It can't be long now before his anti political correctness stance gets him labelled a closet alt-right sympathizer...

youtu.be/Mfb0B0KTOHw
As a side, anyone know this first video that's a reeducation camp for whites?

>MOMMY GOT A JOB
Shit ended way back in the 80s.
Economic determinism is a fucking joke. Read The Poverty of Feminism. There are deeper reasons for this shit than MUH CAPITAL.

The 'goal' of everything is power. It's just that human civilization makes power run in ways at odds with biological evolution. Women have undoubtedly gained a lot of power in the past century, and it is ridiculous to assert that they played no part in this.

>The 'goal' of everything is power
you're an idiot.

It is completely true, everything that doesn't accrue power is outcompeted by that which does

you reduce "power" to "anything which provides an advantage situationally," because you can't think.

a situational advantage != power

I'm not categorically saying they're not after power but I am saying that they're being influenced in the decision to seek it. +Even though it might seem like it right now I also do not think that the gender conflict has a strong class expression as it is partly dilluted through family and partly resolved through union.

>"anything which provides an advantage situationally,
averaged over time and place, that is exactly my definition of power. Having situational advantages in more situations than a different 'agent'(you can extend this to things we don't think of as agents) is the only sensible definition of power I can think of. Assessing the power of any agent is only locally possible, but within a given system, that is a specific area of time and space, you can easily show which agents have more power by looking at their situational advantages statistically.

I can definitely think, just because you disagree with me doesn't make me a brainlet. State your case, what do you think power is?

>I also do not think that the gender conflict has a strong class expression as it is partly dilluted through family and partly resolved through union.
I agree with you 100% on that, looking at the gender conflict as pseudo Marxist class warfare is prog idiocy.

But it is an undeniable axis of power struggles in our society(and in all sexually reproducing life for that matter)

>averaged over time and place
not feasible or possible to "average" situational advantages.

>wut about u
your statement "the goal of everything is power" is ridiculous. you place evolutionary biology into a political arena - you define a mouse eating seeds as possessing power over other mice, or at least power enough to push other mice out of competition. you definitely cannot think. you think along lines of political ideology and now we're at systemically oppressive mice. put down the hipster tea and go outside.

"power" cannot be defined statistically. it does not exist statistically. you can't define a situational advantage that is universal, or consistent, or even "powerful" in relative terms to other advantages. in short, you really want to believe in oppressor v. oppressed but you suck at thinking about it.

God I hate NEETchuhtards.

>identitarians are the system

Striker was saying the same thing, Zizek's outlook leads inexorably to fascism even if he opposes it

Left identitarians/left liberals are yes

No, as I wrote; they're integrated. They do not run the show and have no hope of entering the upper hierarchy.

>not feasible or possible
Computationally sure, but theoretically, you really don't see it?

You are jumping the gun attributing all sorts of things to me. Evolutionary biology is not political, it shares similarities with politics in the sense that they are both ruled in the end by power struggles. This is a tautology really, the powerful will subdue and outcompete the weak.

>you can't define a situational advantage that is universal, or consistent, or even "powerful" in relative terms to other advantages
Not necessary user, you just have to look at any given agent, and tally its power in a number of instances in its environment. Once again we couldn't compute this presently, but it is completely coherent. The larger mouse posesses a power advantage over the smaller mouse offset by greater caloric needs, increased visibility, etc(i dont study mice dont sperg about this list).

This oppressor oppressed thing is not at all my view, you're just lobbing that at me. Cooeperation between agents falls into this analysis easily, the propensity for cooperation can be studied with game theory, evolutionary biologists have been doing that for decades.

You are incredibly insufferable
Not necessarily engaging with your argument to agree or disagree with it, you're just annoying as fuck

thanks for being a dick for no reason

>evolutionary biology is not political
and yet you desperately paint it so.

>the oppressor oppressed thing isn't my view
right, which is why you brought this up in a political thread in response to a question about the political power of women.

"power" is more than situational advantage. a power struggle is a misnomer - there is no struggle for power between a species that is evolutionarily equipped such that it outperforms other species. there is no "struggle" between similar species acting independently who evolve along separate paths until one dies out and the other lives on. "power" doesn't enter into it, for the most part. you, again, suck at thinking about this. a species of mouse that survives for a million years possesses no more power, in your terms, than a species of mouse that dies out after a few thousand years.

Yep, he was literally banned from half his usual circuit and had to deal with retard SJW hecklers

*AHEM*

Attached: 1548883967980.png (738x669, 186K)

I did not even slightly paint evolutionary biology as political. I said that it operates according to power, as do politics.

>there is no struggle for power between a species that is evolutionarily equipped such that it outperforms other species. there is no "struggle" between similar species acting independently who evolve along separate paths until one dies out and the other lives on.
If they are in proximity to each other then yes there is a struggle between betwen them, that is where the 'situational advantage' you mentioned comes in, situations where they compete for something. I said power can be defined locally, that means interaction.

