Why shouldn't I, as a traditionalist, want this man blotted

>>9913263
kys

>>9913263
dawww did gayaids hurt your precious little trad feelings :(

https://youtu.be/JNkh4pEQDLw

File: the floor is.jpg (156KB, 1049x1200px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1049x1200px

>Traditionalism has been BTFO by a French AIDS ridden queer THIS hard

>>9913278
fuck off tankie, all power to the soviets

File: NAZBOL GANG.jpg (92KB, 427x600px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 427x600px

>>9913284
Shut up, sionista.

File: 84518ed06327bb123c7383b0b58c211dddd2bbf47cc23bbb94657373ef59f34b.jpg (47KB, 604x604px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 604x604px

>>9913288
wth im third positionist now

File: 1503075202821.jpg (73KB, 1139x720px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1139x720px

>>9913292
There is no escape.

NAZBOL will consume the world.

>>9913288
heho nozee get got hehehe

File: hqdefault.jpg (64KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 480x360px

>>9913296
Heil Marx!

>>9913263
I can understand traditionalists, Thomists, NeoPlatonists, Aristotelians, et al. rejecting the thought of, say, Hume, Nietzsche, Russell, Sartre, or Camus, but why the outrage toward the Frankfurt School, Foucault, etc.? They're primarily sociologists and critical theorists, and hardly philosophers in the older proper sense of advocating a specific system of thought or sensibility.

>This is the way power functions in society
>Beethoven is being destroyed by the culture industry
>Leisure is replaced by 'killing-time'
>Capital affects people this way

Sure, Foucault may have been a full-on Nietzschean "there is no right-and-wrong, only power struggles" at heart, and I can see how that's antithetical to traditional thought, but why not appropriate the ideas themselves? As a conservative, it drives me mad.

>>9913263
As a traditionalist, you should focus on eating small rodents, chime, tree bark and insects. Learn knapping. Battle farmers who infringe upon your hunting grounds. Disavow all language except monosyllabic grunts. Advocate for society to live in small, nomadic groups engaged in endemic warfare, with the traditional family system of polygyny and communal raising of children. Encourage women to avoid shaving. Play the game of eating mystery berries. Never, ever use toilet paper.

>>9913307
>Encourage women to avoid shaving.
You should encourage that regardless of persuasion.

>>9913263
Because he is called by the frankfurte school, the Young Conservative

>>9913305
Sociology makes more of an effort to change society than any other subject. All sociology is normative, and that makes the subject itself a threat to institutions we aim to protect.

File: image.png (349KB, 2518x1176px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 2518x1176px

>>9913263
>LARPer traditionally is triggered by actual intellectuals calling out the real nature of their worldview

Your reaction is completely natural, I would freak out too had I discovered that everything I believed until now was wrong.

>>9913305
>but why not appropriate the ideas themselves? As a conservative, it drives me mad.
Because you would have to admit from the beginning that you're just striving for power, and that you want everyone to live the way YOU want, not for higher purposes but for pure pathological egoism.
Basically, to appropriate his ideas you have to admit that you're just a piece of shit who wants things your way. In doing so you would also dismiss all the fake ideals that are usually linked to these ideologies, which should be technically be the whole point of your cause.

>Why shouldn't I treat him as the ultimate enemy and wish him totally undone?

Because it would be as ridiculous as liberals treating Charles I as the ultimate enemy.

I understand that the modern political system is horrifically frustrating and complex but trying to condense all the ills of it into an obscure and relatively obscure figure would be to consign yourself to political impotence.

Life isnt one big university campus anon

>>9913467
I remember when Foucault blew my worldview to bits.

>>9913488
Human psychology exists independent of the social systems that Foucault says influences it. His most important point is actually wrong.

File: stalin.jpg (26KB, 348x350px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 348x350px

>>9913278
>seizes means of production
>exploits workers even worse than before

fucking stalin

>>9913494
That's a statement, not a confutation. That's like me saying "ideas do not exist therefore Hegel is wrong". This doesn't end the debate, instead it starts one.
You say that human psychology lies outside of power structure. To me this seems like an extremely controversial and arbitrary statement. Can you justify it? What's your argument?

>>9913472
>tfw you know adhering to certain principals of governing will inherently produce a good society
>tfw you realise striving to convince others that this is true means participating in democracy with the objective of taking power so as to not only wield power, but to use that power to defend your opponents right to act as you have done

Sounds like a principled politician who understands realpolitik. Sounds like a person who values democracy and is not afraid to defend its institutions.

>>9913507
>To me this seems like an extremely controversial
It's believed by most psychologists, anthropologists, and evolutionary biologists alive. An evolved organism couldn't possibly be a blank slate; if it had no inherent drives it couldn't possibly make the effort required to survive and propagate its genes.

>and arbitrary statement.
It's an extremely consequential statement. If a predilection to commit particular actions arise internally rather than through cultural indoctrination, then that's a completely different conception of the world than the one pushed by most postmodernists.

>Can you justify it?
There are countless books on he subject. Evolutionary psychology and biological anthropology are major fields of scientific research.

