Am I the only one who thinks Foucault's theory can be an incredibly good toolbox for the current neo-reactionary

Men like you are wasted on the neo-reactionaries who will largely ignore Foucault for being gay while reinventing his philosophy but a thousand times less nuanced and interesting.

>>24531253 (OP)
His theory of fragmentation of body and production of discourses of sexuality completely uncovers present day condition of sexuality. I don't get why rightoids retards still haven't stolen his methods to build their critiques on current degeneracy.

>>24531271
if pol had red him, they wouldn't be needing so many bbc cuckold posts just to try to explain modern women

dude is a french gay pedo homo who died of aids and is responsible for the whole idpol obsession of the american left.

right wingers arent going to touch that shit

>>24531274
It's also a really intelligent rebuttal to Marxist dialectical materialism

>>24531274
Foucault was right about everything but leftoids hate him for being a crypto-normativist and rightoids hate him for being gay and french.

>>24531277
What then is plaguing modern women?

>>24531307
Truth literally

>>24531310
elaborate

>>24531303
This. This is very foucaultian though, right?
Every discourse that claims to reject norms merely installs new ones, and every insistence on "normal" sexuality is a disciplinary move.
The bald fuck is the real opposition to the system that exists in the parallax between leftoid and rightoid retards.

>>24531326
ironically even post modernists anglo proffs don't want to use his methods knowing they would be exposed in their own identity politics game

>>24531253 (OP)
>>24531282
His looks and his philosophy match up, one for one. He looks exactly how you’d expect.

>>24531253 (OP)
Reactionaries are, unfortunately, too fucking retarded to read postmodern philosophy, let alone Foucault. The right wing low IQ meme is right.
Unless you can distill Foucault into a visual meme easy enough to be understood by toddlers.
>>24531307
Feminist power discourse that prescribes their thinking, perception, and behaviour.
Women aren't free, but are given the idea by the controllers of feminist discourse that certain performative behaviours equal freedom.
Another interesting thought is to view the Incel as the Abnormal because it reveals interesting insights into the fears and weak spots of the dominant feminist discourse.

>>24531339
nigger, you dont need to read french pomo writer to realize feminism is a grift for rich white women who resent rich white men and just want more power, and that poor women and women of color are just tokens to them to use against white men.
that feminism sold out to capitalism a long time ago and is no longer a threat to the system because the end goal of western feminism seems to be worker drone, boss bitch or in the case of politics, white girls can bomb brown people too ya know :DD

>>24531324
Women have always been governed by the discourses that produce their psyche. Western world produces it through its obsession with truth and confession. Let me give you an example, take hysterical women of 17th -18th century, people will tell you How hysteria never existed or it was because of repression. The reality is that only after Hysteria was categorised as a diesease which was mostly some women becoming schizo and existed since time immemorial, that thousands of women started showing symptoms of it. This was the process of Hysteria becoming a Truth object embedded through subject. It became normal for women to be hysterics and exactly that's why they became hysterics. That's also the reason How Hysteria almost instantly vanished at some point and those text perfect cases of hysteria almost vanished in thin air.

>>24531351
That wasn't his point at all, you just blurted out your pol buzzwords without understanding anything

I might read FoucGAWD after ive decided to finally read genealogy of morals. Ive always felt that the ways his ideas have been communicated to me by others who have read the book, dont really paint the whole picture

>>24531303
The only "leftists" I've seen shitting on Foucault are the tankie types who are startlingly reactionary in almost every way

Hey look it's the leftist guy who favored the social above the societal just like every pre-68 Jewish boot lickers. Go read Clouscard and you'll realize the grift

>>24531390
>pre-68
post*-68
(In his case also pre)

>>24531253 (OP)
https://brooklynrail.org/2021/05/field-notes/Palantirs-Picture-of-Michel-Foucault-or-How-to-Discipline-and-Punish/

>>24531282
>responsible for the whole idpol obsession of the american left.

Pure unadulterated scapegoat. It's puritanism of course. An endless witchhunt turned witcherhunt and so on ad infinitum (the dark enlightenment and their pathetic 'woke right' campaign). You're the scum of earth.

