In 1967 Theodor Adorno gave a lecture on right-wing extremism at the University of Vienna. It has now been translated to English. ITT we try to understand wtf he's saying. Be warned, it's a clusterfuck. If you thought Jordan B Peterson was word salad you've seen nothing yet.
Adorno was a stupid plant who got stuck on neokantianism and forgot to read anything and everything after them.
00
Anonymous06/11/26(Thu)17:45:45
>>25335368(OP) reading through this now. thanks for posting.
no thoughts yet, but this seemed interesting: >At the same time, however – and this touches on the antagonistic character of the new nationalism, or right-wing extremism – there is something fictitious about it if one looks at the grouping of the world of today into these few oversized blocs, where the individual nations and states really play only a secondary part. ... The individual nation’s freedom of movement is heavily restricted by its integration into the large power blocs. One should not, however, draw the primitive conclusion from this that, because it is now obsolete, nationalism no longer plays a significant role; on the contrary, it is very often the case that convictions and ideologies take on their demonic, their genuinely destructive character precisely when the objective situation has deprived them of substance. The witch trials, after all, took place not at the height of Thomism but during the Counter-Reformation, and something similar is probably the case with, if I may term it thus, the ‘pathic’ nationalism of today.
00
Anonymous06/11/26(Thu)17:51:10
>>25335400 >>25335368(OP) None of that came to pass. Philosophers are such jokes.
>>25335400 >One should not, however, draw the primitive conclusion from this that, because it is now obsolete, nationalism no longer plays a significant role; on the contrary, it is very often the case that convictions and ideologies take on their demonic, their genuinely destructive character precisely when the objective situation has deprived them of substance. This is an interesting perspective to consider now because right wing extremist terrorist networks on places like telegram have never been more radical in their ethnosupremacist and antifeminist ideology while also being comprised of mixed race teenagers born in the 2000's who have only experienced a nominally post-national and post-feminist world. "Demonic" is a good choice of words here because as these ideas have been condensed into symbols they have literally started to identify themselves with Satan.
I read some pages and to me what's interesting is that he says something about how power, or I guess he says capital but that's pretty much synonymous, gets centralized in society over time as a result of capitalism, and that this means strata of society that once had status lose it. I have for a long time been thinking about the concentration of power over time as a result of the progress of technology, and I think concentration of power is an inevitable consequence of the progress of technology. But it's a fucking word salad, just like his book Dialectic of Enlightenment. Kind of gave up on reading this lecture but maybe I'll keep trying.
>everyone who doesn't follow my ideology is an extremist
00
Anonymous06/11/26(Thu)19:08:33
>>25335400 >there is something fictitious about it if one looks at the grouping of the world of today into these few oversized blocs, where the individual nations and states really play only a secondary part. ... The individual nation’s freedom of movement is heavily restricted by its integration into the large power blocs Play a part into what? The greater order of the world? Right-wing people don't concern themselves with such a distant prospect (proven wrong countless time by the way, e.g. Vietnam, Egypt, Ukraine) but with immediate threat to their perceived national identity, i.e. immigration, multiculturalism, and so on. It's such a retarded take.