I want to learn more about how power structures and how power works in society. I know nothing about philosophy. Should I just dive right into Foucault and Deleuze? What introductory books do you recommend?
I think Althussers On Reproduction might be your best bet, he knocks down a lot of other theories from a Marxist perspective. Deleuze is hard to read but if that interests you, go ahead, although Foucault might be better to read first. How do you lean politically?
I lean left. Chomsky got me interested in Anarchism, but I have yet to read much on Anarchism.
Some basic knowledge of sociology is needed.
You might as well want to read Althusser like user said. The text "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses" is a good start to familiarize yourself with a marxist approach to power and hegemony in a society.
The other approach would be the one developed by Weber, which you can read in the first pages of "Economy and Society" (basically he says that every power relations requires the complicity of the dominated, thus he places importance on legitimacy mechanisms and narratives that enable the powerful to extend their will to others, and dominate them). I don't remember the exact pages but I can link them to you later.
You would need both approaches to read Foucault. When you begin with him, I would recommend his college courses which are easier than his books. He has some courses that are specifically on power I think (I haven't read them all). Then, you can read "Discipline and punish" a really good book, and far more easier than it looks.
The posts above are very good recommendations. But I'll have to add that it's really worth being aquatinted with older, primarily Liberal theories of political power, particularly Hobbes, Rousseau, Machiavelli, Plato. You don't have to read them all the way through (though, if you're really interested, you absolutely must at some point), just enough to get what their basic frameworks are.
right here fam
So, if those stars of david weren't there Zig Forums would see that image as entirely meaningless.
yeah, if all of those were european flags pol would see no problem
you tryna pull some 'et tu' on me instead of addressing ethic representational disparities in corporate and political power fams?
thought this was supposed to be the intellectual board
Do corporations have far too much power in the United States? Does
the federal government ignore the interests of everyday people? The
great majority of Americans — 70 to 75 percent in some surveys — an-
swer "yes" to both questions. This book explains why their answers
are accurate even though there is freedom of speech, the possibility of
full political participation, and increasing equality of opportunity due
to the civil rights and women's movements. In other words, it attempts
to resolve a seeming paradox that has bedeviled social scientists and
political activists for a long time: How is it possible to have such ex-
treme corporate domination in a democratic country?
This paradox is made all the more striking because corporations
do not have as much power in most other democratic countries. The
wealth and income differences between people at the top and the bot-
tom are not as great, and the safety net for those who are poor, ill, or
elderly is stronger. Why does the richest nation in the world also have
the most poverty compared to any other democratic country?
Using a wide range of systematic empirical findings, this book
shows how the owners and top-level managers in large companies
work together to maintain themselves as the core of the dominant
power group. Their corporations, banks, and agribusinesses form a
corporate community that shapes the federal government on the policy
issues of interest to it, issues that have a major impact on the income,
job security, and well-being of most other Americans. At the same
time, there is competition within the corporate community for profit
opportunities, which can lead to highly visible policy conflicts among
rival corporate leaders that are sometimes fought out in Congress. Yet
the corporate community is cohesive on the policy issues that affect its
general welfare, which is often at stake when political challenges are
made by organized workers, liberals, or strong environmentalists.
Dunno why I bother but fuck it, here goes nothing.
How many of those people marked with the star are actual Jews and how many just happen to have some ancestry? How many of them actually practice the Yiddish faith? Now if the maker of the info graphic didn't have 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸ulterior motives🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸, most of those stars would be US flags, clearly showing the Anglo-Saxon global hegemony.
Also, yes, there is some truth that there are more rich Jews than other nationalities, but it is not because of some sort conspiracy, but because Catholics were spergs about giving loans, letting Jews have the monopoly on banking for a long time (while also making shit up about them because they didn't like paying interest).
I was implying that you guys were expected to be the intellectuals - I'm a simple, racist pleb trying to invite education and not a silly cop out like this one
Oh, you're simply objecting because you want to genocide a group of whites over a group of semites?
Americans are not white though
Back to your mongrel board you go
Engaging with and debunking every dumb jpg you guys circlejerk over isn't something I'm going to bother with. Maybe someone else wants the headache.
It's not even needed. As leftists, we oppose elite control over the economy and politics in general. The difference between us is that while we oppose them in general, you retards only seem to care about anything if it relates to "muh JEWS".
Americans are the core of White civilisation.
Lmao. Americans are the laughing stock of "white civilization". Most white people outside of the US think Americans are fucking retarded.
t. white European
You are some sort of new breed of Zig Forumsyp.
What makes you white, was the dog you have bred in Germany or are you one of those super rare 1% Irish, 20% Black African and 79% McDonald grease mongrels?
That kinda contradicts the idea of an "Anglo-Saxon global hegemony" then, doesn't it champ?
Are NXIVM jews?
Or the CFR?
Or the multilateral development banks?
Or the senior figures of the EU?
Or the people pushing intersectionality?
better yet don't answer those lol
Don't know - don't care. All I know is that you're constantly reeeeing about muh jews.