>>9913263
If you were a real traditionalist you would realize that such power is inherently progressive in nature, i.e. first it's him, later when you no longer control the power it will be you.

>>9913514
>>tfw you know adhering to certain principals of governing will inherently produce a good society
Oh, so you actually know how specific ideals would drive the global masses, regardless of culture and resources? Your problem is not ideological: it's epistemological. You have no standard for truth.

>>9913519
>It's believed by most psychologists, anthropologists, and evolutionary biologists alive. An evolved organism couldn't possibly be a blank slate; if it had no inherent drives it couldn't possibly make the effort required to survive and propagate its genes.
The psychological consensus among psychologists is that opinions and ideas can't be influenced and exploited? Basic experience proves you wrong.

>It's an extremely consequential statement. If a predilection to commit particular actions arise internally rather than through cultural indoctrination, then that's a completely different conception of the world than the one pushed by most postmodernists.
What do you think culture is, according to Foucault?

>There are countless books on he subject. Evolutionary psychology and biological anthropology are major fields of scientific research.
There are countless books that, just like you, apply extreme reductionism to epistemological questions? You seem to believe that every single one of our drives is either internal or external. I'm sure you can't point to no philosopher who think that every drive is external, nor you can point to any psychologist that think that every drive is internal.

Also your willingness to mention a field of study but no scholar in particular, even when the problem at hand is extremely specific, makes me think that you don't really know anything about what you're supporting and what you're criticizing.

File: 5752.jpg (26KB, 307x475px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 307x475px

>>9913567
>The psychological consensus among psychologists is that opinions and ideas can't be influenced and exploited?
The psychological consensus is that there are inherent psychological structures that orient people towards specific actions. If thoughts are cars, then the inherent psychological structures are roads: you can veer off in different directions, but you're still relegated to a small percentage of possible terrain.

>What do you think culture is, according to Foucault?
He views customs and traditions only through the prism of who they confers power to. Biology doesn't play a role in his epistemological framework.

>There are countless books that, just like you, apply extreme reductionism to epistemological questions?
Foucault is the extreme reductionist. Like I said, biology doesn't really enter his epistemological framework, while i'm perfectly willing to acknowledge the role that culture plays in the establishment of systems of domination.

>Also your willingness to mention a field of study but no scholar in particular, even when the problem at hand is extremely specific, makes me think that you don't really know anything about what you're supporting and what you're criticizing.
Now you're just being a sanctimonious prick. Start with pic related, then dive into his citations.

File: image.jpg (35KB, 670x879px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 670x879px

>>9913587
>If thoughts are cars, then the inherent psychological structures are roads: you can veer off in different directions, but you're still relegated to a small percentage of possible terrain.
>Steven Pinker
>Biology doesn't play a role in his (Foucault) epistemological framework.
In the first greentext you showcase your inabilit to reconcile your pseudo-knowledge of psychology with basic experience. In the second greentext you show us that you are easily swayed by pseudo-intellectuals, and that you are absolutely willing to equate their opinions with the MO of their entire fields (imagine me debating you on astrophysics while posting the cover of a NDT's book). In the third greentext you show to know absolutely nothing about Foucault. By nothing I mean that you haven't even read his wiki page.

You'll get offended, but I'm not wasting time on a response. I already know where this is going.

>>9913604
>(imagine me debating you on astrophysics while posting the cover of a NDT's book).
Some solid leftist academic elitism right here. The distinction between academic and popular works might apply if I were to bring up a Brian Greene book as a response to an academic journal. It's not a distinction that applies to a work with as many citations as Blank Slate. Actual psychology can be done in any format under any imprint. Suggesting otherwise is self-protective snobbery.

>In the first greentext you showcase your inabilit to reconcile your pseudo-knowledge of psychology with basic experience
What is "basic experience?" That's a meaningless term. You mean subjective and anecdotal experience that's subject to the various cognitive biases human beings are capable of? The scientific method supersedes "basic experience."

>In the second greentext you show us that you are easily swayed by pseudo-intellectuals
The cognitive scientist who teaches at Harvard and has published multiple papers in well-respected journals is a pseud, but the gay Marxist who committed suicide by fucking other men to death is a unique unassailable genius. Got it.

>>9913653
Cognitive dissonance, anti-intellectualism and homophobia. Phew, what a great debate I've missed.

>>9913674
>I can just drop terms and insults without justifying their use and they automatically apply
>I don't even have to address the arguments!
Talk about pseud

>>9913426
That's fair, but to a traditionalist or conservative who seeks to 'return' via change to a previous political reality, the normative aspect goes hand-in-hand. I do agree though for a regular conservative in the sense of conservation, critical theory is indeed a blight and threat to the general order and status quo.

>>9913472
Well that's what I was getting at when I said you can adopt the praxis of critical theory and Foucault's ideas without adhering to their own moral positions, aka recognize life is all a war of Will-to-Powers while believing one side or another are actually on the 'right side.'

Or even admit it's all fictions without thinking it doesn't matter what fiction actually hold at the end of the day.

