.14179138]

>>14179066
Adorno was a closet homosexual and all his repression burst forth in book.

[Anonymous No.14179164]

so fucking jewish

[Anonymous No.14179334]

>>14179066
It's an interesting book, you can see the fascists are already seething itt

[Anonymous No.14179358]

>>14179334
well I know it must be pseudoscience because if the MBTI is astrology because it can't capture human individuality in 16 types, Adorno must be a meanie poopoohead to try to bisect humanity into F and not F

[Anonymous No.14179375]

>>14179066
I'd like to read "The Subversive Jew Personality". Where can I find that book?

[Anonymous No.14179378]

>>14179164
None of those last names are even remotely Jewish. :3

[Anonymous No.14179408]

>>14179375

[Anonymous No.14179412]

>>14179378
idk the "levinson" alone is tingling my semite sensor

[Anonymous No.14179432]

>>14179085
>At some point when discussing the subject of X with an opponent who firmly believes in X, you have to stop going "Ever thought that you only believe in X because you're a loser? Huh? Huh? Ever thought that? Huh? Ever thought about that, that you don't really think X, you just think you think X because you're lame and bad?" At some point you have to address the actual fucking ideas.
This thing has been going on for a while, but twitter has made it worse.

[Anonymous No.14179433]

>>14179412
It shouldn't?

[Anonymous No.14179443]

>>14179378
E. F. Brunswik is indeed Jewish. So is Adorno as you probably know. I couldn't find anything on the others, although
>Nevitt Sanford (1909–1995) was professor of psychology at the University of California at Berkeley. He studied ethnocentrism and antisemitism,

[Anonymous No.14179453]

>>14179433
sounds like a typical jewish surname, doesn't matter whether the guy is actually jewish or not
that's like naming your white son islam and wondering why he's getting them dirty looks

[Anonymous No.14179499]

Yeah, some book: anything disadvantageous for Jews equals bad.
Pic related, Adorno et al BTFO.

[Anonymous No.14179513]

>>14179443
The Frankfort school has made a point of keeping token goyim about so as to disarm criticism that they pursued Jewish interests.

[Anonymous No.14179560]

>>14179102
>true believer.
Look up the book with that title.By Eric Hoffer, was about why people join mass movements including fascist and communist ones. It was pretty insightful.

[Anonymous No.14179596]

"stop being white also get raped and die" - t. former whites some of whom got raped and died.

basically if we holocaust all white people, the half that survive will be immune from any future criticism and also the smart ones will live and it will improve the entire thing. seems like jews are on to something, if they kill you- you win.

[Anonymous No.14179617]

>>14179108
Real Fash has never been tried...

[Anonymous No.14179668]

>>14179066
This book is quite literally 'political position i dont like is crazy and gay haha'. It's on par with Ted's bullshit about Leftism being feelings of inferiority. If you find this enlightening you are probably an idiot with a fairy tale view of reality

[Anonymous No.14179692]

>>14179085
>I always wonder whether Adorno just needed money or a position in the US or what the hell was going on there.
IIRC, basically this. On coming to the US he tried to fit in with the quantitative social science groups here and even worked on some radio and advertising survey shit for a while but realized it was all retarded and went back to writing good works, although everything from that period pales in comparison to Negative Dialectics.

[Anonymous No.14179761]

>>14179066
>failing to a meme book

this book is the best example of Freudo-Marxist literature. Psychoanalyst considered as if thy already enlightened, out of the critical reading. Instead, psychoanalysis is 'weaponized' for leftist politics and propaganda, in order to reversing power relations over the discriminated, as Foucault wrote on later.

Have you ever thought what they would offer instead of so called 'authoritarian personality'? Literally, openness, inclusiveness bla bla... for today; multiculturalism, environment as 'living thing', sensationalism, cuckold an so on. they don't even contemplate why anti-intellectualism, anti-interception, power and toughness and cynicism is morally wrong in the first place. Why and how western world come to conclusion that inclusiveness is a good thing in itself???

I won't even bother to write down the anti-thesis based on psychoanalysis, as Zizek himself already btfo'd freduanism of critical theory to oblivion.

[Anonymous No.14179771]

>>14179761
>I won't even bother to write down the anti-thesis based on psychoanalysis, as Zizek himself already btfo'd freduanism of critical theory to oblivion.
christopher lasch did it first, and with more class

[Anonymous No.14179775]

>>14179668
/thread
Although Ted spoke about current trends of the bourgeois Left in his time. Not the Left as a whole.