Getting a flag to distinguish myself from that silly American
I've already explained my position on power networks, and why focusing on the jews alone is unnecessesary and autistic:
Such a cyclical thought process that I'm starting to get dizzy just reading it
But OP, since I want you to learn too, here is some material to get you started - the first couple of works are fairly short, they should only take an evening or two.
No wonder, since you can't read. You're not even making any sense anymore.
We don't care whether the ethnic makeup of the Bilderberg group is 100% jewish, white, black, or satanic demonspawn or whatever the fuck. We are against elite oligarchic control of the economy and politics IN GENERAL.
Your position and focus on the jews' representation specifically however, implies that the Bilderberg group would be a-okay if only there were less Jewish members and more white members. If it were up to me, the entire group and all similar ones would be forcibly dissolved, regardless of its ethnic composition.
Such a wild strawman that you can't see the forest for all the scarecrows.
Unrelated, but another book for OP to look at.
What's your point then?
Didn't think I'd have to clarify such a simple and easily-digestible point, but since you're at least somewhat willing to listen, 'the opposite of those 3 memetext lines just above'.
Sorry if it offends your outstanding intellect and makes your humongous frontal cortex throb in frustration, but what i meant was not "what was the point of your post", but rather "what's the forest we're supposedly missing". What exactly is the point of painting an ethnic background to the ruling class other than to say "well, technically there are a lot of Jews in banking, so *wink wink* you know…"? I hate to repeat the other user's point, but ruthless nepotism isn't a trait inherent to any specific ethnicity, only to the possession of power itself. So, ironically, focusing on ethnicity to analyze 'power structures' like OP wants only leads you to who owns that power and other miscellaneous meaningless data rather than the power structures themselves.
The answer was one and the same, if you'd bothered to follow the conversation back a few posts.
If you will so willingly dismiss the entire historical, biological and cultural contexts behind those who occupy power because you somehow see them as entirely incongruent issues, then you are at massive odds with the user you are referencing, who can't wait to carry out his genocidal fantasies against Anglo-Saxon whites.
It kind of reminds me of something…
Fash: look its jews
Leftists: its actually not even Jews buy who cares who it is. We should abolish class divisions by taking the property of the owning class and then it will be nobody.
Fash knuckle brains: so you want to genocide the white mans!
take a DNA test, mongrel.
Yes, the situation may appear as such to those with the reading comprehension of a small child.
I mean… enlighten me dipshit.
Dont front dig in.
You aren't helping yourself, sonny.
YOU NEED TO GO BACK BOOMER!
Anyways, anybody got a pdf of that Althusser book?
I'm not American or white. What makes Americans the foremost whites is both the racial ideology that is more strongly cultivated in their country than anywhere else in the White world, and their leadership in the wars and schemes for securing the (decaying) power of whites in the world.
If the US ceased to exist, the remaining whites would exist to a world order where, incidentally, whites would be amongst none of the most powerful peoples.
Also Americans look whiter than Iberians.
generally what makes people white is how white they are/look
is the sua the last bastion of the white race or is its halls of power overrun by jews? make your mind up
Americans are/look white, but also lead White civilisation.
It is the seat of power of the White race. I would not say last bastion, as Whites still exist in Europe as well. I'm not the one who believes Jews control the world.
Why did you let the Zig Forumstard divert a potentially interesting thread?
"white" isn't an identity anywhere esle in the world you fucking subhuman, Americans literally invented "whiteness" so the irish and the english could hate niggers more, there's nothing more to it
just look at classic victorian race theory, the anglos literally called the irish "hiberno-negroes" fam.
We seriously need a /pol containment thread. I have fun once in a while debating with them; some of them may actually become communists after some redpilling about capitalism. But they're ruining good threads. Just make a /pol containment thread like we have an incel containment thread and that's it.
This. I'd definitely love to learn more about Deleuze and his ideas. I only know a little from watching cuckphilosophy's video about societies of control and that Zizek thought that D&G were wrong.
I gave OP more recs than any of you clowns.
I only count 3 authors in there bro.
And that's the (other) best effort in the thread.
wtf brainlet, where is the contradiction ?
are merkel, macron and Juncker jews now ?
fuck our mods are slow to ban polyps
The Irish aren't white, everyone knows that.
Whiteness does emanate from the Anglo-Saxon world, but Anglo-Saxons being one the most powerful nations in the world, it drives their support in world politics towards others whom they consider White.
Can't believe I'm still wasting my time here
No, but he did work for Rothschild & Cie Banque
Not as far as I know
But since you're so concerned with elected figureheads and not of the revolving doors that exist away from the ballot box, I suppose we'll just pretend that people like Martin Schulz, Moshe Kantor, Jacob Frenkel and Peter Mandelson don't exist, as well as every other institution I mentioned that you conveniently left out of your quote.
No wonder your 'revolutions' have served absolutely 0 positive net impact on the world and have done nothing to prevent an abusive Bourgeoisie from forming or perpetuating it's already extant state; beyond 'muh wage surplus', you people understand absolutely nothing of the powers at play.
And that is why, like for the last 152 years, you will continue to lose.