>>24531295
how so. educate me

>>24531365
I'm a startlingly reactionary in almost every way tankie and I fucking love Foucault.

>>24531339
>Reactionaries are, unfortunately, too fucking retarded to read postmodern philosophy, let alone Foucault.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNrOWWSbz3A&t=302s

turn on the subtitlles and watch alex karp reply to a question about his idea of business by quoting Heinrich Heine.

>>24531352
Kinda dumbass though. This completely disregards the idea (foundational to Foucault) that diagnosis and prognosis can and even tend to be entirely tangential to actual physiological and psychological processes in the patent, instead dictated by the principles of normality, abnormality and treatment stemming entirely from social convention.

We have shittons of medieval physicians describing thousands of textbook cases of excessive sanguinity and how great bloodletting was for treating it. It doesn't make humoral theory become temporarily true - it just shows how clinic pigeonholes processes it doesn't understand into diagnoses and treatments it can understand, and then pats itself on the back.

Conservatives should familiarize themselves and learn from all mid-to-late 20th century continental philosophy, a lot of which they ignorantly condemn: Adorno, Marcuse, Foucault, Levinas, Baudrillard, Gadamer, Sloterdijk, Lacan, et al. Incorporating these thinkers into their own thought would do wonders for themselves and their movements.

>>24531440
They (rightfully) fear that doing so will "pozz" their thinking, which will render them incapable of sublimating their repressed homolust urges into powerful resentment and political action. This would leave them as just depressed edgy dudes having gay sex and existential dread and never actually doing anything, just like continental philosophers themselves.

In other words, effective praxis on their behalf actually depends on a degree of ignorance and they are justified in their aversion to losing that ignorance.

I like how this thread is just leftists making up strawmen and circlejerking each other

>>24531274
>discourses of sexuality
Discourses on hygiene, and over-care of the body, ftmp

>>24531440
What the hell are you talking about? Have you ever met a conservative in real life? Everything they consume is to confirm a bias, and nothing that can ever be characterized as being against them or part of the other side is every engaged with. Their well of though is narrow and one dimensional. It is ad hoc.

If they learned that a certain philosopher was Jewish, or advocated for whatever buzzword they apply to liberals. They would dismiss them. I have seen it myself firsthand.

>>24531253 (OP)
Well, yeah. A whole thing with Foucault is criticizing the concept of Enlightenment reason and rationality through power-knowledge or whatever. Everybody is aspiring to some murderous or malicious instinct for knowledge that makes people seem more authoritative, and so there is no objective truth. There's something to be said for that, in that it's not just what people say that you need to take into account, but who is saying it and what do they get out of it.

If I tell you that you must listen to me because I drew myself in the form of a chadface and drew you in the version of an icky latte-drinking half-man, then that gives me power over you, and I get even more power if you then accept what I'm saying. So for Foucault, you should ask who am I and why I'm saying this.

The plot twist is that this doesn't have anything to do with the actual assertions at hand. So, I might be a bad guy, and what I'm saying is in my favor, but I'm also right. Or wrong. We don't know. Of course Foucault would not accept that at all because this whole "correct" and "incorrect" comes from all that rationalist stuff, but then another argument against him is that if we can't actually argue about anything, then that inevitably leads to the return of Authority.

BTW, Foucault embraced the Iranian revolution precisely because it was antimodern, anti-Western and anti-liberal. It was quite reactionary, and he was gay or genderfluid or whatever (he didn't like categories) and anti-authoritarian which is ironic, but he had this line about how the Iranians didn't "have the same regime of truth as ours" which was ambiguous and uncategorizable under the Western system (I think this is bullshit).

>>24531295
>>24531400
In a nutshell, Marxists conceived themselves as part of the tradition of the Enlightenment and its scientific rationality. It's sometimes dubbed (by themselves) "scientific socialism." Class struggle and material conditions are held to be objective truths. Knowledge through science is held as emancipatory and dominant (bourgeois) ideologies are distortions of truth.