[Anonymous No.14179782]

>>14179771
why is Lasch a meme now, he's hardly relevant

[Anonymous No.14179798]

>>14179782
Relevant according to which standards ?

[Anonymous No.14179804]

>>14179782
If you mean relevant to academia I don't think the majority of this board cares about that

[Anonymous No.14179832]

>>14179782
how is he not relevant? the major criticisms he levels against academia and mass culture in culture of narcissism still apply today

[Anonymous No.14179961]

>>14179066
Is there any notion in this book that alludes to childishness and fascism? The few people that I know who tend to fall into the traits around an authoritarian are very very childish in nature?

[Anonymous No.14180117]

>>14179961
Childish how, anon?

[Anonymous No.14180236]

>>14180117
Well the people I know who fit into those outlined as authoriatarian personality, have odd obsession with say Disney films, toys, and acting what would be considered childish (whining about not getting their way etc.) juxatpose with notions of obsession with mass murder, order and conformity without deviation.

[Anonymous No.14180316]

>>14180236
So, you just don't like them. Got it.

[Anonymous No.14180330]

>>14180316
Well yes, but that's beside the point. As OP (if you're OP I apologize) that the authoritarian personality has similarities to this board/4chan and you can see that in the alt-right circles with the obsession with anime, "clown world" etc.

Just wondering if Adorno et all had any similar thoughts of the childish nature of fascists

[Anonymous No.14180344]

>>14180330
Do you actually think saying 'ur childish' to a political position you don't like is something worth sharing? Do you find it valuable when /pol/ says Leftists are just cuckolds, because that is about the intellectual level you're operating on

[Anonymous No.14180356]

>>14180344
That's not what I'm saying at all, I'm asking if there is a noted direct correlation.

[Anonymous No.14180361]

>>14180330
I'm not OP.

Do you think you should have an opinion on things that you are clearly biased towards and not exactly knowledgeable about?

[Anonymous No.14180378]

>>14179085
>At some point you have to address the actual fucking ideas.
Current working theory seems to be that actually no we don't. Seems like a bit of a bold (and retarded) strategy but I guess we will see how it pans out? On one hand the far-right has definitely become more prominent over the last while, but on the other hand the recent wave of censoring them while telling people they only do bad-think cause they have small peepee seems to be working.

[Anonymous No.14180382]

>>14180356
No you're not lmao. You're not doing this in some spirit of disinterested inquiry, you're just insulting a group of people you don't like. You people are so transparent that I think you must actually be unaware of your own motives or you'd know how to lie better.

[Anonymous No.14180390]

>>14180361
thats hilarious because youre describing exactly what fascists and boomers do

[Anonymous No.14180429]

>>14179085
>It seems that every current or group which opposes capital is nonetheless obliged to focus always on the human as the basis of everything. It takes diverse forms, but it has a profoundly consistent basis and is surprisingly uniform wherever human populations are found. Thus by seeking to restore (and install) the volksgemeinschaft, even the Nazis represent an attempt to create such a community (cf. also their ideology of the Urmensh, the "original man"). We believe that the phenomenon of Nazism is widely misunderstood: it is seen by many people only as a demonic expression of totalitarianism. But the Nazis in Germany had reintroduced an old theme originally theorized by German sociologists like Tonnies and Max Weber. And so in response, we find the Frankfurt school, and most notablyAdorno, dealing in empty and sterile concepts of "democracy", due to their incapacity to understand the phenomenon of Nazism. They have been unable to grasp Marx's great insight, which was that he posed the necessity of reforming the community, and that he recognised that this reformation must involve the whole of humanity. The problems are there for everybody; they are serious, and they urgently require solutions. People try to work them out from diverse political angles. However, it is not these problems which determine what is revolutionary or counter-revolutionary, but the solutions put forward - i.e. are they effective or not? And here the racketeer's mentality descends upon us once again: each gang of the left or the right carves out its own intellectual territory; anyone straying into one or the other of these territories is automatically branded as a member of the relevant controlling gang. Thus we have reification: the object is determinant, the subject passive.
This is why you read Camatte. Each side is involved in reification and reactions to liberalism are merely crises, or moments of expansion into new worlds. The violent origins of fascism and communism are created out of their formal, unnatural character and quickly become skeletal organisations. This is why they explode with such power and exhaust themselves almost immediately, and why they are violently opposed by liberalism even while maintaining the same foundational laws.

