/lit/ - Literature

>>7871380
Enoch Powell's so-called "Rivers of Blood" speech is also an essential for all serious conservatives

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643823/Enoch-Powells-Rivers-of-Blood-speech.html

>>7275435
I think both the mainstream GOP and British Conservative Party are totally unprincipled materialists who are more concerned with things like economic growth and prosperity rather than culture and way-of-life, and in the age of globalisation they have radically opted for the first at the active expense of the second through uncontrolled mass immigration (which will ultimately destroy their political futures too).

But I don't think conservatism ought to be inherently anti-business. Burke had an instinctive dislike for the middle class because he resented his father who was a petite-bourgeois lawyer. Schmitt also seemed to hate the complacency of the middle class for personal reasons, coming from a relatively poor background. But on an intellectual level most conservatives since 1688 have really belonged to something like the "Court" ideology of post-revolutionary British politics, which combined a respect for crown authority and related institutions and a comfort with trade, commerce, credit, and the new "monied interests". Until the spread of actively radical or progressive politics, conservatism was really a passively progressive force that was comfortable with time doing its work, as opposed to a more reactionary, neo-Harringtonian "Country" ideology that yearned for an agrarian society that looked for the satisfation of abstract concepts like civic virtue, participation, and personal pursuit of the common good through things like equality in land ownership.

Smith, Burke, Tocqueville, Oakeshott, Schmitt, Hayek, and Powell are all quite comfortable with business. Hitchens is too, although he seems to make exceptions for the BBC and nationalised rail (he's actually quite critical of the NHS for example). The reason Hayek is so important is that he gives an exposition of free market belief that is based on the dimension of time working with choice to operate as a knowledge-gathering mechanism - much like time creates institutions, customs, and tradition in the culture.

I simply think that globalisation has led many materialist worms who care nothing of culture to label themselves conservative because they hate the radical economic program of the left while being totally blind to the social questions that are part-and-parcel with conservatism (and go with economic liberalism as saddle goes with horse, really).

Any good resources to find out what are the best new novels, /lit/? From what I've seen, the obvious places to go (Amazon and Goodreads) are filled to the brim with YA and feminist wish fulfillment.

>>6763167
Sorry for loving our nation, Raheem.

>>6731631
you're just a grumpy xenophobe get with the times m8 it's 2015 immgrants are a net gain and prop up the NHS no one wants your little englander opinions anymore m8 the world has changed get over it and vote green

>>6726372
A E S T H E T I C S

is it
B E C O M E V A P O R

the future

S P A C E D O U T L E T T E R S

now?

W I N D O W S 9 5

>>6693150

>>6683045
>no Cromwell
>no Powell

toplel

>>6670316
I'm not a Tory and I never have been. I'm a Kipper.

>>6657563
It's hard to believe that any sane, rational human being honestly endorses multiculturalism because its failure is so manifestly obvious and the logic underlying its promotion is so insanely retarded.

Unlike the other anon, however, I'm fully aware that some people are simply mentally ill and cannot reason tho.

>>6636367
Absolutely based. I admire Hayek's defence of traditional practices and institutions, even under the layers of autistic social theory he decides to bury it under, but I can never consider him a truly great conservative because he doesn't have the serious anti-modern streak that Colacho demonstrates here. I think all great conservatives have something anti-bourgeois in them, regardless of their social background.

I particularly like Carl Schmitt's portrait of modernity in an early commentary on the poetry of Theodor Daubler (sadly the poem and Schmitt's commentary are not available in full in English - this passage comes from the English translation of Heinrich Meier's sublime The Lesson of Carl Schmitt: Four Chapters on the Distinction between Political Theology and Political Philosophy):

>This age has characterized itself as the capitalistic, mechanistic, relativistic age, as the age of transport, of technology, of organization. Indeed, ‘business’ does seem to be its trademark, business as the superbly functioning means over the end, business which annihilates the individual such that everything must go smoothly and without any needless friction. The achievement of vast, material wealth, which arose from the general preoccupation with means and calculation, was strange. Men have become poor devils; ‘they know everything and believe nothing.’ They are interested in everything and are enthusiastic about nothing. They understand everything; their scholars register in history, in nature, in men’s own souls. They are judges of character, psychologists, and sociologists, and in the end they write a sociology of sociology. Wherever something does not go completely smoothly, an astute and deft analysis or a purposive organization is able to remedy the incommodity. Even the poor of this age, the wretched multitude, which is nothing but ‘a shadow that hobbles off to work,’ millions who yearn for freedom, prove themselves to be children of this spirit, which reduces everything to a formula of its consciousness and admits of no mysteries and no exuberance of the soul. They wanted a heaven on earth, heaven as the result of trade and industry, a heaven that is really supposed to be here on earth, in Berlin, Paris, or New York, a heaven with swimming facilities, automobiles, and club chairs, a heaven in which the holy book would be the timetable. They did not want a God of love and grace; they had ‘made’ so much that was astonishing; why should they not ‘make’ the tower of an earthly heaven? After all, the most important and last things had already been secularized. Right had become might; loyalty, calculability; truth, generally acknowledged correctness; beauty, good taste; Christianity, a pacifist organization. A general substitution and forgery of values dominated their souls. A sublimely differentiated usefulness and harmfulness took the place of the distinction between good and evil. The confounding was horrific.

>As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood."