/lit/ - Literature

lol bonald

bonald blumpfkin.

bonald "brapp" blumpfkin

>>11575564
What's wrong with Bonald?

>>11575534
eh... you said comrade.
Nice try, commie

Your last nth threads were deleted for a reason. Take a fucking hint.

>>11576090
Cringe and blue pilled.

>>11575534
>Konservative Revolution

The Nazis were gay, but by God they were correct to execute those autistic faggots.

>>11575534
Conserve what? the west has become an abomination

Evelyn Waugh - Brideshead Revisited

>>11576608
Sure, but so? Conservatism as the term was originally used in politics (first use of it to describe a political camp was in France) meant those in favor if a drastic restoration. To conservative society, just like a human life, sometimes chemo is needed.

>>11576090
In point of fact they were not, just the one. My thread on Hegel and conservatism, my thread on realism vs liberalism, my thread on the Generative Principle of Political Constitutions, and my thread on the Rights of Man (which I argued against), all stayed up.

>>11576492
Yes, mom.

>>11577372
It must be a good feeling.

>>11577384
None them really generated interesting discussion except the Hegel one. I don't think anyone else posting in the Rights of Man thread had even read the work! Unfortunately.

>>11577400
I guess if people just read and don't respond to work, it's pointless.

To the liberals in this thread: Tell me why are you are obsessed with making peasants care about society, politics, social norms and rulemaking.

>>11577416
We really don't care, just bored bemusement.

>>11577408
Hahaha, well I think the problem is that this board has a rather narrow number of works it discusses and are widely read. For example a lot of people here read Nietzsche, but every time Schopenhauer is discussed, the only thing posters talk about is his sexism. This I think is too bad, since Schopenhauer is not only a lucid and fascinating philosopher (apart from his tedious salt toward Hegel), but Nietzsche is, imho, best understood as a response to Schopenhauer, and reading the former without the latter inevitability leads to misunderstanding Nietzsche not as a man who is offering a way to confront the pain and grief of existence, but someone just saying, "A badass will man up and not be a basedboy fag."

Bump

>>11577372
>In point of fact
Cringe

>>11577372
Absolutely based

>>11577925
You seem a tad exacting for this site. Are you grading my posts, or something?

>>11577959
Just say actually you fag. You're not impressing anyone.

>>11577983
Don't you think you're being a little upright?

>>11578025
Yes.

>>11578029
Here

https://youtube.com/watch?v=tSsiS-v6_6M

>>11578041
t-thanks

>>11575534
I love these threads. All the identity politics, neomarxists, queer theorists, postmodernists, progressives, intersectionality, critical theory, leftist faggots go bezerk.

>>11578056
:)

>>11578080
Maybe so but don't try to bait them, since piss and vinegar detracts from thread quality

>>11578080
Ahhh Peterson you've arrived.

>>11577416
>peasants

You really are just a gang of medieval LARPErs huh

>>11578109
Medieval LARP'ers can play an important part in real world politics. See Benjamin Disraeli, for example, a self-professed "feudalist"

>>11575534
Thanks for the recommendations. Its hard to care about conservatism when living in the UK since we are so far gone from anything resembling a conservative state but it would be interesting to review the works of old.

>>11578132
Rees-Mogg makes me hopeful, but yeah, it's easier as an American since we have the Bible Belt

>>11578168
Americans are lucky their country hasn't gone to complete shit and good pockets remain. No where in England remains untouched by the left wing hordes. Unfortunately I personally wouldn't be willing to vote for Rees-Mogg after his comments about Enoch Powell, although since i'm not in his electorate my vote is irrelevant anyway.

I will never understand why reddit nerds like you would rather try to fit in narrow definitions of masculinity and morality than look for psychological help for your social alienation and crippling depression.

>>11578279
Nice projecting there tumblr.

>>11575534
Anything by Peter Hitchens

>>11578244
Rees-Mogg is not going to do well if he didn't give an opinionated stance against Enoch Powell, not in your country. That he goes as far as he does is shocking. His criticism of Powell should be seen in the same light as Obama originally opposing same-sex marriage: a political gesture to reassure, not an indication of actual policy.

>>11578279
What do you mean?

>>11578457
He's excellent

>>11577372
>Hegel and conservatism
Oh god I remember that thread and it was fucking cringey. Your thread should be banned desu

>>11578552
Not him, but why these of all threads?
I remember his thread on Burke vs Paine's Rights of Man being an attempt to actually have a decent discussion on a board now plagued by memeing.

>>11577372
You should make some more threads really. I wouldn't mind seeing the Hegel thread again honestly.

>>11578552
Sorry you didn't like it. Any suggestions for improving my OP's?

