/lit/ - Literature

>>23378992
I fully understand conservatism. It is an empty worldview that must scramble to collect any detritus that the progressive party forgets about and claim it as its own.

All that it preserves is GDP. It kills everything else and holds aloft its dead corpse. Nationalism, Family, ethnic-pride, heritage, all of it is ruined under it's aegis.

>>23233018
No, every single Western Conservative, Tory, Republican, Classical Liberal, whatever vague definition of slightly Center-Right you have, it is all the same. They have failed and have done for the last one hundred years.

You can cling to your dead values of free speech, tolerance, equality before the law, freedom of religion and all that shitwash and ignore that all it has accomplished is to welcome the outsider in to your home, to shit on your heritage and replace you demographically. Or you wake up and embrace some form of Quasi-Fascistic authoritarianism or we die. It is not a hard choice.

People became angry with the Modern Left when they began targeting children with LGBT issues, after gradually gaining acceptance in society. People are now realizing that everything the Far-Right said about them was true when did come for their kids.

The Right is not any better either.

>>23140019
>His most vocal critics are either keyboard nazis who condemn him for worshipping jews
We literally just want the same rights that Israel has. And a fraction of our own taxes that they are somehow entitled to.

>i think he's done more good than harm
All the small good he did was encouraging young men to better themselves and focus on improvement and healing. He has done done that in many years now, or when it is done it is strictly within narrow confines of be an island, don't unify with those suffering like you, don't draw strength and support from your ethnic cohorts.

Oh you're a jew? Yes, you can associate ethnically and kill those in your way. Give 'em hell, etc.

>>22741555
Literally true.

>Conservatism
>Traditionalism
>Modern Right-Wing
>American Politics

we need to fill our traditionalist manifesto with something
>whatever the modern left is doing, let us do that ten years later
so we're okay with gay interracial couples burning the flag in bondage gear while getting bummed in a main street?
>as long as there are no kids about
and the flag thing?
>we don't care about the flag, race and nation mean nothing to us
... okay
>and low taxes, taxes are theft and theft is untraditional unlike me who is traditional

>>21631906
Traditionalism is the same as Progressivism. Both are meaniness terms which have only one purpose, that is to signal to potential allies. For traditional values, slavery was traditional, violence as a means to settle any dispute, miscegenation too, farming and self-sufficiency were amongst the most traditional of acts and people. Hardwore, loyalty, bravery, none of these are traditional, just because the opposite side has gone off the reservation does not mean that the Right can lay claim to generic human traits that all people exhibit and celebrate.

There are no traditional values, nor progressive ones. Just wants you like

>>21621753
>but there is also a more true left-right distinction that one can use to easily identify left-leaning or right-leaning figures and societies.

No there is not. Almost all figures prior to the French revolution can be made left or right depending on what aspect one focuses on. The Left/Right political spectrum is utter garbage for any nuanced or serious political conversation because it always boils down to our side good, there side bad.

Democracy was a terrible idea.

>>21552744
>Ted has a problem with permissiveness because it is transient, unreliable, and hollow. For example, while you are theoretically "free" to speak your mind, it is merely because you have been given "permission" by 4chan and, by extension, the United States Government. I don't think you or I really believe that we have freedom of speech, but merely permission to speak. You raise a good point again, and that is "where does permissiveness begin and freedom end?"
My problem with this is freedom is transient, unreliable and especially hollow without a corresponding duty imposed on you by the State. I do not think natural rights and natural law is useful as from where Rights originate is not as important as how one maintain control of them. The State in this case being the Germanic Pre-WW2 concept, that it is a unique expression of the native peoples martial and political culture and entirely represented of a single ethnic group.

>Let's begin with something extreme: imagine there is only one single man left on earth. In Kaczynski's view, this man has ultimate freedom. He must receive permission from nothing at all to do anything, even if he must slave tirelessly every day to meet his physical needs. I don't think Kaczynski believes that it is possible to cultivate true freedom in the context of an actual society.
That would imply that at a to-be-determined point freedom becomes a terrible setback and would cause more of the problems that Kaczynski accurately diagnosed, mental anguish, etc. Where that point is does not matter to this discussion, but it factors in to the overall picture that the logical conclusion of his thought is ultimately damaging to the average man.

>The problem being that rules, duty, and obligation are absolutely and incontrovertibly necessary in any social interaction, whether unstated and unconscious or dictated and conscious. However, Kaczynski does seem to believe that it is possible to limit the power of individuals to enforce their will, primarily that of large organizations over the individual and small groups (such as tribes or families).
Kaczynski was not an average man and his mindset and mental facilities were so far above the typical man that he can not possibly abstract what the average man needs. Kaczynski appears to be able to operate without a cultural structure around him, as evidenced by his writings and his non-standard lifestyle. The average man needs a load to carry, he needs duty imposed on him, he needs to accomplish it (The Power Process accurate in so far as the work needs to have a tangible benefit, not just busy work) and above all he needs an interdependent culture and social group of similar people to interact with. Kaczynski having been abused and being far above these things could not have understood how important they are to maintaining a society.

Men will go to extraordinary lengths and endure incredible hardship if his family, and those like him, benefit from his actions.

I’ve only found this so far that talks about conservatives in the 19th century

It seems conservatives have been like this for a long time