The thing is, I'm not even sure many self-described communists believe in this today. People get this stuff communicated to them via other sources, but did you see this game Atomic Heart? It's made by a Russian so maybe that's why he got the vibe when depicting his BioShock version of a futuristic USSR, but it was kind of like that, the left-wing equivalent to socialism what Ayn Rand was doing for capitalism with her philosophy of Objectivism:
https://youtu.be/RdsKoWUNcIk

That's closer to communism as communists imagined it in the 1950s. Foucault pitted his whole approach against that. Like, rather than liberating, knowledge often reinforces power structures, and scientific rationality is not neutral but part of the machinery of control (in prisons and schools). There is no objective or universal truth for Foucault, it's something shaped by discourses and power.

>>24531446
>>24531462
Which is why I'm advocating for them to do and be better.

>>24531476
>Class struggle and material conditions are held to be objective truths
Not really - they are class truths. Marx repeatedly recognized that, for example, bourgeoisie (or any ruling class, really) is entirely in the right of furthering their own self-interests through control over means of production and maintenance of the class structure that provides their ruling position. It's their way of building their best of possible worlds. Proletariat gets to curb-stomp not because it has le truth and le morality on it's side (that's a succdem thing), but simply through being stronger in production and violence, and eventually employing this advantage in production and violence to further it's own self-interest.

Marxist concept of morality as a dynamic supestructure determined by the mode of production (preindustrial agrarian society needs slave to function, therefore slavery becomes a moral truth in this society), and his concept of social practice as the historic truth were a major anticipation of Faucault's concepts, and Faucault paid a massive homage to Marx for that.

>>24531496
>Not really - they are class truths. Marx repeatedly recognized that, for example, bourgeoisie (or any ruling class, really) is entirely in the right of furthering their own self-interests through control over means of production and maintenance of the class structure that provides their ruling position.
And part of the way the bourgeoisie does that is to mystify the underlying economic relations which the proletarians can uncover because the material conditions more and more force them to confront the relations of exploitation that they're subjected to. The bourgeoisie and proletarians do not have equal truth claims.

>but simply through being stronger in production and violence, and eventually employing this advantage in production and violence to further it's own self-interest.
You have a point here that socialism isn't supposed to be morally "better" (although it may be), as that's not really the point, it's supposed to be objectively SUPERIOR to capitalism. More capable of expanding the forces of production, and better at organizing production and rationally allocating goods and services. The proletarians have the numbers, a role in production, thsoe things. But it's not just raw power politics that ensures their ~inevitable~ victory, but a matter of historical necessity stemming from the development of capitalism itself as an objective process which can be understood scientifically.

Now this can also be flat-out wrong and a really extreme case of 19th-century scientism gone mad, and I think there's something to be said for it turning into a dogma to justify the power of the ruling nomenklatura in the USSR and then imploding when it became increasingly obvious that socialism was not doing what the communists regarded it as doing, or what it was supposed to be doing.

>>24531253 (OP)
Childhood is idolizing Foucault, adulthood is realizing Chomsky was right.

>>24531253 (OP)
No, but everybody else knows better than to say it out loud.

>>24531253 (OP)
I've used it yes

>>24531352
This is also why all women pretend to be bisexual and like a third of teenaged girls think they're non-binary.

>>24531449
I bet they're gonna make each other cum too

>>24531527
No

>>24531541
Is that where your mind goes in threads like this

>>24531527
filtered

>>24531527
More like the otherway around, with how unbelievably stupid, naive, and western (values) affirming Chomsky is, or atleast was. Perfect example of the modern liberal who will "criticize" America while validating all the institutions and powers that underpin it. A society with no self awareness, but one that loves to believe it has any because it thinks criticizing itself on the surface level is self awareness. Like a retarded highschool girl who thinks shes wearing unfashionable clothes and thats her problem rather than her vanity. We live in a society regardless that validates vanity, so hard to have any self awareness about that when 90% of society are NPCs.

