>publish they're schizophrenic shitposts>suddenly become academic superstarsWhat gives?
>>25016420im more shocked such writings used to get popular once. No way anyone would read this gibberish these days especially in university.
>>25016599in french the only country in the world with real higher education they would
>>25016638Francophiles are so unbelievably cringe.
>>25016420We're not allowed to tell the truth anymore.
>>25016420>I had a rhizome once.>it broke but it still kept growing.>Don't ask. The plumbing in my cave isn't the best but it found some more essence somewhere. You guys have any essence yet?
>>25016420Post-68 propaganda
>>25016599>Deleuze's work is frequently cited in English-speaking academia (in 2007, e.g., he was the 11th most frequently cited author in English-speaking publications in the humanities, between Freud and Kant).[66]
>>25016420
>>25016420I understand stand why pol.pot killed academic subhumans desu
>>25016420The only leftists to understand that the potential for fascism resides within everyone, and that it isn’t just something you call someone you disagree with. I also think they have some pretty unique and useful concepts in their ontology, although it doesn’t lend itself well to revolutionary praxis.
>>25016420They were the FIRST schizophrenic shitposters. Nobody was doing it before Deleuze and Guattari. They had first-mover advantage. Many such cases.
>>25016420who up deterritorializing and shit?
>>25016644This board is full of them it seems. every fucking day I have some twink pushing the French language on me.
>>25017504No that was Burroughs. Before that Lautremont.
>>25017485>fascism badEveryone keeps parroting this line, but I am yet to hear a convincing argument as to why.
>>25017135Someone get this man 30 cc of essence! He's confused about being! You're going to make it to notion.
>>25017719Every country that's tried it, without a single exception, completely shat the bed within thirty years.
>>25017831You see, this is such a common turn for these discussions to make, because the conversation arbitrarily switches between 2 topics, or two different definitions of fascism.I'd like to make 2 points:Hitler's Germany doesn't count, because it's not the system that failed, they were defeated in wartime. And second: is the conversation about historical Fascism eg. Franco's Spain, or is it about the political developments in eg the US, which are often called 'fascist'? There's a lot of difference. By that last reasoning, the CCP with it's inspiration drawn from the likes of Carl Schmitt, are a fascist state.
>>25017844You're talking about China from 50 or 60 years ago. Everyone is aware you won't leave your bubble. Get back to trying to find a tradition.
>>25017844>Hitler's Germany doesn't count, because it's not the system that failed, they were defeated in wartime.They were defeated because of stupid (in fact, insane) military decisions made through the Führerprinzip in accordance with the culture of militarism and exterminationism that pervaded Nazi Germany. It was an inevitable product of the psychology of German fascism and the absence of checks on executive power.>the CCP with it's inspiration drawn from the likes of Carl Schmitt, are a fascist state.That's reasonable yeah, China is probably the closest thing to a successful fascist state. Certainly fascist-adjacent anyway.
>>25017848Why are you mad? I didn't take an antagonizing position in my last post. If I'm wrong about China, I'm honestly curious to know how it is different now. And I also really want to know what it means when current politicians or political develoments are called 'fascist'. Generally you hear 'authoritarianism, restriction of the press freedoms, xenophobia, etc.' but if this were so, the soviet union was fascist (authoritarianism), and so is China (xenophobic)
>>25017861You're the one making the assumption of any emotions. If you want to know so badly then research it. You can classify whatever as whatever you want. If you have to ask then you must be doing it wrong.
>>25017719Academia has been captured. Any arguments to the contrary get shut down with seconds, because all politics is sentimentalism. Hume called three centuries ago.
>>25017869>calledcalled it*
>>25017852>They were defeated because of stupid (in fact, insane) military decisionsEh, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that they were defeated because they had no acces to oil PLUS what you were saying about the insane military decisions? If they'd been able to secure those oil-reserves in the caucasus they would have been indestructable. But on the other hand yes, if the führerprinzip wasn't there, there probably would have come a consensus to seek peace (which is what would have happened if they managed to assassinate Hitler). But I find it hard to call this a failing of fascism per se, because wartime is not the same as peace time. Like I said, if Germany had oil and other resources they probably would have been unstoppable. If the US at that time didn't have acces to massive resources, they wouldn't have been able to deliver that defeating blow. So is it really a question of politics in this case, or is it a question of geography?>>25017864>You're the one making the assumption of any emotions.You began insulting me by calling me a traditionalist for no good reason.>>25017864>If you want to know so badly then research itthen why bother responding in the first place dumb fucking faggot?>>25017864>If you have to ask then you must be doing it wrong.you have to go back.
>>25016638Not even the French take French higher ed seriously at the moment, just because they think it's better than Anglophones doesn't mean they're happy with the state of if
>>25017872>oof missed essence and still confused about being Fascist to tranny pipeline.
>>25017883
