Benjamin vs Adorno and Debord

Debord, guy came up with the be-all end all description of late capitalism, became so blackpilled through his own theories that he punched the ticket, based if you ask me.

*ahem*

fuck marxists

BBRAAPPP

Benjamin = bigwit
Adorno = midwit
Debord = dimwit

all of those thinkers are examples of an aestheticised western marxism that ironically owes way more to reactionary criticism of modernity than to actual progressive values. Perfect to intellectualise the shapeless sense of dread of a white middle class academic, in the end it is just a means to avoid moral responsibility and engagement to justify passivity and castles in the air over real world activism.

we need to create castles in the air that everyone else wants in on. the future will be a synthesis of adorno and guenon.

He was a CIA agent meant to create misinformation and destroy marxism. The (((frankfurt school))) and (((cultural marxism))) were bourgeois plots to try to distract people from focusing on material and revolutionary analysis by emphasising cultural and identity issues. It worked spectacularly which is why the only "leftists" you see today are purple haired SJW trannies screeching about "muh privilege"

Adorno, but I'd rather not be a depressed sack of shit so I'll just pretend Benjamin is right

Adorno was 100% absolutely right when taken on his own terms he says that Benjamin's thinking is completely undialectic and more poetic, mystic, and aesthetic. If one says Adorno's own writings offer no solutions then Benjamin's writings are like anti-solutions, including and especially his political works like that Reproduction "essay".

Of course that's not how you should read him. I think it's a work of art itself to see how Benjamin approaches other authors in his literary "criticism"; never head on, always dancing with the text, until he delivers a series of unrelenting blows to your cognition and sense of being-in-the-world so to speak that really I haven't recovered from to this day. Really that's peak German writing, Adorno does the same thing but not with hip modernist artists other than with like Alban Berg which you'll need half a dozen courses in music theory to get anyway

Fourier-Adorno-Guenon
“Love in the Phalanstery is no longer, as it is with us, a recreation which detracts from work; on the contrary it is the soul and the vehicle, the mainspring, of all works and of the whole of universal attraction.”

Attached: fourier_a.jpg (450x200, 24K)

Jews hate you and want to destroy everything pure and beautiful in this world. Stop reading Jews.

Walter Benjamin's arcade's project contains within it the master plan of the marxo-kabbalist ZOG esoteric elite rebbes, we ought to read benjamin precisely because we need to understand what goes on the twisted mind of the enemy. or else we face defeat, comrade.

If you have already read your D'Annunzio and Junger, your Spengler, your Schmitt and your Heidegger, and Mishima, if you have read SIEGE and watched every single thing sam hyde has ever put out, if you have studied the esoteric hitlerist doctrines of Francis Parker Yockey, Von Lebenfels, Savitri Devi, and last but not least Don Miguel Serrano, if you are into nazi uniforms, and the ideal of unapologetic masculinity and comradeship expressed in the best of Nazi Art,if you are fascinated serial killers, sex crimes(rape specially) terrorist groups and , doomsday cults. if you have heard the call of the Black Sun and the light of its inexistance and taken the left hand path with the order of Nine angles, culled an odd samaritan and resolved to await awaitingly the coming of ''The Vindex'', then the next step is benjamin.

>post facto bullshit
cringe

Debord still supported situationists and those guys are extremely bluepilled.

faggot

I'm getting really tired of this misinformation /pol/ is spreading.

shut up peepeeson

How did the Frankfurt School become such a boogeyman? The wacky theories don't match up with anything I've read in Adorno, Horkheimer, Benjamin, etc.

By not reading them+CIA psyop

Benjamin. Adorno and Debord underestimate commodity fetishism. Benjamin is also right about history

Misinformation is typically coherent, intelligible. This is just schizo posting

I wrote my thesis on Benji, AMA

What was he getting at with divine violence in the Critique of Violence?
Also, could you easily sum up his views on idleness and flaneurs?

ooked

>What was he getting at with divine violence in the Critique of Violence?
This, ironically, is actually the one text of Benji's I haven't studied in-depth. As far as I can tell however, is that it's focused on the relationship between the state's monopolization of violence, and how its at odds with justice, particularly the basic injustice between an individual and the state itself. "Violence, when not in the hands of the law, threatens [the law] not by the ends it may pursue but by its mere existence outside the law.” Divine Violence is the individual's seizing of existence exterior to State Law, in that the individual is creating power, a new zone of power, for himself. State Law, in contrast, is for the sake of the preservation of that state, is necessarily defensive, maintains relationships of power; Divine Violence, as far as I understand it, therefore is tangled up with the undermining of that paradigm.