>>11578621
Happy you liked it. I would like to do a Carl Schmitt reading club, but I dunno is there is a ton of interest in that.

>>11579349
Welllll I would become obnoxious if I posted more threads than I do, since /lit/ is about books in general, not just conservatism. Also there is quite enough to conservative theory for me to make new threads with, I don't need to clone old ones for material (thankfully)

Unironic nationalists (and euro conservatives in general) are cringe af.

>>11579652
Why?

>>11577384
toyota

>>11579652
Show your flag, Schlomo.

>>11579652
*snap* Cringe and bluepilled.

>>11579849
>>11579849
>>11579862
Please don't do this, it detracts from thread quality.

>>11579890
Yeah, and so does the fucking original post in the chain.

>>11579962
Correct, but he's a pinko, that might be the point

>>11579843
Economic illiteracy, mixing metaphysics with politics, naive belief in benevolent political authority, fetishisizing religion, allergy to evolutionary psychology, putting too much faith in abstract concepts, pretentiousness, the jaded, no-fun attitude.

>>11579987
But I think the point everyone else has been making is that there is a need to call these >>11580008 sort of posters out on their need and desire to come and make cringe inducing posts in right-wing threads.

>>11579652
t.

>>11580008
1. Explain
2. So?
3. How?
4. Is this a barbed way of saying "being religious"?
5. Some of us in fact use it too much
6. Have you read Burke?
7. Fair
8. Aren't you being a bit jaded and no-fun yourself right now?

>>11580044
>there is a need
Not really. Doing so doesn't help, it just pushes the thread toward a shitposting tailspin. But if you feel compelled to do so anyway, at least do so in manner which is not detrimental to thread quality. In fact, be uplifting where possible

>>11580008
fucking cuck. We're against women and nonwhites and for white nationalism and masculinity. Fuck off to tumblr. This place is for real men

Hate the dismissive bs in these threads.
>hurr da conservatards don't have no fun
>hurr conservatards are libertarian capitalists
>hurr dey are so pretentious
>hurr dey believe in God lolololol
OP do you have any decent parts of the internet or at least a good chart showing how to get into conservative lit?

>>11580100
Please don't do this. If you are strongly against conservativism, offer constructive criticism. Even if such dialogue changes no one's position, it is more interesting and fulfilling for all involved. Don't forget that this is your board too, don't you want to improve it?

>>11580102
I made this one

Here is a site you might enjoy

http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org

>>11575534
The C.S. Lewis and Scruton recommendations are spot on. Both well worth the time to read them.

>>11576608
To paraphrase Edmund Burke, if you find your current surroundings or the previous generation to be less than desirable, find the last time there WAS something worth conserving, and pursue that spirit in your social and political aims. You're looking at this way too literally.

>>11580008
Too much here to be dealt with seriously, but you really do sound insufferable

>>11580067
1- they hate both communism and capitalism. They offer moral/metaphysical critiques of both but not economic ones. They refuse to argue on the proper plain of discussion. Dismissing economics doesn't make material scarcity go away. They refuse to believe that man is selfish by nature, and thus think that with the proper spiritual training and social engineering material self interest will just go away.
2- metaphysics is unfalsifiable. It's something you dwell upon in the privacy of your library, not build society upon.
3- they believe that proper hierarchies can order society aright, which, while true to a certain extent true, is silly when uncoupled with a skepticism of authority. In politics it's the brutes and boot lickers that make it to the top, not the introspective men of character.
4- too complex to get into on 4chan
5- some, but many don't. Evola/guenon fags and their ilk openly reject the idea that man is an intelligent monkey. They reject all evolutionary explanations of religion and spirituality. I'm not talking about the race realists here.
6- funny thing is yes, i did, and he was guilty of this too, though to a lesser degree than his opponents.
8- no i'm just tired.

>>11580193
1. Are you familiar with Karl Polanyi?
2. You do realize conservatism started as a reaction *against* theoretical ideology as a basis for society?
3. No conservative ever claimed we live in a moralocracy
5. Not conservatives

>>11580221
I think we're on different pages here. I lump traditionalists, the de maistre, and eliade types all in the same category, along with the more mainstream conservatives. You can argue that they're different from each other, which is true, but they're not really that different. They share the same outlook, the same mentality, the same guiding intuitions. No conservative had ever claimed we live in a moralocracy; true enough, but that's what the conservative vision, both implicitly and often explicitly, aims at, namely, the establishment of a moralocracy.
Anyway Polanyi is a joke:
https://mises.org/library/down-primitivism-thorough-critique-polanyi

>>11580117
so fuckin boring

>>11580342
Holy shit Conservatives BTFO'd!