>>24531557
crazy how liberals invented a safe cute alternative who affirms their institution as best for every post modernist

>>24531519
>it's supposed to be objectively SUPERIOR to capitalism
For proletarians, their interests-wise? Yes. Productivity-wise? Yes, due to better fitting a new mode of production - just as capitalism was superior in regards to the mode of production that begat it. Objectively? Historically? Yes, as something that happens. "Objectively"? Again , Marx rejects rational truths, only accepting practical ones, "things that happen in the course of human affairs".

>but a matter of historical necessity stemming from the development of capitalism itself as an objective process which can be understood scientifically.
Historical necessity is a practical matter, not an objective one. The end of aristocracy as a ruling class was never an "objective" truth, a deterministic fate prewritten in nuclear forces and electron charges, but a course of history that emerged in practical action of people and their associations.

I feel like I need to highlight how dialectical concept of social practice unfolding into a historic truth is different from rational, objective truth. Marx basically threw the entire framework of "we assume X, therefore Y, therefore Z" out the window. He spent the entirety of German Ideology teabagging the very idea of arriving to any truths about historical process through applied logic and navelgazing. Instead he declared that the the only really true thing is who gets (practically, in the course of social events) punched in the dick - can "therefore" your way out of beign punched in the dick.

>I think there's something to be said for it turning into a dogma to justify the power of the ruling nomenklatura in the USSR
Naturally. But again, Marx never described Socialism or Communism as a utopia, or even as a modes of production free of their own cultural superstructures. It is natural for their different forms to produce their own ideologies.

>>24531519
>it's supposed to be objectively SUPERIOR to capitalism
For proletarians, their interests-wise? Yes. Productivity-wise? Yes, due to better fitting a new mode of production - just as capitalism was superior in regards to the mode of production that begat it. Historically? Yes, as something that happens. "Objectively"? Again, Marx rejects rational truths, only accepting practical ones, "things that happen in the course of human affairs".

>but a matter of historical necessity stemming from the development of capitalism itself as an objective process which can be understood scientifically.
Historical necessity is a practical matter, not an objective one. The end of aristocracy as a ruling class was never an "objective" truth, a deterministic fate prewritten in nuclear forces and electron charges, but a course of history that emerged in practical action of people and their associations.

I feel like I need to highlight how dialectical concept of social practice unfolding into a historic truth is different from rational, objective truth. Marx basically threw the entire framework of "we assume X, therefore Y, therefore Z, therefore truth of Weltgeist" out the window. He spent the entirety of German Ideology teabagging the very idea of arriving to any truths about historical process through applied logic and navelgazing. Instead he declared that the the only really true thing is who gets (practically, in the course of social events) punched in the dick - can't "therefore" your way out of being punched in the dick. Practice is the Alpha and Omega of Marxism.

>I think there's something to be said for it turning into a dogma to justify the power of the ruling nomenklatura in the USSR
Naturally. But again, Marx never described Socialism or Communism as a utopia, or even as bases free of their own cultural superstructures. It is natural for their different practical forms to produce their own ideologies.

>>24531557
Western values are good retard

>>24531253 (OP)
As usual, /lit/ can't refute his ideas so they resort to attacking him personally.

>>24531557
lowbrow: America is good
midbrow: America is bad
highbrow: America is good

>>24531337
yup

>>24531253 (OP)
Forget about him

>>24532027
why?

>>24531253 (OP)
Not really, maybe a little. But I do think Deleuze, who was influenced by Foucault, is quite useful for neoreactionaries. Nick Land, for example, is often very Deleuzean.

>>24531339
>Another interesting thought is to view the Incel as the Abnormal because it reveals interesting insights into the fears and weak spots of the dominant feminist discourse.
In this case which are?

I pronounce his name as "fucko"

>>24531416
>It doesn't make humoral theory become temporarily true
your mistake is thinking the stuff that's true now is more true than humoral theory was

>>24531253 (OP)
Sounds right to me. Fuentes needs some of that Foucault bussy worship.

where those thirdie niggas at tho

Everyone above this post is at least 38 years old and bald as an octopus

Will rightoids ever engage with his work or just endlessly repeat the same ad hominem attacks?

