/lit/ - Literature

>>16899601
Read the sticky, faggot

>>16899601
Start w the greeks. Politics on both sides are incomplete ideologies so you won't change your mind except emotionally or ignorantly at best.

>>16899601
Brumaire
Manuscripts
Gotha
Grundrisse
Capital 1, 2, and 3 (yes you need to read all of them. 1 is not self-contained.)

Further Reading:
Michael Heinrich's Introduction (note: not an introduction)
Heinrich's 3-4(?) volume biography of Marx that he is still writing (vol 1 is out)
Love and Capital (another biography)
Isaak Illich Rubin's Essays on Marx's Theory of Value
Time, Labor, and Social Domination by Postone
Value by Diane Elson
Workers and Capital by Tronti
Law and Marxism by Pashukanis
Notebooks by Gramsci
The Principle of Hope by Bloch
Selected Writings by Benjamin
The Production of Space by Lefebvre
The Making of the English Working Class by Thompson (also read his essay on time.)
Dialectical Logic by Ilyenkov
Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, I and IS Apparatuses, and Philosophy of the Encounter by Althusser
H and CS by Lukacs
Marx: Towards the Centre of Possibility by Karatani
Eclipse by Gilles Dauve
What Was the USSR? by Aufheben
Reading Marx Politically by Cleaver
Marx's Inferno by William Clare Roberts
Moneybags Must Be So Lucky: On the Literary Structure of Capital by Robert Paul Wolff
In the Long Run We Are All Dead: Keynesianism, Political Economy, and Revolution by Geoff Mann
Crack Capitalism by John Holloway
The Origins of Capitalism as a Social System: The Prevalence of an Aleatory Encounter by John Milios
Critical Theory and the Critique of Political Economy: On Subversion and Negative Reason by Bonefeld
There's No Such Thing as "The Economy": Essays on Capitalist Value by Samuel A. Chambers
Critiquing Capitalism Today: New Ways to Read Marx by Frederick Harry Pitts
The Dialectical Imagination by Martin Jay
Money and Totality by Moseley
The Constitution of Capital: Essays on Volume 1 of Marx's Capital by Bellofiore
The Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View by Ellen Meiksins Wood

https://counter-currents.com/tag/breaking-the-bondage-of-interest/

Read these four articles, good intro to right wing economics, which is often close to left wing economics. The most interesting right wingers were socialists, they just didn't think this had to involve utopian internationalism or be coterminous with a worker's movement, although an international brotherhood of nations would be a good thing, especially nations allied against international finance. Most of the hostility the right had for the left was due to suspicions that its internationalism was utopian and was coopted by financial powers, a useful way to weaken nations trying to resist their reach.

That, and the fact that the Bolsheviks freely used fifth column tactics and tried to swamp eastern European countries with communist infiltrators and agitators, many of whom were recently expelled Jews from Russia who openly advocated communism and didn't give a fuck about their host countries.

Of course, the international financial powers (mostly in London and then the US) used all these tensions to their advantage. If right wingers chimp out and kill a bunch of Jews, it makes them look like evil ogres with no ideas.

If you are interested in right wing economics, look heavily into Italian fascism and Falangist corporatism, as well as its Latin American offshoots. Also look into National Bolshevism, Strasserism, and Gottfried Feder, and Sorel and the Proudhon Circle. Many Marxists and anarchists became fascists (or syndicalists, which is just fascism) because they just saw it as a more realistic form of socialism, even an intermediate one on the way to long-term Marxism.

The key difference between left and right socialism is: do you want to gamble everything on Marxist "science," or do you want to leverage what we already know the capitalists hate against the capitalists, making grow what they are trying to make wither and die? The fascist is "against dogmas" because he is in favor of finding living forces, like nations, religions, brotherhoods, spiritual aristocrats, and other people willing to struggle even when it is NOT rational to keep struggling, and unite these against the cold rationality of international capitalism.

Many leftists would become at least provisional right socialists if they understood that every day more damage is being done to the possibility of resisting and destroying international finance. Every day it gets one step closer to total, irreversible victory. There is no time to sit around and talk about dialectics for another thousand years. There is no time to make the perfect worker's movement. You have to act now. Capitalism is not an abstract, it's real evil people and real evil institutions, and they can be resisted.

Check out Samuel Francis, Leviathan and its Enemies. He is an old-school mild nationalist paleoconservative and disciple of the Marxist James Burnham who wants to leverage organic forces against globalist technocracy (late capital).

>>16899626
Did you misread the post or are you just retarded?

>>16899679
>Many leftists would become at least provisional right socialists if they understood that every day more damage is being done to the possibility of resisting and destroying international finance. Every day it gets one step closer to total, irreversible victory.
I'm afraid it's already too late. Modern technology combined with their financial control has cemented their absolute and total power.

The only thing that can free us at this point is a total and absolute civilizational collapse - and I mean taking us back at least a millennium. I'm afraid that me and you both wouldn't survive that, though.