>>11580324
Maistre, Bonald, Donoso Cortes, etc are *certainly* conservatives, the first two practically defined it (along with Burke), and the third was a fundamental influence on Carl Schmitt. Evola and Guenon are not conservatives, however. They do not share the same outlook at all, Joseph de Maistre has more in common with Machiavelli, Hobbes and Hume (whom he lavishly praises, despite all three being evidently atheists) than Evola.

Conservatism has never aimed at a moralcracy. Either the people are moral, or they are not. The more they are, the more liberty flourishes. The less they are, the more the jackboot is needed to hold society together. This how things work.

If you're a fan of the Austrian School, I suggest you check out Hoppe's lecture on feudalism and the natural order

https://mises.org/library/6-production-law-and-order-natural-order-feudalism-and-federalism

>>11580067
>1.
Rightwingers refuse to accept the proven fact that a centralized planned economy with state ownership of all industries has time and time again proven to create utopias.
>2.
Conservative Nazis reject the valid scientific materialist observation that there are billions of genders and men and women are not defined by their stupid chromosomes.
>3.
Republicans refused to bow before the Obamessiah PBUH and Her. Pizzagate is an insane conspiracy theory hoax propagated by Russian hackers trying to undermine the Establishment.
>4.
Stupid Christians in their bigoted Islamophobia fail to honor the Prophet Muhammad and Islam and recognize that #NotAllMuslims bomb people and behead people in the streets. We must defend Islam from this hatred at any cost.
>5.
Rightwingers simply don't understand that morality is derived from biological evolution. Populations derived their moral codes from the long process whereby societies with self-destructive worldviews failed to reproduce or compete against other societies and gradually weeded themselves out of existence, thereby giving rise to ideas such as Socialism. Sorry I have a lot of thoughts on this but I can't explain further because I have to drive my girlfriend to the abortion clinic in a few minutes.
>6.
They have false consciousness resulting from not understanding that world Communism is inevitable.
>7.
Righties are anti-intellectual, stupid, reactionary, inbred hillbilly rednecks, unlike sophisticated, well-educated, urbane revolutionaries such as myself.
>8.
Everything must be subsumed to my ideology. All media must forever be constant politics in order to effect social change, which is the goal of everything.

>>11580555
Wow, so this is the power of /leftypol/?

>>11575534
>be conservative
>most conservatives are morons
>become leftist
>all leftists are morons
>become conservative again
>mfw

It's better than nothing

>>11580555
I thought this was satire but I'm not sure so I'll give it a (you) and call you a retard

>>11580193
>metaphysics is unfalsifiable
fuck off lawrence krauss

read mcluhan desu

>>11580680
This was my experience too.

>>11580555
Ya got me

>>11582012
It's satire. Or more just goofposting

>>11580680
>>11582928
>It is another morons reject ideology solely due to its adherents episodes
You people are retards for treating it like a religion.

>>11583012
It often has been. USSR banned genetic research because of communist dogma. Trying to pretend ideology and religion are radically different is secular special pleading

>>11580193
>metaphysics is unfalsifiable
Holy shit lol

>>11583043
>USSR banned genetic research
How is this non-sequitur an argument? I am criticizing how people approach ideology as if it were a religion, judging its merit based on the behavior of its adherents instead of based on how well the ideology describes reality.

>>11583066
Not sure your point is valid unless you're also saying religion shouldn't be judged by adherents

>>11583130
No i am saying religion should be judged by adherents. Unlike ideology, it provides a reward/punishment system for its followers.

>>11583195
Parties do that as well

>>11580117
Whoa, a pile of unsorted books. Not very enticing. You need to pare this down, or make a flowchart.
Also what is the best analysis of family? On Divorce, as OP said?

>>11583239
So the fuck what? Again how is this non-sequitur an argument?

>>11583290
Political positions and ideologies are ultimately nothing but different camps who "decides", what faction gets the power to make political decisions. If anything, the quality of the adherents is even more important than in religion.

>>11583275
Natural Family for simple, On Divorce (which inspired Natural Family) for complex

>>11583308
But as you blatantly admitted, parties are a vehicle to power to implement ideologies, hence it provide a reward/punishment to pursue said power. But ideologies itself are merely ways to describe reality, with no reward/punishment system. Marx didn't say the poor have nothing to lose but chains, and those who leads go to Marx-heaven.

Basing its validity on what its adherents is reducing it to petty tribalism. And just because political parties do engage in tribalism doesn't suddenly make it less retarded.

>>11583341
>But ideologies itself are merely ways to describe reality,
No, that's philosophy. Ideologies are factions. Marxism as an ideology (Communist Manifesto) about advocating a certain faction (in theory the proles in toto, but in Leninism and in practice, the Vanguard Party).