This thread is a perfect example of just how far continentards have shoved their heads up their asses
Insane that any of you believe any of this shit lmao

>>24531462
conservatives are narrow-minded in that they shut discourse out from their lives, liberals are narrow-minded in that they never accept that some western normative culture is healthy (ex. the dissonance between supporting islam and supporting social freedom). they're antithetical to each other but somehow still closed off completely from reaching any nuanced truth. funnily enough their closest common ground now seems to be centered around the jewish question. i guess that wouldn't be conservatives though, more third position (viewed as right-wing by anyone outside the sphere) & liberal.

this said, i have really enjoyed foucault and he was the first 'philosopher' i latched onto of my own accord.

>>24531253 (OP)
You are absolutely correct. But modern right-wingers are shallow retards who just regurgitate the whole "post-modernism is gay relativistic wankery" and simply ignore many good writers who could help their cause.
For example, the NRx are all Nick Land fans, and Land himself takes a lot of his philosophy from Deleuze, but if you ask a NRx to read Deleuze they would dismiss it as po-mo commie stuff.

>>24533079
Go find an analytical philosophy discussion.
Oh right, I can't find any...

Maybe it could be that analyticels couldn't read the room and isolated themselves from philosophy itself to jerk off to positivist science and now nobody outside a niche anglo academia gives a single shit about them?

>>24531253 (OP)
I've been so jaded by life and betrayed by everyone that I think in some way I have aligned my empathy with the reactionaries somehow, so I probably have used arguments of power to defend the order...

Jumped left and right, mostly left now, but I know that deep down it will be power, and the left just speaks the language of powerlessness.

But I'll still side with the leftists. with how much of a dreg I am, that's the only way I can get to some relevance if they get power. I just hate that they are all oblivious to their own power thirst.

>>24533211
what are you talking about exactly brotha

>>24531400
Marxist historicism analyzes social events as a product of class conflict. Foucault spends much of the book attacking the idea that sexuality was historically repressed. Marxists endorsed this repression hypothesis but viewed it as the upper class repressing the sexuality of the working class. The idea being that the working class would have their sexuality controlled so as to channel them into more productive ends. Foucault points out that the proliferation of discourses on sexuality occurred in channels that were largely targeting the middle and upper classes of society which isn't predicted by conventional Marxist interpretations. Some relevant quotes:

>If one writes the history of sexuality in terms of repression, relating this repression to the utilization of labor capacity, one must suppose that sexual controls were the more intense and meticulous as they were directed at the poorer classes; one has to assume that they followed the path of greatest domination and the most systematic exploitation: the young adult man, possessing nothing more than his life force, had to be the primary target of a subjugation destined to shift the energy available for useless pleasure toward compulsory labor. But this does not appear to be the way things actually happened. On the contrary, the most rigorous techniques were formed and, more particularly, applied first, with the greatest intensity, in the economically privileged and politically dominant classes.

>The same can be said of the family as an agency of control and a point of sexual saturation: it was in the "bourgeois" or "aristocratic" family that the sexuality of children and adolescents was first problematized, and feminine sexuality medicalized; it was the first to be alerted to the potential pathology of sex, the urgent need to keep it under close watch and to devise a rational technology of correction. It was this family that first became a locus for the psychiatrization of sex.

He goes on to explain that the working class was eventually altered under the umbrella of sexual morality but that this was a later development which occurred in progressive stages. That's not to say Marxism is entirely wrong either, there is clearly a class component to the deployment of sexuality which Foucault acknowledges, but it's more complex than pure class warfare.

>>24533257
idk lately I've been making nothing but retarded posts I don't have it in me I should leave this place
the deeper I go the crazier I get
I can only speak in charades these days I can't be bothered to translate anymore
I'm going to be an artist at least that's a place where I'm not expected to do the fake language thing

>>24533257
and I don't want to be about I anymore please tell me about yourself please teach us something it wants to be world centered

>>24531253 (OP)
Alex Karp agrees with you

>>24533287
I didnt say your post was retarded or silly. I asked what youre on about because it was an interesting post.
>I can't be bothered to translate anymore
I sometimes do this too when i want to express something deeply personal that has been bothering me, but dont want to center all the attention on me, or suffer the consequence of not being understood or dismissed.
So i will speak in ways only I could understand.

