Thoughts on naomi klein?

adbusters is a ripoff of old situationist ideas from the 60s. the editors eventually set up an unironic ad agency and started talking about the revolutionary potentialities of tech and the sharing economy

''anti-idpol'' ''leftists'' (ie. Zizek) who are resentful of consumerism because of fundamentally rightwing reasons.

kys and cringe nigger, but still, there is some pasta potential in this.

you are patronizing ''working people the women, queers and people of color'', they are not all mediocre nor willing to surrenderto corporate cock like you. marxism will always be core or at least important reference for that kind of struggle. poptimism - you are cum loader, sry.

yuck

thats literally a introduction leaflet to boomers. your mistake

I am just saying there is an obvious difference between an enmancipatory critique of consumerism and a reactionary critique of consumerism

altright is reactionary, quasi-gentile, evola etc. they always have been anti-consumerism, anti-globalism etc. they aren't just "pissed" you fucking boomer.

really really sick thinking on display here. if consumer culture is satiating the needs of marginalized individuals and diverting their will to liberation/reformation without making any genuine structural changes it needs to be opposed all the more because it is only showing itself as capable

of course there is an element of sadism in this. the system propagandizes exploits oppresses murders and views populations as tools to be deployed or destroyed as the agenda of power sees necessary. yes i want these people to suffer. to bow before their "inroads to inclusion" is the most anti-human thing i can imagine.

You should should read the book Lyndon LaRouche wrote on Friedman XDDDD

archive.org/details/the_ugly_truth_about_milton_friedman/page/n1

I think this individualist, transgressive, masculine notion of rebellion (of which Zizek as well as the alt right and Peterson are heirs) represents one of the more ambiguous legacies of the 60s new left. It has to be contextualised with the feminist critiques of the new left. You can't reduce all cultural changes that have taken place since the 60s to 'narcissism' as Lasch and Zizek do, to do so would be a tremendous disservice to the struggles that made them possible, what if there is nothing pathological or oversensitive about the 'youff of today' but rather we are seeing a prefiguration of an egalitarian, non patriarchal nonheteronormative and decolonised world, the kids are working out the dialectic of self expression, consent/boundaries with a new collective form of life enabled by cybernetics, in which culture is seen as cooperative. a situation of general of precarity psychic and physical threats make its flowering difficult, but that is no reason to be dismissive, to fetishise this implicitly or semi explicitly white straight and male working class subject.

I just want you to know that I absolutely love that retards like you exist because you have completely defanged actual communists

dumb fat black women are immensely less threatening as a revolutionary force than intelligent jewish and white men

Believe it or not, some people don’t know these things and need to be told.
I tell people the truth around here and they still don’t believe it

Theodore Kaczynski completely shreds her a new asshole in his latest book "Anti-Tech Revolution." It's at the end of the first chapter, explaining how she is the ultimate embodiment of intellectual naivety, by dissecting and logically demolishing all he main points in like, half a page. it's actually pretty funny. Don't have the book with me but someone should post that part.

"her" main points

this. lololol. well said. You sound like you "get it" You'd love Kaczynski's new book, and his essay "The System's Neatest Trick"

Why don’t you guys get into LaRouche next?
He’s crazy

Did a quick search of "Naomi" in his book, it's on page 33.
>In another example (2011), Naomi Klein proposes massive, elaborate, worldwide "planning"! that is supposed to bring global warming under control, help with many of our other environmental problems, and at the same time bring us "real democracy," "rein in" the corporations, alleviate unemployment, reduce wasteful consumption in rich countries while allowing poor countries to continue their economic growth, foster "interdependence rather than hyper-individualism, reciprocity rather than dominance and cooperation rather than hierarchy," "elegantly weav[e] all these struggles into a coherent narrative about how to protect life on earth,"and overall promote a "progressive" agenda so as to create a "healthy, just world."!
>One is tempted to ask whether the schemes concocted by people like Ashford, Hall, and Klein are meant as an elaborate joke of some sort; but no, the intentions of these authors are quite serious. How can they possibly believe that schemes like theirs will ever be carried out in the real world? Are they totally devoid of any practical sense about human affairs? Maybe. But a more likely explanation is unwittingly offered by Naomi Klein her- self: "[I]t is always easier to deny reality than to watch your worldview get shattered...." The worldview of most members of the upper middle class, including most intellectuals, is deeply dependent on the existence of a thoroughly organized, culturally "advanced," large-scale society characterized by a high level of social order. It would be extremely difficult psychologically for such people to recognize that the only way to get off the road to disaster that we are now on would be through a total collapse of organized society and therefore a descent into chaos. So they cling to any scheme, however unrealistic, that promises to preserve the society on which their lives and their worldview are dependent; and one suspects that the threat to their worldview is more important to them than the threat to their lives.
Pretty brutal.

>I should know, I am writing my theses on poptimism as a queer utopian imagery, how subalterns can articulate subversive subject positions within an unescapable colonial capitalist system.

Not sure if this is wonderfully crafted bait or just the product of modern day academia.

Attached: Green_Highlander_salmon_fly.jpg (3504x2336, 3.17M)

Attached: ch-academia.gif (2000x2500, 121K)

>You can't reduce all cultural changes that have taken place since the 60s to 'narcissism' as Lasch
This isn't what Lasch claims, in TCON he says narcissism arose as a defence mechanism against A) changing modes of social organisation brought about by large scale industrial capitalism, and B) the destruction of family, the last vestige of pre-industrial capitalist virtues, by the expansion of the therapeutic-bureaucratic state.

LaRouche is undeniably crazy but he is also really intelligent and well read unlike people who post here which makes his positions hard to distil in to memes for people just looking for an identity.

>implying family abolition isn't a desirable goal for the left

muh evil therapeutic bureaucratic state gives women and queer people freedom to choose and live their own lives outside of the brutal patriarchal authority of the nuclear family, wtf this must be stopped!
-t. ''leftist''

Based penman

I didn't say or imply any of this, and neither did Lasch, who isn't actually a "traditional family" conservative. His argument is actually that the "traditional family" was initially empowered by industrial capitalism, as a kind of socio-psychological coping mechanism, waning as its role was replaced by the therapeutic-bureaucratic state. You would know this had you actually read him, rather than arguing against thin caricatures assembled out of a pastiche of Yea Forums posts and Wikipedia articles. Please stop shitting up the board with your Reddit-esque sarcasms and general aversion to thinking.