[Anonymous No.14180435]

>>14180429
Liberalism is the great community without need of community, it goes beyond the limits of character and natural law, all while creating the conditions wherein it can only be judged as nature. It secures itself against the state of nature while promising itself to its return. Reactionary humanism can never hold such power and fails to grasp the nomos of the era. Thus individuals like Adorno fail to perceive their own authoritarian type, that which exists beyond personalities in the functional self-organisation of the faceless human. Communism and fascism are opposed because they fall short of the brutal requirements wherein technical rationalisation comes to appear as natural, they can never offer the sacrifices demanded by the state of eternal transition.

Antihumanism and other methods of total abandonment of the subject exist as completion of the community without community, self-recapitulation to the social figure of necessity beyond law. A clear example of this is the return of Hitler as a humanist myth, particularly the underlying brutal violence of bare functioning as well as great events - the rage we can no longer express as our own machinic character has been completed and we can do nothing but go on repairing ourselves. Heidegger's understanding of technology has been generalised, but without recapitulation of the law its being can only be reframed. The motorised food industry and gas chambers are thus redecorated, lined with clown images and rubber duckies.

The left and right now skip double dutch. A sort of Stalinist-Francoism seems quaint next to the senseless brutality of functional humanism.

[Anonymous No.14180447]

>>14180390
This baseless sense of intellectual and moral superiority, the feigned, disingenuous interest... I should've known better than to give you a chance.

[Anonymous No.14180458]

>>14179066
Easily the worst Adorno book that I’ve read. Completely fails to understand the dialectical nature of fascism. An embarrassment.

[Anonymous No.14180469]

>Stop with the problematic hierarchies.

[Anonymous No.14180484]

>>14180435
So what is to be done?

[Anonymous No.14180498]

>>14180484
>only a god can save us

[Anonymous No.14180782]

>>14179066
>Schermerhorn
Of all the words of paper and pen...

[Anonymous No.14180791]

I'm skeptical of the value of the Frankfurt school. Marcuse was confirmed to be a proto CIA shill, so I have to wonder if the whole movement was intended as a psyop from the very beggining. The term "cultural marxism" seems quite apt because they all changed the focus of marxist critique towards the superstructure rather than the more important material base.

>>14179453
So now you judge the "subversive" character of a person not on whether they are jewish but on whether they sound jewish? You /pol/acks are getting mre delusional by the day.

[Anonymous No.14180801]

>>14180791
>Marcuse was confirmed to be a proto CIA shill
Source?

[Anonymous No.14180977]

>>14180390
It's pretty obvious you have no fucking clue what a fascist even is beyond a vague notion of people you base your beliefs around hating.

[Anonymous No.14181002]

>>14180801

[Anonymous No.14181044]

>>14181002
kek, even on wiki? They're not even hiding it anymore.

[Anonymous No.14181242]

>>14181002
Imagine thinking collaborating with the US against Nazis is a bad thing

[Anonymous No.14181256]

>>14181242
>1943-1950
Ya whole lot of nazis that needed fighting after ww2 right?

[Anonymous No.14181264]

>>14179066
>projectivity
Whatever could that mean?

[Anonymous No.14181280]

>>14181256
Yes, lots of Nazis flew when it became obvious they would lose the war. Nothing wrong with hunting Nazi scum, cuck

[Anonymous No.14181284]

>>14181242
>Imagine thinking collaborating with the US against Nazis is a bad thing
>Yes, lots of Nazis flew when it became obvious they would lose the war. Nothing wrong with hunting Nazi scum, cuck

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

[Anonymous No.14181287]

>Nothing wrong with hunting Nazi scum, cuck.

[Anonymous No.14181349]

>>14179085
The personal and the political are indissociable. It's well known in political psychology that certain personality characteristics predispose a given subject to embrace given ideologies. We tend to think of ideologies as rarified, ephemeral belief structures, separated from the subcortical emotions and reactivities. In fact it is mostly driven by these more primal urges. Fascism is an discrete, stereotyped psycopolitical stance, identifiable by uniform characteristics in each instance. The pathologization of fascism is related to its anti-social features, the sharp, violent distinction between in-group and out-group, deference to authority, its glorification of aggression and comfortableness with murder. Those susceptible to these traits might be categorized and labeled as an authoritarian personality. Going a step further and analyzing the analysis by saying that this diagnosis is itself invalid because it has political motives, is a common critique of political science in general. While ideology can never be completely eliminated from these contentions because we are part of the system under study, it's fair to pathologize fascism if you can fairly pathologize its separate features, anti-sociality, etc.