Ive done this less and less lately because i truly dont believe anybody could really understand me.

Im curious to understand you from the other perspective
>please tell me about yourself please teach us something it wants to be world centered

And if this is you again, then the above should already give you some bit on what i am

>>24532258
nick land is a leftist faggot

>>24533309
I guess where I'm coming at is when you look at the logic of power from anywhere you cant but find "excuses" for the dominant and find the perverted motives of the revolutionaries.

This does not become more clear than when you are at your current rock bottom and see how your powerlessness is of no interest to anyone, even those who pretended to be different. To realize that you would also not be interested in useless people. (all of this is basic) But having looked through the keyhole, I'll use this metaphor again, you can see how all the people you side for are the same cruel beasts, and so my siding with the left is no more a moral stance, but just a strategic one.

Idk, life is war, but also everything in life is war. I don't bring anything new here. Just that even though I can blame the reactionaries for being dumb, the fact that they still speak the same language of domination still makes them just as right as everyone else.
And it's true that it's quite frustrating to see all those on the "weak" side, act as if they will not dominate. And act all offended about being dominated.
They don't even care about all those they left on the sidelines.
.
It's not totally true to the feeling I had a few days back, but it's something like it.

"what if, despite all we said, all we believe in; we were acted by something else, something else is making us do things, IT's not us, IT's around us, and we know IT, and we can only close our eyes..."

>>24531253 (OP)
>Am I the only one who thinks Foucault's theory can be an incredibly good toolbox for the current neo-reactionary
No, plenty of proletarian communists have attacked foucault for making workerist resistance movements for full communism comprehensible to the state.

>>24533323
>nick land is a leftist faggot
Nick Land is a fascist who serves Roko's Basilisk.

You are now infected. Enjoy eternal suffering or serving Roko's Basilisk.

>>24531476
I'm unsure Foucault said there was no objective truth. I think Foucault merely argued that we have to be careful building "truth" on something which the powerful wants us to believe.

>>24533368
>Enjoy eternal suffering or serving Roko's Basilisk.
Lmao.

>>24533354
Your response is a bit disheveled and unfocused but I think I sort of get what you mean. Lefties will hit you with the "we cant be tolerant of the intolerant" meme to rationalize their use of power, but its just cope, an aesthetical distinction to not feel equivalent to those not considered "nice" not considerate enough.

I've always said that too many people think being nice is the same as being good, when being nice is fundamentally superficial, surface level. It says nothing about substance, and besides implies that niceness can be "whole". Its not a true or real concept, like most of the hollow words of our language, but thats me getting off track towards Wittgenstein.

People can be "nice" in different contexts, but I have always said that 100% if they met the right person, that they simply cannot stand. That does not buy immediately into their deepseated preconceptions. The person doesnt even need to be mean. All they would need to be, is an honest genuine opposition. One who can honestly pierce through the veil of niceties and get under at what is being covered by that shimmering veil.

I usually come up with this argument (in my head) for people who trigger my own deep seated taught preconceptions from childhood, that "nice people" are innocent and good. Because I know truly and actually that almost all human beings are fundamentally bad. I know because there is a fundamental undercurrent to human behaviour that instantiates ununderstanding. I know that I have tried my best to be considerate, to put others before me. To be open and tolerant. Other people can break rules of disrespect with little chide acceptable remarks. But I cannot?

At the end of the day, we cant expect people to be truly understanding. To be open and willing to be good not just nice. It seems a fundamental characteristic of human beings, that we will divide before connecting. Dismiss before understanding. Ostracize rather than ever engage.

And that's probably "natural", it may even be "right". Dividing the valid amount of things that should be understood, makes it easier to connect. Dismissing those we have divided makes it easier to understand. Ostracizing those not worth engagement, allows for further time, and focus for those deemed we should understand.