Zizek talks about it as a means for the repressed to, essentially, lash out on an almost ontological level. That is, in Zizek's interpretation, Divine Violence has little to nothing to do with pragmatic political upheaval. He often talks about how the Palestinians attack, violently and randomly, Israeli citizens. Zizek says the act is almost outside of the realm of morality--the violence itself can be dismissed as immoral, but what it represents, what it's actually saying, is lashing out against the unbearable existence of that power structure--and that this lashing out itself cannot be judged. But that's Zizek's interpretation.

That essay has an awful, awful lot to do with Kant's theories of violence, the state, morality. That was earlier in Benji's career, before he had really sat down and read Marx or Hegel, and still considered himself basically a Kantian. Not to say that it undermines the essay's influence on the rest of his work, but rather that it's operating on a different mode. So if you know your Kant, take a crack at it.

I'll try and sum of his theory of the flaneur in a bit, I've gotta shower first.

Ahah

So Benji's theory of the flaneur requires some context: Benji's ultimate project, in my reading, was to articulate a wholly new and modern mode of analysis fit for modern conditions. He felt that each era and each place deserved its own particular mode of interpretation, in a sort of Hegelian sense (in this way, lumping him in with PoMo philosophers is kinda false). He felt early on that systematic thinking obscured its object, particularly in the context of history. This anxiety of Benji's paralleled/accented his general theory of experience and its decline (most explicit in his "Storyteller" and Baudelaire essays) from that of a self-contained, unified, (poorly translated as) Long Experience, wherein one's life felt, well, as a single experience that durated over time. Modern capitalism, along with the invention of the newspaper, radio, video, had started to render one's life into a series of "shocks," disorganized and alien, never fully entering into one's life.

Benjamin saw the flaneur as, among other things, a type of person best suited to articulate a new fulfilling way of modern experience. His attempts at imitating the flaneur can be see in his "One Way Street," as well as his collaborator Franz Hessel's "Walking in Berlin." Luc Sante's "The Other Side of Paris" has a great section that frankly very heavily aligns with Benji's own opinions:

"Among the intuitive stretches required of the flaneur is a lively belief in ghosts that does not particularly assume a belief in the supernatural. The past is always present, if someties in the way of those movie spirits who can be seen in the room but not in the mirror, or vice versa. All the tyrants and landowners and monopolists in vain set their shoulders to bulldoze the past out of existence, but it stubbornly remains, sometimes in the most indefinable and evanescent way and sometimes as a bad conscience."

Benji's similar take:
"The grand reminiscences, the tremors of history--for the true flaneur, these are rubbish to be left behind fotrtourists. And he will give up all of his knowledge of artists' abodes, birthplaces, or princely domiciles for the whiff of a single threshold or the touch of a lone tile of the sort any housedog might come along and carry away."

Paramount in Benji's theory of experience is that genuine experience, and indeed history itself, must be sniffed out in the smallest of objects that can sneak by undetected by one's understanding of the world--that is, one's instantaneous ideological position, wherein one automatically takes things, such as political progress, linear progression through time, systematic relations between things, as a given. This is where Debord and his ilk pick up on Benji in terms of detourment and dérive. The flaneur stood for Benji as a kind of instructor of how to relate to and interpret the world at large today. The Arcades Project can be read (in one way) as an attempt to apply flaneur experience to literature.

Thanks! great responses, I'll be sure to look into him more (wasn't aware of the Kantian influence).

How is it misinformation? They literally say in their religious texts that all non-Jews are cattle and that you should intentionally lie to them as much as possible.

>He was a CIA agent

lmao

You're a silly person.

Good rebuttal Shlomo

''marxism'' like ''classical liberalism'' is obviously just a jewish tribal strategy meant to stop whites from radicalising and embracing pro white identity politics.

>its all about the joos
Here's the one-dimensional man we were warned about.

What for?

You forgot capitalism, christianity, evolution, genetics, Nietszche, writing, agriculture and birds. All those are jewish plots, do you think dinosaurs changed into little feathery things for no reason? Please.

No worries. But yeah, he started off as a huge Kantian--it's how he and Gershom Scholem became friends basically, their love of Kant. The influence remains til the end, where Benji basically wants to restore antinomies in the face of Hegelian dialectics. There's an enduring debate among Benji scholars if he's more of a Kantian or Hegelian or Marxist or mystic. It's weird.

If you wanna read more, I'd say crack open "One Way Street," the recent NYRB:C "The Storyteller and other essays" collection and *especially* the Michael Jennings edited "Writer of Modern Life: Essays on Charles Baudelaire." You need the Baudelaire essays if you ever feel like reading the Arcades Project.

I find Illuminations and Reflections kinda haphazardly made collections. But really avoid the "One Way Street and other writings" collection, it's poorly chosen and put together.

Blame Breivik.

tick tock, 110

Adorno is in the right, at least in this pic.

Attached: 1483318472309.jpg (576x436, 57K)