[Anonymous No.14181372]

>>14181349
Pathologizing is itself fascist

[Anonymous No.14181381]

>>14181372
I never thought this would be the point of convergence for both fascists and postmodernists

[Anonymous No.14181387]

>any critique of fascism
>NOOOOO YOUR ONIONS

whose the snowflake?

[Anonymous No.14181392]

>>14181349
>While ideology can never be completely eliminated from these contentions because we are part of the system under study, it's fair to pathologize fascism if you can fairly pathologize its separate features, anti-sociality, etc.
This is the most un-Adornian thing imaginable, you are just defending the technological and statistical ramblings of capitalist cultural elite bc "everything is political bro we're doing our best".

[Anonymous No.14181395]

>>14181387

[Anonymous No.14181397]

>>14181284
And how would have Marcuse been useful in hunting Nazi leadership, exactly? Don’t be stupid.

[Anonymous No.14181409]

>>14181392
Fuck Adorno tho, if you dislike jazz you're not a good person.

[Anonymous No.14181413]

>>14181349
>sharp, violent distinction between in-group and out-group,

This is a desirable trait for any group that wishes to survive.

>deference to authority,

Cohesion and unity used to be desirable qualities. Why do people say this as if it's bad?

>its glorification of aggression and comfortableness with murder.

This is more or less the political equivalent of kids in kindergarten telling each other that they're not only stupid, but ugly, too. What does "glorification of aggression" even mean? And being comfortable with murder is just a natural trait of men. Hundreds of thousands of years of evolution made it so that the best murderers and killers, the strongest/most powerful and the most merciless, fathered the most children. Men naturally tend to have less empathy for others and are stronger than women. The only way you could equate this with "comfortableness with murder" would be if you measured it by the standards of women, in which case, fuck you.

[Anonymous No.14181423]

>>14181372
It depends what is being pathologized and with what justification. If you believe it is valid to beat people up who disagree with you, or to kill them, as the nazis did, that is demonstrably pathological. If we simply removed the political context and imagined one person treating another that way over a private argument, we would consider the aggressor in that case as showing a pathological disturbance.

It's another thing to pathologize someone for existing, to designate them as an untermensch, as life unworthy of life.

>>14181392
>This is the most un-Adornian thing
What of it? I don't particularly care for Adorno. But for the sake of science it's best to call out how value laden and ideologically mired social science is and to be aware of how that contaminates the research and its conclusions.

[Anonymous No.14181428]

>>14181413
>covert fascist apology of serial killers
imagine my shock!

[Anonymous No.14181440]

>>14181395
why'd you post a selfie anon?

[Anonymous No.14181453]

>>14181413
I agree that it depends on context. In-group out group division makes sense in some cases, to an extent. When it is inflamed to such an extent that it was in Germany, where Germans came to view themselves as superhuman, it verges on psychotic collective narcissism.

Deference to authority is also contextual. And one could say that there is no real point of reference to say whether there is some healthier "normative" mode versus authoritarianism. This is a more value laden critique than a statement of psychological pathology, but those predisposed to be "bootlickers" do have a certain diagnostic profile.

As to your last point it is in our best interest to regulate and limit how much freedom the state has too kill. If it can just kill anybody without law, because it is the law and self-referentially exempts itself, you have nothing but bloodshed and terror. Comfortableness with murder is also contextual, but simply killing anybody who disagrees with you is crazy.

Granted, the fascist Italians were less murderous, but they also beat everyone who didn't comply into submission. What gives them the right?

[Anonymous No.14181640]

>>14181387
I'm willing to allow there could be a good critique of fascism (lord knows there are plenty of national socialism specifically) but I've never seen liberals advance one. Communists come closer but it still falls apart because dialectical materialism isn't real.

[Anonymous No.14181645]

Answer carefully /lit/

[Anonymous No.14181684]

>>14181645
Even when I wasn't getting plus-threes my reasoning was still extremely anti-Semitic so let's just say 100%
What is this chart?

[Anonymous No.14181694]

>>14181645
>10. I can hardly imagine myself marrying a Jew
ah, now, see that's where things get funny

[Anonymous No.14181762]

>>14181684
>What is this chart?
Its the actual chart from the book that has been used to determine antisemitism in the 50s

[Anonymous No.14181804]

>>14181428
Can you imagine being such a myopic person that you need to consider the belief and behavioral structures of every single society before and including this one morally equivalent to being a serial killer? This is why nobody takes the left seriously. You can only look to ideological mythology for inspiration because every inch of the historical record shows your views about how humanity functions to be completely threadbare.