>that means interaction
it most certainly does not. hundreds of species exist in confined locations and never or rarely interact.

you are STILL trying to insert political ridiculousness into this - "but they interact! like my blue tribes and red tribes!" no they don't. a situational advantage does not imply a.) the presence of other actors or b.) the denial of situational advantages to other actors. power cannot even be defined locally. back to your stem dungeon

He was also on RT before. That means he's basically Richard Spencer.

Eheh

>a situational advantage does not imply a.) the presence of other actors
A situation quite literally implies the presence of other actors. there is no situation without the meeting of multiple agents.

i had a situation this morning in my toilet bowl. the word does not in any sense imply the presence of multiple actors.

if you want to be absolutely rigorous it does, it implies you and the inanimate objects surrounding you and your ability to manipulate them and their effect on you. But obviously when discussing power dynamics the most relevant factors are other agents similarly powerful to you, humans.

>if you want to be absolutely rigorous
oh fuck off. you're not being rigorous, you're being pedantic. you jump from inanimate objects to humans and try to pretend the relationships between my shit and my toilet bowl are the same as relationships between a human in one general area and one in another general area.

you SUCK AT THINKING. stop.

They follow the same rule, that of what one can exert on the other in terms of influence. I have no idea why you're being so hostile about this

SOME TELL ME HOW TO FILTER OUT THESE ZIZEK AND PETERSON THREADS
PLUHLEAAAAAAAASSSSSEEEEE

If you're uncomfortable you should try to articulate your thoughts to try to get some catharsis.

>>>reddit

>but their agency has increased tenfold
10 * 0 = ???

You better not marry a woman with attitude because she has your balls in a vicegrip. She can call the police at any moment and they will take her word that you've been abusing her, they have to it by law, you will be arrested. Then you can have fun in the divorce courts, and family law if you have children.

That is all just eliding the social power women have that almost all men are blind, even pawns, to.

delete system32

he literally used arguments from Land and Spengler in the debate. not exactly closet.

>literally just have to put zizek and/or peterson in the filter
You are the kind of person that lower the average IQ of this board.

Whats the essential writings to get into Marx (other than Das Kapital) ?

Based

Read Engels, and also works that Marx and Engels wrote together. After that read Piketty's Capital.

LENIN

>Piketty's Capital
Lmao why would you read this
Wage Labour and Capital
The German Ideology
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
Critique of the Gotha Programme

>identitarians
What do they have to do with anything?

you seem to know a lot about power user. please enlighten us as to what it is

Attached: socrates.jpg (340x290, 17K)

deep cut brah

That has happened and he didn't back down. Honestly if commies were nationalists they would be cool af.

Attached: 52a4ca376b97356cda5da45be6dda947.jpg (1278x852, 359K)

this is too redpilled a post

Piketty's Capital, something to compare with 21. century literature on same topic.

epic family court warrior

what's wrong with being alt-right? it's the only political movement providing solutions go contemporary problems of the world.

Zizek is not like Peterson
Peterson is a normie which is what opens him up to attack
Zizek is a fucking weirdo so they'll never pin him

imagine being this much of a brainlet.

Anyone notice how he revised his Hitler example about the need for antagonism to form an identity? In the debate he said Hitler was just lying about the Jews, but he used to basically say that he may have had some cause for grief but was still wrong in the end.
youtube.com/watch?v=ohzdyMCteCY

Attached: 1538628734093.jpg (720x639, 39K)

Explain how hes wrong without babbling about intersectionality and identity. I reached the same conclusion he did like 2 years ago, and it stopped my interest in ethics, and changed my view into some omni-instrumentalist in every other part of philosophy. The explanation is literally evolution abstracted out of biology. Strive for power or be out competed.

it's not applying your stem degree to philosophy 101.
power is not a useful or accurate term for the evolutionary forces you cite. a situational advantage does not equate to power. even situational advantages leveled between two opposing actors does not equate to a power imbalance. what if the competition is between two members of the same species? that doesn't imply a power struggle, because the end result is a net benefit for the entire species. the strongest member adds its strength to the genetic makeup of the whole.

it doesn't boil down to a power struggle, dude. you can't boil down evolutionary biology into a politicized state of oppressor v. oppressed because you glanced over the Republic one time.

Power is the ability to enact change in the world and survive. Also, i never said anything about politics or "oppressor vs oppressed" you retard. I know infinitely more about philosophy than you do.

They routinely accuse him of being a crypto-fascist or a crypto-Stalinist (I disagree because I think he's mostly just a regular Stalinist)

it's because they're all, jacobin in particular, just larping radlibs.

Liberals gonna lib when they encounter an actual leftist I guess.
Because he had drunk the accelerationist kool-aid at the time. He thought this time was gonna be different for some reason.

>what if the competition is between two members of the same species? that doesn't imply a power struggle, because the end result is a net benefit for the entire species.
You clearly have never read a single thing about evolution, it now becomes obvious why you don't understand this subject