>>16899679
Anything else flows from this. Fascists come in all shapes and sizes, some of them are not focused on the economic resistance to usury/finance but on the pragmatic dimensions of defending and improving the nation, and can seem like simple nationalists and patriots. Some see the fight against world finance as a necessary battle to protect the life of the spirit, however they define that, and they see world finance as not just opportunistic or mindlessly invasive but as a deliberate attack on the human spirit. Hence the seeming kooks like Evola, who are usually not kooks at all, it's just that their values and ideas have been made invisible to people raised under capitalism.

Similarly, kooks like Evola often see the best defense against capital to be the cultivation of the spirit, the warrior spirit or the national spirit, whatever. Just as the possibility of spiritual cultivation is threatened by capital, so the best resistance against capital is the cultivation of the spirit.

>>16899705
The pessimist in me agrees with you but two things always cheer me up. One, the elites are playing their hand particularly clumsily in the last 20 years. I think they got more backlash than they were expecting to things like trannies and casual sex, and I think they were expecting immigrants to assimilate better and not cause simmering tensions.

Two, the elites are high on their own supply and often don't realize it. The tactics they used to mindfuck us are mindfucking their own children and their own apparatchiks. They are radicalizing their own structure to believe its own bullshit.

The beast makes mistakes.

>>>/pol/

>>16899601
As a fellow leftist. Spengler isnt bad to read. Mein Kampf is interesting, also galvanizing and pitiful in a way. Alfred Rosenberg The Myth of the Twentieth Century. The Doctrine of Fascism by Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile. Don't waste your time with The Turner Diaries. It's an awfully written lame ass book in all honesty.

Plus if you're a leftist andbyou havent read Hannah Arendt. Do that, soon. Orwells Homage to Catalonia is really all I've read about Spanish Fascism. Evola isn't necessary but interesting and mystical lmao.

I wanna end this with two history books. Fascist lit is flowery and just like any ideology, its written to win you over, and all ideology works better in theory. So afterwards its important you see what happened to these ideas. Richard J Evans trilogy on the Third Reich and Christ Stopped at Eboli by Levi for the Italian front.

>>16899739
Dilate

>>16899705
>>16899725
Fascists and nationalist socialists should reject the title of "right wing".
Only monarchists can really make claim to that title, and traditionally "left-wing" really just meant populism and anti-establishment views. Categories fascism and nationalist socialism certainly belong to.

>>16899770
I'll dilate my foot up your ass.

>>16899778
Fascism is authoritarian. Therefore right-wing. I've read the books. I believe in mankind. I don't believe in man.

>>16899807
Any system that exercises authority on behalf of a people or an ideal is authoritarian. Liberalism is just the delayed authoritarianism of the herd and their oligarch masters. You don't exist in a vacuum. There is no place you can go that some state won't come fuck you eventually. Might as well be part of one you believe in.

>>16899789

>>16899601
Russel Kirks Concise Guide to Conservatism is a decent starting place. It's only 100 pages long and gives a good overview of what traditional social conservatism is about. There's also the Conservative Mind by him if you want to go more in depth.

From there maybe Burkes Reflections on the Revolution in France to see the genesis of the Right/Left political divide. De Maistre's Considerations on France. De Bonalds True Wealth of Nations.

Forget about all the wignat shit like counter currents. It's irrelevant.

>>16899601
This should give you a good idea anon

>>16899815
This is why we need a new state. Not Fascism, Liberalism, or Socialism. We need a horizontally governed democracy with media that informs, not media that propagandizes. Do away with ad culture. Ads will inform consumers of product details. We will have councils of elected proven men. Not corporate elite hegenonies. We must enbrace our brothers, throw off these chains and decide as a whole what the future will be. There's nore than enough dissatisfaction. What has rigid ideology gotten us? Leaders who wage war on our dime and spend our own money to subvert and absorb us into their "party" with sophisticated ads and brainwashing. Petty insolence this debate. Dictatorship is dead. It's finally time for the people to decide.

>>16899807
lmao
>>16899601
Junger's fun, Schmitt's cool, and counter-enlightenment figures like Burke and Pobyedonostsev. Not really "right-wing" but I read a lot of the inklings/catholic revival (like Chesterton), not to mention medieval poetry and theology. But this is all semantic gobbledygook, dichotomies are pseud tier.
If it's fascism you're after de Riveria and Marinetti are great, and there's a plethora of "leftist" thinkers who are just crypto-fascists; sorel, proudhon, fisher, etc.
But politics is just a mind fuck, you should be reading your bible anon.
>>16899874
you should read dugin's 4pt, don't worry about that social democracy rhetoric you'll grow up

>>16899916
Who is de Riveria?

>>16899958
The guy who created Falangism

>>16899916
I've read all of Dugins work. Rigidity has never served man, neither in the wilds of his ancestral hunting grounds or today under modernity. It is by mankinds concerted cooperation that all things are possible. Indeed, the great men of history stand only on the shoulders of all of mankind, it is his incessant narcissim that has lead to every failure. Narcissm for all does not exist due to inherent competitiveness and distrust, this is why cooperation works. Wolves participate in mutual aid.