[Anonymous No.14181831]

>>14181762
Ah, I guess that explains the concerns with communism, plus the Zionism question. It's funny because now Jews aren't even communist, they just keep sexually deviant communists as pets.

[Anonymous No.14181854]

>>14181831
>>14181645
Something else that's remarkable is how some of the questions contradict each other. It really looks almost like a "do you have opinions about Jews or conceive of them as separate from Gentiles" questionnaire. Was the author Jewish?

[Anonymous No.14181860]

>>14181854
assuming Adorno made it yeah he was ethnically Jewish, though his parents had converted to Catholicism iirc

[Anonymous No.14181863]

>>14181860

[Anonymous No.14181876]

>>14181863

[Anonymous No.14181888]

>>14181453
I would urge you to actually investigate the state of being a citizen of more or less every nation in the world pre-WW2 American Empire. The state having the ability to kill people it saw as threats to it's ability to operate is a basic necessity of keeping a functional society and has more or less always been in place. This was fairly explicit more or less everywhere prior to the post-WW2 techno-cultural revolution and is still the case now, we just call the people who are killed terrorists etc. now and it essentially legitimizes their murder and condemnation without due process regardless of whether their crimes are actual violent offenses or ideological crimes coupled with happenstance.

States will always (by necessity and as an affirmation of their "right" to exist) persecute those who prevent a threat to their ability to operate, regardless of the arbitrary names you call the ideological positions you call their mythology. This has been true since early agriculture and is more or less a universal reality of human social complexity. Before fake ass "anarchists" protest that the problem is states rather than a basic reality of human organization, I'd suggest taking a look at the tendencies of the remaining "uncontacted" tribes left on Earth. Every single one of them is incredibly quick to murder more or less every attempt to make contact with them and aerial photography has shown them fairly quick to murder their own just as easily if not more easily than more modern humans.

[Anonymous No.14181897]

>>14181888
Hunter gatherers were and are extremely violent. I saw one study estimate that fully a third of males die from violence in many of those societies

[Anonymous No.14181919]

>>14181888
Like the nazis before you you're essentially making a variation of the naturalistic fallacy. Just because it's "business as usual" for states to kill whoever they deem to kill, doesn't mean it's justified, and doesn't mean it should not be restricted. Just because something is natural does not make it right, anymore than a virus is right to spread its infection because it's natural to do so.

There must also be some concept of proportionality. Killing anyone who is perceived as a threat to the state, because the state has such an absurdly broad definition of a threat, is absurd. Everything you've said is absurd.

[Anonymous No.14181929]

>>14180435
I kinda agree, though I think you could have used less flowery language. Liberal humanism often takes itself as wholley natural, even though it itsself was a constructed concept and verymuch an outcropping of Locke and the like. Its a rather specifc way of thinking thatoften precludes its own artificiality. A Hobbesian view, even if not voiced, seemed to be the de-facto mindset beforethe rise of real humanism in the 1800's proper. Moving from an apeal to authority, to apeal to some ineffable idea of "natural rights". I see part of this transition in a shift in how we use language. A lot of terms we use now for good or bad, use to simply refer to magnitue and authority. Terible God, didnt mean god was bad, just that he was powerful. same thing with terrific.

[Anonymous No.14181933]

>>14179617
>489x798
Ants

[Anonymous No.14182083]

>>14181919
There is a difference between coming to terms with the limitations of human nature and a "naturalistic fallacy." This isn't a matter of it being arbitrarily "business as usual" as you are saying but a situation in which you literally cannot produce a singular counter example of any sovereign society (read: not some obscure subculture living under the domain of a larger society) where it was not the norm for political dissidents to be punished either through direct violence or indirect soft-power like making one incapable of living a normal life through bureaucratic exclusions and law-fare.

Sure, it's not ideal for enforcement of the state to go around killing random civilians for holding bad opinions but I'm not interested in pretending this process works any differently whether it's #Woke international capitalism, tankie socialism, fascist corporatist, Catholic theocracy, or tribal council rule. The whole point is that nobody is actually able to make any sensible political movement that does not involve the violent persecution of dissidents, and this has much more to do with the realities of anthropology than any particular political/social ideology one particular state/movement may hold.