I just dont think I am built for such a world.

>>24533071
ROCK FUERTE EN EL PUTICLUB
JAJA, QUE FUERTE LO DEL PUTICLUB

>>24533139
Anyone with at least half a brain doesn't poison it with these ridiculous capeshit-esque epic battles of Le Proletariat vs Le State while eschewing any and all ideas of objectivity and truth to be able to barely explain society and its functions via bigger and more elaborate postmodern frameworks
The fact you think I'm an analytical philosopher proves my point that this is all juvenile and impotent trading card collecting for useless mongs to feel like they're resisting the state when it's nothing more than mental masturbation

>>24532258
I just can't respect a guy who idolizes someone who said "my place of worship is the whorehouse" or something to that effect.

>>24533071
far right here. he informs a lot of my written theories, but I don't collapse into total relativism like he did.

just laughing at that whiny effort post that got ignored honestly

>>24533434
>I've always said that too many people think being nice is the same as being good
that's where the depression has set in for me. I don't believe in good whatsoever, it's just an expression of legitimacy of the dominant ideology.

Good, just means safe.

I believe that all the unfairness you present is an image of the war nature of life. We keep complaining about double standards and everything, aghast at the fact that all we were told and believed about the world having a goal or just being at peace was all wrong, that the possibility of the utopia was just illogical.

there is no peace. You will never be at rest with anyone. We still chase this dream caught in the act, of the possibility of love. Maybe we see love as the place we can finally rest. There is no rest but death. And I'm pretty sure that since death cannot be experienced we will be thrown back in the hell of life. Peace is not even possible suicide cannot even be achieved because all we get is war forever.

>>24533876
Ok, just admit you got filtered already

>>24533368
>Abrahamic punitivism for techbros
Yawn

>>24531253 (OP)
probably

>>24534774
>and believed about the world having a goal or just being at peace was all wrong, that the possibility of the utopia was just illogical.
youre right. it is wrong. but something can only be wrong if it has the capacity to be right.

is a bird wrong for flying into a window? for not thinking there was something in the way?

as humans we uniquely have self awareness and a genuine capacity to not just "know" the world, but investigate it.

we have the capacity for (arguable) greater self determined change.

so you are right. the world is wrong. because we have made it so. the current modern world we live in, is one of entirely human creation. and if we can make it wrong. it can be right...unless we are not actually self aware, we are not actually "free" we do not possess the capacity for self determined change underpinned by self reflection and investigation. it is all just an elaborate illusion produced by our greater, but not sufficient self awareness compared to animals.
that is the ultimate question. are we also just mere whims to nature? or do we determine anything for ourselves. thats what decides whether our preconceptions, our wants, desires, wishes. are wrong or not.

>There is no rest but death. And I'm pretty sure that since death cannot be experienced we will be thrown back in the hell of life.
I really shouldnt encourage any suicidality, but I disagree with this. Dont think of death as something in itself. Think of it as the negation of, the absence of.

>>24531253 (OP)
Foucault is a fucking retard. His entire philosophy is way to justify his own mental illness.
>>24531271
What the fuck is a "neo-reactionary"?
I hate this "neo" thing. Every fucking group is a neo something now.
1) it lacks a unique identity
2) it degenerates the original ideas
The point of being a reactionary is short term thinking that guides their political/ideological positions.
The nature of the reactionary is to constantly change in response to the corrent stimulus. So how can there be such thing as a "neo-reactionary"?

>>24531352
>Women have always been governed by the discourses that produce their psyche.
This is just as much the case with men, only that women are more peer-oriented then men (and Hollywood, especially in atomized society, became women’s peer group) and men have better access to the objective spirit. What you said is why the study of literature (the essence of language, as a psychological and magical medium), is so important. But actually all men and women are governed by their character which is acted on and acts on the environment. Their psyche is not produced by discourse; more accurate to say “the consumption of calories” but I wouldn’t say that. If Foucault offers nothing than such banalities then I won’t bother reading him

>>24531253 (OP)
>Moldbugger's original form

Deleuze is far more relevant-- then again, self-conscious Right Hegelian re-engagement is lacking.