>>9913467
Peterson didn't die of AIDS. Checkmate.

>>9913653

>I have never read Foucault: the post

make it less obvious next time

>>9913674
I love it how to progressives homophobia is equal to cognitive dissonance and anti-intellectualism.

>>9913768
Not yet.

>>9913263
>i, as a traditionalist
you're probably more of a faggot than he was

>be mentally ill "intellectual"
>die
>leftists love you
really makes you think

>>9913779
It's a list, retard.

>>9913653
>Foucault
>Marxist

This is just embarassing. Foucault's work has problems and is annoyingly conducive to the proliferation of radical skepticism, but there are some good and interesting points in there. He's at his best with Discipline and Punish and other books that are tracing an actual solid discursive modality through concrete institutions and paper trails. Dismissing a thinker is easy, the honest hard work that bears fruit comes in finding something redeemable in someone you disagree with.

>>9913472
Communists adopting this thought didn't dispel the appeal of communism as an utopian ideology, why shouldn't it be the same for traditionalist conservatism?

I agree that the likes of Foucault and Lyotard are way more useful to the right than imagined. Just claim Hyperborean Aryans from Atlantis is just a local metanarrative challenging neoliberal hegemony, for example.

File: Screen Shot 2017-07-28 at 7.49.42 PM.png (381KB, 860x544px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 860x544px

>>9913674
''homophobia'' is a snarl word meant to suppress resistance to politically correct social engineering

>>9914020
Foucault was definitely a Marxist.

It's hilarious that people think he wasn't, just because he didn't adhere to Orthodox Marxism. Every single word he wrote was for the advancement of revolutionary communism, how could he not be a Marxist?

Remember, Marx himself said: "the point of philosophy is not to understand the world, but to change it". Foucault took it to heart and wrote philosophy to change the world, and so he did.

>>9913828
>unironically uses the word homophobia
>calls others retards
nice

>>9914059
As a non-marxist and also not really right winger, I agree with this wholeheartedly. Foucualt's work has tremendous value in terms of detailing a methodology for understanding the relationship between power structures and societal values. All one has to do (even if right wing), is use this as a basis for refining power structures and making them more transparent. The justification for power structures can then be that they are legitimised by virtue of a long history and for the sake of preserving the social good - the glue that keeps a society together. Foucualt's knife can also be turned against leftist power structures of the 20th century - institutions such as the very same academic ideology-factories that have quite unfairly co-opted his work as a part of their agenda. I really do think that you can't stick Foucualt neatly onto any political spectrum - he's too Nietzschean for that.

>>9913507
maybe ''power structures'' are necessary and good. the leftist quest to abolish gender, tradition, the family and all the other evil white social constructs, as to achieve a world of optimal sociological freedom and fully atomised coonsumer units is idiotic and self defeating.

>>9913263
>Why shouldn't I, as a traditionalist, want this man blotted out?
Because he's one of the best models for preserving traditional power. It's like wanting Machiavelli's books gone for being a pansy normie IRL.

>>9914067
Being influenced by Marx and being Marxist aren't the same thing. He talks a lot about how Marx was important in the same way that Nietzsche and Freud were important - they were the original radicals. Foucault has a complicated relationship with Marx - he was a part of the communist party when he was really young, but was soon disillusioned and started doing his own thing. Later in life, he was laughing int he face of people that thought his work deserves the tag 'marxism'. If he was anything, he was an anarchist or libertarian, but even that denies the complexity of his politics - which I've said before in a previous post, had too much a Nietzschean tint to fit easily into classifications and spectrums.

>Every single word he wrote was for the advancement of revolutionary communism, how could he not be a Marxist?
Every single word he wrote was easily translated into marxism (we are left with an empty shell of a Foucault if we allow this), by the dominant intellectuals that surrounded him - namely cuntbags like Althusser. Foucault loved agitating his contemporary Marxists - there was a reason why he and Deleuze became such good friends - they were two thinkers that were too big for Marxism, but also too big not to engage with and have part of their work appropriated by Marxists. To sum up - calling Foucault a Marxist is like calling Nietzsche a nihilist.

>>9913263
All right wingers interested in Focault should read Three Rival Versions of Moral Inquiry: Encyclopedia, Genealogy, and Tradition by our nigga Alasdair MacIntyre.

>>9914102
/thread

i dont understand memers who think because a few fat profs at their uni decided to skew foucault into a partisan left interpretation that all his ideas are dur postmodern nihilism dur. you fucks dont have your own philosophical mindmap and cant create your own interpretations. it makes sense then your fat prof taught you well.

File: 1503058549941.jpg (216KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 640x480px

>>9913307
>Play the game of eating mystery berries

>>9913305
i'm more worried about the part with:

>victim worship
>use social engineering to make us all into trannies
>deconstruct whiteness, heterosexuality and masculinity
>sharia law

File: easy.png (249KB, 248x459px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 248x459px

>>9913263
>I, as a

>>9913296
Looking at your picture do you have the "fascism vs natsoc" pic comparing art and philosophy of fascist Italy and the third reich ?