This man single handily turned me into a nazi

What did he jack you off?

are there any ecelebs that are actually throwing up sig heils

>implying e-celebs would know klages

his eyes strike fear into christcucks and liberals the world over

Attached: A-5498023-1540802642-7010.jpeg.jpg (211x239, 8K)

Far-left intellectuals have a much bigger platform with little taboos against them (in fact they are often praised by mainstream culture), far-right intellectuals are largely considered outcasts and rejected a proper audience, they seem to just exist in small niche intellectual circles today.

Do what we think of as the 'far left' even discuss far left thinkers anymore or is it all race and feminism. I just have a hard time picturing the people I've met in universities sitting around discussing working class politics.

The concept of the proletariat has been intrinsically intertwined into race, gender etc today by most of the far-left. The analysis of power relations between the proletariat and the bourgeois was expanded to virtually every social, political or economic factor or situation that your could think up, I'm sure you'll even start seeing talk that sounds similar to what incels espouse down the track.

As if the far-left had actually read Das Kapital or anything beyond the Communist Memefesto

If at all, the modern far left thinks of Marx as the probable inventor of Gay Space Communism, they don't know much about him except he was totally queer and triggered gamers and chuds. Leftists don't read anything beyond YA and callout tweets, they unironically think the act of reading is itself ableist and probably white supremacist, because placing any value on the written word discriminates against people who are too retarded to read.(seriously)

>Paul Gottfried’s previous book, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt (2002), examined the emergence of “secular theocracy” in North America, as the latest phase of the reigning “managerial state.” Gottfried argued there the thesis that contemporary American liberalism has increasingly assumed a religious, indeed a millenarian, tenor, taking as its mission the therapeutic reconstruction— and thereby the spiritual redemption— of the benighted mass. The therapeutic regime proceeds according to the notion of “tolerance” and under the scheme of “multiculturalism.” Contemporary liberalism habitually sees the average person as condemned to preterition, helplessly enthralled by his reactionary “middle class” ideology, and as embodying an insufferable scandal to his sanctified other. The typical other, according to this vision, is a thirdworld immigrant, a member of some ethnic minority, a put-upon woman, or someone whose sexual practices are non-normative. The entwined motifs of proselyte activism and of the salvaging of the heathens derive, in the context of North American liberalism, from two related sources: Nineteenth Century Protestant revivalism, whence the crusading character of the phenomenon, and a mélange of Unitarianism and Transcendentalism, whence its philosophical justifications and theosophical vocabulary.

>In The Strange Death of Marxism: The European Left in the New Millennium, Gottfried, while changing his focus from North America to the mother continent, insists on drawing an equally stark picture of the looming “soft totalitarianism.” The element of Gottfried’s case that has attracted the most critical attention has two parts. The first part is Gottfried’s assertion that Europe is not the donor but rather the recipient of a type of apocalyptic radicalism whose origin lies on the Yankee side of the Atlantic. The second part is that this apocalyptic radicalism is not Marxist, even while it remains pronouncedly collectivistic.

isi.org/intercollegiate-review/the-sacralization-of-politics-ithe-strange-death-of-marxism-the-european-left-in-the-new-millennium-i-by-paul-edward-gottfried/

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-05-07 at 11.31.30 AM.png (255x392, 153K)

well yes thats because far left beleive in inclusivities and cencorship and the far right beleive in free speech but exclusivities and xenophobia

>xenophobia
Why is it that left will always understand opposing positions through fear. Projection?
I love foreign cultures and lands, historic differences and geographic ones. I just don't want to destroy them (or us) with open borders and soulless, universalist architecture.

Easier movement of labor force = easier time for capitalism and socialism to weed out all remnants of humanity.

Attached: 89a3f023e2465b5f43cabfadc3d01117c123ab4e51bbaee5532f8298d7c910cd.jpg (836x569, 124K)

modern leftists are not marxists but messianic crypto protestants who believe in a therapeutic managerial state whose duty is to modify people's behaviour to make them more 'inclusive', while what goes by the 'right' these days only exists to maximise the profits of its corporate multinational donors.

