Tfw you realize the conclusion to French pomo thought is Right wing Reactionary Traditionalism

I've been down a rabbit hole of this recently. I don't see how turning away from hyperreality isn't just neotraditionalism. Maybe that's part of op's interpretation

I guess a return to the real doesn't necessitate white bitches in cornfields, but communes aren't going to work either; too much sexual competition.

Attached: d81d874ce2a1bd881ea893e9ae5a175.png (800x800, 1.86M)

Did someone read The Seduction of Unreason?

it's really not, that's why the nouveaux philosophes are all embarrassing spergs.
>Why didn't any Marxist philosophers predict corporate culture appropriating and neutering revolutionary rhetoric,
just about all of them worked that out.
> thereby making reactionary and totalitarian rhetoric a legitimate form of counter-culture?
none of them made that move, but it's probably retarded for the exact same reason that revolutionary rhetoric is.
>I don't see how turning away from hyperreality isn't just neotraditionalism.
neotraditionalism is a part of the hyperreal, buddy. it is a floating simulation of traditional cultures that only refers to other signs in the postmodern marketplace. and if you're thinking of Baudrillard in particular, he is not by any means whatsoever advocating a "return to the real."

Attached: jb.png (236x159, 26K)

do you really think people like Hume, Hegel, and Carlyle were stupid? There are no right wing thinkers anymore because you're not allowed to be right wing and would be thrown out of university for doing so, so any intelligent right wing person who could become prominent is just going to give up or languish on the fringe.

>neotraditionalism is a part of the hyperreal, buddy
Crap! So every little escape plan I can think of is just bad info built out of tired representations that don't correspond to shit?

Kinda like a smart dog who can't discern that a drawn door won't actually open, eh?

Attached: mfw2.jpg (474x483, 30K)

>neotraditionalism is a part of the hyperreal

The reason I sympathise more with fascists and ecoterrorists than with leftists is simply that I want to indulge this limitless sadistic impulse for domination, power, transgression and excess. I am hence looking not for a political ideology, but for a religion, a New Satanism, a blasphemous and depraved omnicidal deathcult of atrocity. For long I looked for revolution on the radical left, but it didn't satisfy me, the 'ethical' consumer hedonism and polymorphous perversity of the last men was undignified, unworthy of my infinite libertine desires, I wanted more.

Charlie Manson talked about how everyone is acting, robots, until the fear and excitement associated with murder and crime make happen and it real. Manson was really an incarnation of greek dionysius, a stranger from the east, driving the young girls of the city mad with wine, sex and music, until, like crazed maenads they are ready to rip apart the pigs and the establishment squares. I believe that as socially conscious intellectuals should look for inspiration to the most morbid and the most satanic reaches of human nature, terrorism, cults, genocides, totalitarian regimes, sex crimes, serial killers, violent videogames, exploitation cinema, noise music and extreme pornography

Attached: a91e5a87965878c9fbb52aad1123ced8.jpg (392x640, 70K)

>noise music
Fuck off, psycho.

Attached: jake-2.png (639x450, 339K)

You sound like a product of a mass media model of transgression, like you just came off the assembly line of edgy meaningless signs. You also sound like you want to be these things more than you are those things. You also sound like a repressed queer.

out of everything else he said lol.

are you the esoteric hitlerist poster i keep seeing here

Attached: 1551054616939.jpg (550x413, 73K)

Esoteric hitlerism is like the total opposite of that post. It's about a spiritual war for good, hitler as an avatar for a god.

lol this is just an aesthetic. you're not out doing any of this shit.

Guenon and Evola were correct in saying any routes left towards legitimate initiation were disappearing at an alarming rate, and there are probably none left at this time. At the same time, the Prison of Unreality or hyperreality entraps us until we are completely and utterly cut of from Reality with a capital R. That is the point where the world ends, and this is how the Kali Yuga unfolds.

Attached: 152.jpg (453x680, 245K)

>utterly cut off from Reality
But if everything about the real is there, like impulses that the brain thinks is a liver but is really a AA battery connected to the nervous system, why isn't it acceptable?

I mean, it's obviously "good enuff" on, well, exactly that level, the level of the cut-the-mustard.

So what was so great about "the real" anyway? This is all just as good, even better because it has hyper-, which always means better!

Attached: cypher approves.jpg (408x322, 26K)

Marx himself predicted it, nobody listened:
>A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society.
>To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of socialism has, moreover, been worked out into complete systems.
>The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois Socialism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby to march straightway into the social New Jerusalem, it but requires in reality, that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.

Attached: 1565202876876.jpg (1366x1830, 328K)

>There are probably none left at this time
I mean, maybe for eurocucks and urbanites. Rural America still possess all of the possibilities for one to become initiated. But then again, most eurocucks and urbanites are part of the bourgeoise and don’t want to legitimately upset they’re “comfortable” lifestyle.