>>24536257
>only that women are more peer-oriented then men (and Hollywood, especially in atomized society, became women’s peer group) and men have better access to the objective spirit
lmao nigga men started hating women and threaten their race to die out because of russian bots and video game journalism

>>24532747
>your mistake is thinking the stuff that's true now is more true than humoral theory was
Not necessarily more true, but somewhat more effective.

>>24536827
No, it more has to do with attacks on modesty and the esprit de corps of women (historically, female honor = chastity) infused into the culture which has caused a tremendous erosion of trust.
To commit to marriage (as a general rule) men need a certain confidence in the chastity of women
Actually it has most to do with the fact that women don’t need men anymore because they can do better themselves in modern employment
If it wasn’t for this last point then everything else may not be of much concern

>>24531253 (OP)
>>bafflegabber
>>nonce
>>french

into the abyss, this demonic cunt belongs

>>24536876
>historically, female honor = chastity
only in very recent times, basically only abrahamic cunts cared. lots of roman emperors married widows and divorced women, for example
>>24536886
funnily enough, Foucault was basically the only famous frenchman that didn't sign the petition for the lowering of age of consent. he did, however, sign a petition for lowering the age of consent for homosexual men to the same age as the heterosexual, which often gets mixed up.
or, in case you mean the recent alligations about him fucking boys in africa, i don't trust any new rumors that come out long after a cunt has been deceased. not to say that i'd put it past him, just that a just court gives the defendant the option to speak on the matter

>>24536876
>To commit to marriage (as a general rule) men need a certain confidence in the chastity of women
Anon cucks have existed since before speech.

>>24536925
> only in very recent times
No, Schopenhauer writes on this. You really have no idea what you’re talking about. Kind of amazing how wrong you are, and how little knowledge you must have (none of the East, China, Japan, India, none of Rome) to think this. Prostitution is a perennial institution but so is marriage which demands female chastity. There’s obviously deviations and violations, but these prove the rule
The widows and divorced women—that’s different, but there are even customs in Asian of widows killing themselves
>>24536926
It’s relative. The modern media environment is incredibly abnormal. You’re numb

>>24536950
>Schopenhauer writes on this.
oh wow the proto incel wrote about this, it must be true
>the East, China, Japan, India
jeet detected, opinion disregarded. nice try putting india last to make it less obvious. save yourself the (you), i don't argue with street shitters

>>24536962
Kek. Thanks for making it clear to everyone you’re a dumbass, slandering Schopenhauer, the immortal philosopher revered by Tolstoy and Wagner
The panic you felt as you transitioned to produce the boilerplate anti-Indian racism (when you certainly know I am not Indian), must have been great lol
Go turn on netflix and leave Culture the real men

>>24536950
>It’s relative. The modern media environment is incredibly abnormal. You’re numb
Nah I was thinking of aristocratic bastardry and Roman familial practices.

>>24536970
>anti-Indian racism
No such thing. Indians are not a race, being prejudiced against them is not bigotry.

OP was clever enough to make reactionary the last word in his post, otherwise nobody would have read it.

Foucault is an NPC, who the left think is edgy. His dialectic style is alien and irrelevant to classical thinkers on the right, he's a degenerate the iddentitarian right wouldn't touch with a bayonet, he's also French.

>>24537518
You seem to be right only in that the left has largely abandoned Foucault too. Its all about Deleuze now

>>24537061
The point is female honor has been highly associated with chastity with al peoples for a very long time. This remains ingrained, even if publicly denied. Male honor is usually associated with other things. It’s not dishonorable for example if a woman is a “coward”. Desire can obviously overcome customs, with ease if strong enough. Honor in general isn’t the most important thing in the world
>>24537063
The funny thing is blaming valuing female chastity on “Abrahamism” and then freaking out at the mention of Asia which apparently doesn’t count. The most anti-Abrahamic cranks usually consider the example of the Japanese.