>There are three defining characteristics of the therapeutic regime that sprang from the managerial welfare state of the twentieth century: the attempt to present as mere psychological and educational matters what are increasingly intrusive uses of government power to alter social behavior; dividing society into victims and nonvictims (or victimizers); and a politics of disposition, in which “sensitivity” becomes the decisive issue for drawing friend-enemy distinctions. Underlying the argument offered is the premise that multiculturalism is no passing eccentricity in an otherwise liberal polity. Nor is the “menace of multiculturalism,”as intimated by Dinesh D’Souza, Chester Finn, and Gertrude Himmelfarb, primarily its effects in dividing American citizens and breaking down consensus. To the contrary: The political class has adopted inclusiveness and diversity as a political instrument, as a means of controlling a society it has set about reshaping. What Frederick Lynch calls the “diversity machine” is a mechanism of state power that operates without anyone being permitted to notice its coercive nature. Therapeutic regimes are packaged in a way that disguises their resort to force; both the Left and establishment Right in the United States, which misrepresent political life, have helped to make this concealment possible.

talking about this in terms of free speech or inclusion vs inclusion would be to assume we still live in a 20th century liberal society, as a righty I think there is lots to be learned from Deleuze, Foucault and the 1970s antipsychiatric movement, as the power of the left is a psychiatric managerial/corporate power which attempts to replace traditional family and faith based structures

>the far right believe in free speech
Fascist here, fuck free speech.

nobody really believes in free speech, they believe in free speech for their team and that is only when they are loosing.
Broke: marketplace of ideas
woke: friend enemy distinction

the far right doesn't believe in free speech, they pretend to because they don't want to get censored

What are you quoting?

SImilarly far right here. That guy must have been farming (you)s,

Damn, nice digits

america's most BASED jewish academic Dr. Paul Gottfried

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-05-07 at 12.09.50 PM.png (651x365, 394K)

Give me the QRD on this man. Should he be read? The first post says Hitler disliked him. I have an affinity for people on the right who weren't fond of Hitler.

Seems interesting. I guess I will add it to the growing stack of books I am to read.

Even Agamben and Benjamin namedropped him, so it can't be all that bad. He was a member of the right wing occult spenglerian nutjob circles that gathered around poet stefan george(known homosexual) in fin de siecle Munich.

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-05-07 at 12.13.11 PM.png (470x292, 60K)

So any one got a good entry poit for this fellow, or a reading list?

>George apparently thought of himself as the messiah of a new kingdom that would be managed by intellectual or artistic elites, bonded by their faithfulness to a commander. In his memoirs, Albert Speer claims to have seen George during the early 1920s and that his elder brother, Hermann, was an acquaintance of his: George "radiated dignity and pride and a kind of priestliness... there was something magnetic about him."

>His poetry emphasized self-sacrifice, heroism and power, and he thus gained popularity among National Socialists. Although many National Socialists claimed George as an important influence, George himself was aloof from such associations and did not get involved with politics. Soon after the Nazi seizure of power, George left Germany for Switzerland where he died the same year.

>Many of the members of the German Resistance to the Nazis were drawn from among his devotees, notably the Stauffenberg brothers who were introduced to George by the poet and classical scholar Albrecht von Blumenthal. Although some members of the George group were explicitly anti-semitic (for example, Klages), it also included Jewish authors such as Gundolf, the historian Ernst Kantorowicz, and the Zionist Karl Wolfskehl. George was fond of his Jewish disciples, but he expressed reservations about their ever becoming a majority of the group.
youtube.com/watch?v=9rGUov3Adlk

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-05-07 at 12.22.13 PM.png (219x297, 93K)

And Adorno and Horkheimer in Dialectic of Enlightenment, where they criticize his cultural criticism, only to launch their own, even more pessimistic, cultural critique

>Different buildings are important >:( I want my traditions back

i have a far left jewish co-worker who was visibly seething when my boss and i were discussing marcus aurelius and seneca once a while ago. he joined the conversation uninvited and said pretty typical leftist responses to these topics but censored himself ("why do you care what they thought" instead of "why do you care what dead white men thought" etc), realizing he didn't have an audience for his stupid shit.
another time we had a consultant in to discuss planning our floor space with us while he (my coworker) was within earshot in another room. the consultant said a bunch of shit about planning in such a way that your peons don't have to think and everything is obvious and anything they fuck up is your fault, and to plan well then distance yourself from the day to day grind so you can soar above and observe any potential issues. then we went into the other room and the consultant tried striking conversation with this guy, and he was borderline shaking and was taking like 5-10 seconds to muster responses to simple friendly questions. these people are unwell.

yaaas, more antilogocentrism

Attached: antilogos.jpg (259x194, 11K)

you called?

Attached: download.jpg (199x253, 5K)

I do

They are important pleb

this is the most embarassing post I have read in a long time

I wouldn't call (semi-vernacular) 19th-century architecture muh tradition. Though a case can be made for the globalizing and thereby homogenizing forces of capital in architecture International Style-onwards.

They are and I do