What is realistically going to happen is a complete reset or utter meltdown of the human unconscious; think of Jungs terminology of the shadow becoming fully emergent within society. Humans can not withstand hyperreality, look what’s happening within 2019, only about four years into said hyperreality, with things only heating up. It’s all fucked m8

Attached: D4605AB7-8695-45DB-A9B5-140CDDC34986.jpg (1440x900, 464K)

Last part reminds me of that Wotan essay by C.G. Jung.

yeah please explain OP
unless of course you're just being retarded

yeah this basically.

lmao americans are lost, fuckin' A I hate you faggots and your corny ass MTV culture

how do I contact the satanists Yea Forums? any covens you know of in the tri-state area?
youtube.com/watch?v=c5CgSLC7smM

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-08-08 at 11.43.25 PM.png (591x400, 238K)

The Frankfurt School thought along the same lines as right-wing, reactionary traditionalists.

Like Marxists, Continental conservatives -- including Carlyle, de Maistre, Coleridge, etc. -- realized the capitalism and all its consequences would degrade the conditions of man. Uprooting him from the country side. Reducing all human relations to contractual matters. Destroying the environment. Every good conservative is an environmentalist. Continental conservatives in fact hated capitalism more than the socialists. The socialists view capitalism as a necessary step towards socialism. The traditionalists saw it as the decline of civilization. That's why Carlyle influenced Marx so much.

Anglo-American conservatives aren't conservative. They're materialists. They worship money and debt and soul-sucking capitalists.

> Humans can not withstand hyperreality, look what’s happening within 2019, only about four years into said hyperreality, with things only heating up.
I recall Baudy saying terrorism is the only event that can break through hypperreality and reveal the Real to us, but with all of these shootings being carried out by zoomers and refugees to the point where it's a regular occurrence, we've pretty much accepted such events as our reality, which I believe have been absorbed in the hyperreality. I can't think of anything else that can break through it.

Holy fucking shit, are you living under a rock?

Attached: adorno.jpg (483x695, 22K)

You're just a snow nigger with mommy and daddy issues who has developed some retarded sadomasochistic labyrinthine psychological complex that most people don't give a fuck about. People like you are best avoided. Now kys.

>I recall Baudy saying terrorism is the only event that can break through hypperreality
If a terroristic act is a symbolic challenge like 9/11 was (which can really only come from cultures outside of the global order, like radical Islam), and the global order cannot symbolically meet the challenge, this can be dangerous to the global order. Such symbolically charged terrorist attacks are rare however, and terrorism even as early as in the 1970s was generally just another part of the system and mass media. He was more interested in the figures of the hostage and hostage taker, which he thought were impossible to exchange, which also poses a symbolic challenge.
>reveal the Real to us
again, Baudrillard has nothing whatsoever to say about the real. The real is only a product of simulation - that is why it is the hyperreal, the more real than real, the real as special effect. There was never a real, there is no return to the real, and we wouldn't want to if it were possible.
>within 2019, only about four years into said hyperreality
no

>it is the hyperreal, the more real than real, the real as special effect
So... it’s still reality

yes, reality as the result of simulation, which is the only reality there ever is. which is no reality at all.

For Baudrillard the opposition isn't between the hypperreal and the real (the latter being an "effect of reality", only a principle, just as the referent is an effect of the signified/signifier duality). The real alternative is the symbolic order, which for him existed in our societies before the Renaissance and in virtually all primitive societies. His conception of the symbolic mainly comes from Mauss and Bataille and can (badly) be defined by the ideas of challenges ("défis"), seduction, gifts, counter-gifts and reversibility (ie Mauss' potlatch). Roughly, in the symbolic order, power is never "fixed", because it is always reversible, can always be challenged and the gift can always be countered back.

True opposition to our semiotical society thus should come from the symbolic, and as the other user said, notably from terrorism (but it is not the only way). Because the terrorist defy the system by "offering" or challenging his/her life, the system cannot replicate to this terrible potlatch. And because we all symbolically owe our lives to this system (through salaries, consumption, or even worst through possible crap like Yang's UBI), challenging our lives is the best possible symbolic answer

Jesus fucking Christ. Imagine being this guy 24/7.

And yet you’re a beta posting on a literature forum lol probably live off your parents

The biggest, gayest post i've seen in a while.

>you're not allowed to be right wing
The only ones who think this are those who either do not attend universities, or who do but do not engage with their faculties because of the idea that universities are left wing hiveminds, planted by psueds like Peterson. Right wing speakers talk at universities all the fucking time, I have right wing ideas presented in my class and engaged with just as much as left wing ideas. Liberalism has been harshly criticized by students and profs in nearly every Poli Sci class I have taken, with no uproar or even protest from the students.

For some reason you seem to think racists are synonymous with the right. Right wing thinking is, of course, alright. Racism is not, for obvious reasons. This isn't a difficult idea to understand. If you were actually practising right wing thought then you would have nothing to fear.

>you're not allowed to be right wing

Not with that crybaby attitude. What a cuck.

Right wing in this case being some sort of free market liberal, possibly with mild church undertones?

>You are free to be the right wing
>No, no this kind of right wing you monster
Can I advocate for ethno-nationalist feudalism on your university?

