Is postmodernism just advanced right-wing self deprecation?

Of course, and hitlers notoriety for frequenting human rights rallies, how could i forget.

Attached: 1414888811272.jpg (2159x1202, 961K)

Do fascists not reduce literally everything down to power dynamics? Did Foucault not day in his debate with Chomsky that he doesn’t care about violence in regards to ethics? Textbook fascism.

>glorified panopticonism as an application of social power as mandated by the state
How is that not social fascism?

fascism and faggotry have had a long and complicated history, user. I personally wouldn't call Foucault a fascist, but he's certainly one of the most amoral thinkers in history. His ideal society was essentially a cultish orgy of violence and sexual depravity.

Fascists are pretty gay desu

Remember lads, if any glow-in-the-dark cia nigger faggot leftist talks about "muh theory", and he doesn't even have a take on pic related sorts, then he's an idiot

Attached: Carl_Schmitt_als_Student_1912-554x446.jpg (554x446, 65K)

theadly reminder that marxists are constantly trying to paint Postmodernists as fascists

Surely he is amoral, but when does he say "my name is michel foucault and my ideal society is a cultish orgy of violence and sexual depravity"
>glorified panopticonism as an application of social power mandated by the state
How did he glorify it? all he did was state how powerful it was of a tool for the state, and how the state was already using this form of panopticonism in our regular society, as example i can directly quote D&P:
>Is it surprising that prisons resemble factories, schools, barracks, hospitals, which all resemble prisons
Hes not advocating for it, hes simply pointing it out.

He was trying to move past a world of fascism and marxism. What that actually means who the fuck knows

Can you give me some names?

Anyone this hard to pin down is ok in my book desu

Chomsky

Chomsky isn't a Marxist though. He's an unironic postmodernist fascist.

Foucault was just as much of a fascist as Hitler or any other white man, especially from the 20th century. He still engaged with and lended legitimacy to non-POC and non-LGBT writers and thinkers. Of course he took a superficially "leftist" stance, but no real genuine leftist or radicals that genuinely cared about the working class/indigenous peoples/POC/LGBT/Muslims would spend their whole careers propping up Old White Men like Freud, Nietzsche, Husserl, and yes even the white cis cryptofascist, Karl Marx. Some of his ideas were good, but yes, ultimately Foucault was a white male fascists who support white males and white male fascism.

The master knows the utensils, yet he prefers to keep to the block of wood...

so... out of sheer curiosity, could you maybe tell who the fuck is he and what was your point talking about him ? i can explain my interest later.

Even if this is bait, you should probably kill yourself, just to be sure.

Postmodernism is just conservative historism from the 18th and 19th centuries (Joseph de Maistre, Juan Donoso Cortés, Johann Georg Hamann, etc) interpreted through Carl Schmitt and Martin Heidegger and then rehashed with semi-Marxist terminology and a lot of overt emancipatory politics to distract liberals and progressives, just like 18th century naturalists would include half-assed assertments of devotions to divine providence before going on and producing an entirely secular and naturalistic account of the world, so they could be approved by Christian censors.

It's incredible how many people were fooled by this!

>they did not advocate the things they talked about
If there was anything rebellious, let alone revolutionary, about what he said, the usual suspects would have assassinated him and burned the books with the body. Instead the authorities fly the faggot around like some international celebrity of the intellect, and saving him from damnatio memoriae by covering up his cause of death. His entire job was telling the powerful chosen few how to be better at being the powerful chosen few. This has been the prostitution of intellectuals since at least the 50s, from Horkheimer approving the war on Vietnam to Chomsky getting paid by the fucking military. A fascist, complete with the appropriate haircut.

>imagine saying something so devoid of meaning with an air of authority
Woah, so that's the power of *postmoderism*.

Have sex seething white heterosexual cisgender male incel.

99% of posters on threads with a Foucault image on the header sound like Peterson talking about anything related to Social Sciences.

Also, Foucault is not difficult to read at all, maybe a little dense, but not difficult by any means. It seems pretty difficult to understand for some apparently.
>Assuming people on Yea Forums actually read

Listing a bunch of names doesn't make your point any more coherent. The "left" is best understood as the perennial conflict between radical equality and radical liberty, which are obviously incompatible, but which both reject the conservative positions of restraint and proportion. Every leftist thinker of note will appear as a pseudo- or crypto-conservative in the eyes of leftists coming from the opposite side of the "progressive" dialectic. Ironically, the further we travel down left-wing thought, the more these polarities will diverge. Sadly, it doesn't really matter how much the left disagrees with itself. It is the general chaos of the left that prevents the right from seeing it as a rather singular movement away from tradition. Foucault is undeniably leftwing, and hardly anyone has done more work to creating a language which allows such contradictory positions as the left now demands. It is only through the perverse subjectivity of his liberated language that intersectional action is possible at all.

maybe the problem isnt that it lacks meaning but that you dont have the knowledge, minimal that it is, to interpret it

Attached: tumblr_mr2d2bDvZG1srztj7o1_500.jpg (500x375, 94K)

Traditional conservatism wasn't about "restraint and proportion", this is a later development of 20th century American conservatism, itself influenced by liberalism. Traditionally, the conservative challenge to the Enlightenment was based on the contingency of the historical assumptions of the radicals which precluded any actual universalism. It was about Joseph de Maistre saying he knew men, but not man. This is a point that postmodernists rehashed in their criticism of grand metanarratives and therefore conceded that the critics of the Enlightenment were right.