[Anonymous No.14182329]

>>14181929
It's interesting that you begin by criticising my flowery language and then finish with the shift in language that accompanies the simplification and instrumentalisation of communicaton/dialectic. Not to say that you are wrong, perhaps my language can be a bit much, but my own idea is that of needing sense rather than meaning.
The other problem is that in this technicity of language and capture of natural law we tend to carve out our own perspective when using this artificial language. Thus we entrap ourselves within the very logic of that we wish to escape. That which is freely spoken can never be opposed to law, the jurist boxes himself in before the inhumanity of the lawyer. Freedom of speech precludes any discussion of the dialectic in itself.

This is why I oppose the views of the simply human and absolutism: humanism is a duality of both positions, all too human and completely opposed to everything the human had stood for up until that point. There is certainly a shift away from force, but also that of morality. And in a sense functionalism includes its own understanding of force, as if created by the very materials of the human world rather than any cosmological or eternal being. They are simply otherworldly forces. The idea that the universe itself may be captured suggests the brutality behind the eyes which see in this way.
Rather than an appeal this is very much a continuation of Christianity's understanding of natural law, the natural law of man who has escaped all laws of nature. A seeming contradiction, and yet here we are in a completely false reality.

In any case, thanks for your thoughtful comment.

[Anonymous No.14182416]

>>14179499
BTFO by a twitterfag

[Anonymous No.14182431]

>>14182329
I had the same reaction as the other guy to your post lol. I almost wrote a comment saying that I liked what you said but the wording was a bit much. By the way it's not that you're a bad writer, it's just that it sounded like it belonged in a 20th century academic text not a 4chan post.

I'm curious where you're getting this stuff or is it ideas original to you?

[Anonymous No.14182458]

>>14182431
My own ideas.

[Anonymous No.14182654]

>>14181409
Get off my board Quentin

[Anonymous No.14182781]

>>14182083
It's a matter of degree, not of kind. Fascism has a far broader definition of what a dissident is. A rational state would target only violent agitators or terrorists, those actively seeking to overthrow the state. And liberal democratic states demand less of their citizens, so there is less pressure and a more tolerant threshold of dissidence. Fascism doesn't just target dissidents; it targets whoever does not fit into its ideological mapping of a utopian world: be they Jews or whatever.

[Anonymous No.14182791]

also William blum - KILLING HOPE and WHITEOUT by Alexander cockburn

[Anonymous No.14182792]

>>14182781
Fascism didn't originally target Jews as such that was Hitler and Germany that made it explicit. Fascists were antisemitic from the start but they thought that the main problems caused by Jews could be solved by tearing out the institutions that Jews mostly ran. It was Hitler who went full retard about Jews and thought the entire race had to be removed.

[Anonymous No.14184185]

>>14179066
So, the prison of authoritarianism suits people with underdeveloped or impaired frontal lobes. Who knew?

[Anonymous No.14184189]

oh look it’s another strawman everyone who disagrees with me into being some insane retard thread

[Anonymous No.14184203]

>>14179617
This but Unironically, but Real National Socialism has never been tried

[Anonymous No.14184212]

>>14179668
This. F scale is literally trash.

[Anonymous No.14184369]

>>14179066
Adorno is the most Fascist of the post modernists.

[Anonymous No.14184555]

>>14182781
I'm sorry but have you been paying attention to what happens to anyone who is even accused of being a "white supremacist" in this supposedly "white supremacist" controlled nation? All it takes is one instance of ideological non-compliance (intentional or not) and you can be made more or less permanently unemployable, blacklisted by all major payment processors, and an open target for violence without anyone getting in trouble if they attack you or your family.

Yes, "liberal democracy" tolerates dissidents, totally. Whatever you say guy.

[Anonymous No.14184584]

>>14182781
Have you been paying attention at all to what happens when people get cancelled? "Liberal democracy" is only more tolerant of dissidents in that it outsources the violence from direct forces to the public and private institutions. James Fields got 400+ years in prison because he got in a car accident during a state of emergency (in a situation that the fucking government set up to intentionally cause violence) and had shared a Hitler meme a few days before. For fucks sake people tried to remove Counter Points from being able to operate online and she's about as compliant to the ideological storm as you can be while still having any sort of a brain stem, let alone what happens to actual dissidents who get prison time, who get blacklisted from every major payment processor and slandered in the media making them permanently unemployable. I'm sorry man, there really isn't that much difference. You're talking about hard power vs soft power. There's no less tyranny placed upon dissidents involved.