Your superstars are a farce. If the underground can siphon anything of merit out of their tortuous drivel then that is quite an accomplishment.

>>tfw you realize the conclusion to French pomo thought is Right wing Reactionary Traditionalism

Attached: Dy_WcyGUwAARBit.jpg (640x723, 22K)

Are you one of those vaporwave post-modern rightist channel tards?
>I am le conservative deleuzian xD

what about a return to the symbolic?

Why the fuck do you guys need to make things so complicated with these “concepts”. Literally saying nothing by adding in “symbolic order”, “the real”, etc. It’s such fucking pseud masturbatory tendencies to think by using fancy terminology they add anything relevant to what they are saying.

that's why evola dominated the dadaism scene with his talentless paintings.

It is well known that French postmodernists were influenced by Martin Heidegger and Carl Schmitt, and through them by traditional conservative thinkers like Joseph de Maistre and Juan Donoso Cortés. Many of their conclusions, specially concerning the criticism of metanarratives were already anticipated in the historism of conservative intellectuals of the XIXth century, such as Chateaubriand, Karl Ludwig von Haller and Friedrich Carl von Savigny, just like the economic romanticism of the contemporary left, which stands in sharp contrast to Marx's accelerationism, is derived from the conservative Adam Muller.

I obviously do not think that any of these French philosophers of postmodernism were "right-wing" or conservative in any sense of the words. They were all dillusioned Marxists. But I do believe that their works can be useful to the right, more useful than the moderate liberalism that passes as conservatism nowadays. If all metanarratives are dead and local narratives are what we should strive for, why can't it be Hyperborean Aryans from Atlantis?

Fucking this
It baffles me how oblivious some people on Yea Forums are about Adorno's thought

because he attacked religion, gender roles, and the nuclear family. The Culture Industry is a great book, but it is overshadowed by that piece of shit book The Authoritarian Personality, in which if you want to raise people in healthy, stable families, then you are an "authoritarian", regardless of your real political beliefs and interactions with other people. What kind of fucking psychopathic belief system is that?

>The only ones who think this are those who either do not attend universities, or who do but do not engage with their faculties because of the idea that universities are left wing hiveminds, planted by psueds like Peterson.
What the living fuck are you talking about? I've never once seen ANY genuinely right-wing ideas presented charitably at my university, and I go to a HYPSM-tier university. Most of my peers have never spoken to a genuinely right-wing individual. Their entire knowledge of their political opponents comes from caricatures disseminated from the media, social media, and talk shows.

>Right wing speakers talk at universities all the fucking time,
Charles Murray was violently chased off of Middlebury College, even though Murray never argued for racism in The Bell Curve and repeatedly denounced it, and speakers like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson are often prevented from speaking on campus out of the fear of violent repercussions. Not that any of them are shining beacons of right-wing thought, but their cases demonstrate the sorry state of "the marketplace of ideas" today. Many such cases!

>I have right wing ideas presented in my class and engaged with just as much as left wing ideas.
What is your example of a "right wing" idea? Minimum wage is economically inefficient or some other bourgeois, liberal technocratic idea like that?

>Liberalism has been harshly criticized by students and profs in nearly every Poli Sci class I have taken, with no uproar or even protest from the students.
Probably from the perspective of social justice, Marxism, or some other left-wing school of thought.

99% of the time I read testimonies like this, they come from people whose heads are too deep up their asses to give a level-headed take.

>Right wing thinking is, of course, alright. Racism is not, for obvious reasons
The thing is, everything can be framed in terms of "racism", no matter what the issue is or the real world consequences. You can be against unauthorized immigration, provide dozens of statistics from credible sources showing the negative economic, fiscal, and social impact across all working/middle class Americans (including American blacks and hispanics), and suggest non-biased solutions that focus on going after the companies that stand to gain the most from doing so... and you'll still be accused of being a racist because the framing of the issue. Apparently, America has a moral obligation to take in the entire third world, regardless of our culpability or capability, and if you want to slow this down in any way, you're an evil "racist".

>Many of their conclusions, specially concerning the criticism of metanarratives were already anticipated in the historism of conservative intellectuals of the XIXth century, such as Chateaubriand, Karl Ludwig von Haller and Friedrich Carl von Savigny

Do you know of any books on this topic (except these guys' own work)?

his most read book is Dialectic of Enlightenment

I think Carlyle was stupid

brainlet cope
as the other user said symbolic exchange, impossible exchange, seduction, etc was, for a time, Baudrillard's alternative. But Baudrillard does not really see certain periods in time and certain cultures as being true examples of symbolic exchange. Symbolic exchange is a hypothesis and a myth, first and foremost; he is not proposing we return to feudal social systems, or primitive social systems, or anything like that. Bringing the symbolic back into our world does not mean nostalgically returning back to some older traditional society (which likely never really existed in the first place), it means adopting the forms of the symbolic in the present.

So does that mean you like it or not?

youtube.com/watch?v=qs1ZL3yVbOI

The time will come brotha

You fell into the fake deep shit. Edgy talk from someone who surface level reads

I want to rape Deleuze in his cute ableistic mouth