>>11583341
Forgot to add that I am not saying that you can't say "Xists are meanies :(, so I want Xists in power." but instead "Xists are meanies :(, therefore X is wrong and must be rejected."

>>11583374
>so I want
so I don't want

>>11583374
Still stuck is a liberal mindset, thinking that politics is about "dialogue" and not about one will imposing itself on another

>>11583373
No it isn't. It is a collection of normative beliefs and values, it is how people uses it to change the world for personal or communal benefits. Marxism identified a problem of capitalism and advocating a solution of proles taking over, but offers the reader no personal incentive to do anything. It is the Leninists, Maoists, labor parties etc etc who uses Marxism to achieve power to implement changes to benefit themselves, but their conduct shouldn't be used to question its validity. Instead Marxism (and Conservationism)'s validity should be gauged on the basis of its collection of normative beliefs and values ie whether Marx is right about capitalism being shit and whether proles taking over being the only valid solution

>>11583437
Not really. I do actually think politics is about one will imposing itself on another, but merely commenting on the discourse and assessment of political theory.

>>11583456
>It is a collection of normative beliefs and values
Ultimately it is about the proletariat seizing all political and economic power, if you're talking about the normative rather than the descriptive

>>11583470
Yes and? I thought I already mentioned that in 'advocating a solution of proles taking over'

>>11583469
Then you clearly need to reassess. The one class uses the surplus labor of another is taken as factual by many conservatives, such as Burke and Calhoun.

>>11583484
Therefore if you oppose proles or rather those who would represent them, it stands to reason you would oppose communism

>>11583491
If your reason isn't "I don't like proles or rather those who would represent them coz they are mean :(" and is "Marxism is wrong coz ..." then yes. But I don't understand how does this pertain to my point I wanted to make.

>>11583485
So what? I know conservatism is shit but I fail to see how this undermines my point of "Judging ideology by its adherents is wrong"?

>>11583537
I'm saying conservatism (unlike liberalism) concurs with Marxism in several respects already. The difference is, unlike Marxists, we don't have any humanist inhibitions about using humans as a resource, same as animals or machines or minerals. We might believe it should be done with moral considerations, or that sometimes it even benefits the resource (a kept horse is surely better off than a wild one), but still. We, most of us anyway, believe humans have souls and that we will be equal in heaven, but we don't subscribe to Kant's imperative that humans can only be ends, because this imperative is completely unrealistic and impossible, that's not how society works or could ever work.

>>11583573
I don't see how you admitting and sugarcoating your exploitation of your fellow man has anything to do with my original point so I will stop replying now.

>>11575534
>Thread about Social Conservatism


>No NT posted


Thread is shit.

>>11580680
For me it was

>Be conservative christian
>Most conservative christians are superstitious morons

>Become Apologetic Hitlerist and Racialist
>All of them are fucking idiots

>Become dude weed lmao dreaded leftist
>all leftists are anti-intellectual cretins

>Become conservative christian again

mfw

>>11583782
It's quite simple really. I am a prole. But I am like a dog who loves his master and is loyal unless he is abused. And I don't like how you smell. I agree with Marx descriptively on many things, but oppose MarxISM in large part because I dislike leftists and do not want them running the world, whereas I get along very well with conservatives and I prefer to keep things under their management. I have found leftists to be obnoxiously indignant, scummy and politically correct, although some are okay. So I reject Marxism because I oppose the left taking power

>>11584323
If you just said i reject these leftists from running the world it would be fine.

And as I already said, rejecting Marxism because of not liking marxists is stupid and shows that you chose conservatism now (and marxism previously I assumed) not of some intellectual preference but petty social belonging and tribalism.

But then again I am not surprised to see such brainletry from a conservative and a prole

>>11585053
Marxism as a political position is inseparable from advocacy for leftists running the world. Things related to Marx's theory when made distinct from this are typically called "Marxian" rather than "Marxist"

bump

>>11585053
>marxist
>uses the phrase "prole" with disdain

wow another "leftist" who thinks socialism is just technocratic statism. his attitude isn't any surprise when left movements have been taken over by small souled, power hungry bourgeois shitheads like yourself.

>>11585394
Yes and? Repeating yourself is not an arguement. As I said countless times, the quality of leftists should undermine or validate the theory of Marxism.


>>11587028
>thinking I am a marxist
Don't pretend to know me anon, I merely used marxism to prove my point. I am no class fetishist.

>>11587167
>should undermine or validate
shouldn't undermine or validate

Wtf happened this thread?
It was supposed to be a comfy conservative thread.

>>11587167
It doesn't undermine Marxian theory. Just Marxism