>>16899807
>Fascism is authoritarian.
No it isn't, Fascist Italy was (not as authoritarian as Germany or Soviet Union), but fascism doesnt need to be. Read Gentile's work.
>>16899916
>lmao
Nuce rebuttal, faggot.

>>16899958
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CryZCP6BpO4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LrBkE0blh4

>>16899992
Follow thread. I have read Gentile. Ideology has done nothing for mankind. Mankind must be flexible and on guard at all times to defend from the bastards that seek utopia upon the backs of my brothers.

Read Julius Evola in particular Ride the Tiger

>>16900016
What you said is not different from fascism. Gentile considered fascism the truest form of democracy, fascism is one simple idea: united we are stronger. That is all.

>>16899974
>>16900016
>>16900044
nice rhetoric bros, you guys sure are intellectual

>>16900044
Gentile was an Idealist in a world thatsenever ideal. I attempt to imagine what great philosophers would suggest at this very moment in time. We need urgent organization not as Fascists or Socialists. As Americans. As human beings. Ideologically, despite all I've read. I'm a Marxist still, and a Hegelian(like gentile), I'm a Libertarian Socialist as well, with a great fondness for Murray Bookchin among others... Ideology doesnt matter right now, the instruments of control will never let an ideology surplant Neoliberalism. Never. We have to come together as men. As brothers. Then we have to let the whole America decide what it's new ideology is. Who its masters are.

>>16900100
>We need urgent organization not as Fascists or Socialists. As Americans.
>I'm a Marxist still
>I'm a Libertarian Socialist as well
most americans would love to unite by beating the living shit out of you hippie faggot

>>16900100
>Gentile was an Idealist in a world thatsenever ideal
That's not what philosophical idealism is.
>We need urgent organization not as Fascists or Socialists. As Americans. As human beings.
Not antithetical of fascism, again.
>I'm a Marxist still, and a Hegelian
Marx was not a Hegelian in the traditional sense and his ideas are Feurbachian critiques of Hegel's idealism and a materialist inversion of the dialectic.
>I'm a Libertarian Socialist as well
And Mussolini *was* an anarcho-syndicalist.
>We have to come together as men. As brothers.
Literally fascism.

First, be clear. What do you even mean by “right wing”? There’s a certain notion of a true right wing which all but gasped it’s last breath in the 20th century and so you’re not going to find writers writing anything prescriptive in those circles. There exists a right with goes much further than fascism. Personally, I’ll recommend Plato, Dante, De Maistre, Cortes, and Maurras. None of those are explicable fascist but you’ll find a common theme.

>>16900125
Illuminating.
>>16900128
>That's not what philosophical idealism is.
The world of ideas has been stolen by the Neoliberal machine. Is that better?
>anarcho-syndicalist
Syndicalism is a method of achieving revolution in Anarchist thought. It doesn't seek to establish and Authoritarian state. I do understand what you mean though. Authority is an ideal which I'm afraid Americans would never willingly choose. I fail to imagine a situation in which we could unite enough people under such rigid and countervailing ideology. You're underestimating the power of your enemy to infect the mind of the public. The public is necessary if we hope to break our shackles.

>>16900184
>The world of ideas has been stolen by the Neoliberal machine. Is that better?
No.
>idealism is a diverse group of metaphysical views which all assert that "reality" is in some way indistinguishable or inseparable from human perception and/or understanding.

Mussolini was an anarchist before incorporating nationalist views into his syndicalism and then formed his party with other syndicalists, nationalists, futurists, and idealists.
Like I said earlier fascism is not necessarily authoritarian and among the least authoritarian compared to the Soviet Union and Germany.

I think you're just confused. Read Mussolini's Intellectuals

>>16900184
>Illuminating
Doesn't alleviate the fact that most people in america won't understand you and will shoot you if you come to their door dressed up in hot topic talking about marx and social democracy.
>Syndicalism is a method of achieving revolution in Anarchist thought
yeah you really need to read de Riveria and Sorel, neither of which are anarchists in the political sense
>bu...but rocker and chomsky
jews

>>16900209
Fren. Point me to a book then. Mussolini relied on corporate power more than I think is possible with the state of the corporate world.
>>16900219
>something something projection
I get along with everyone. I live in the deep south, they care a great deal about their workers. Your "redpills" are the most obvious form of brainwashing. It seems to organically confirm your deeply held convictions, but it isn't organic. They come from somewhere. They serve to alienate you and your like from ever gaining support or power, they alienate you on purpose. That you've made yourself entirely unlikeable, does not apply to me.
>Riveria and Sorel
Sorel was prophetic and instrumental. The national myth is impossible to elucidate under Neoliberalism as advanced and intelligent as ours. I havent read de reveria. Maybe I will.
>>bu...but rocker and chomsky
I never mentioned these two. Both are men of great intellect and integrity though. You could learn from them if your thoughts were ordered. If you participated in rationality and Cartesian reflection. I pity you.

>>16900254
"Corporations" in those time were trade unions.
>Fren. Point me to a book then.
Mussolini's Intellectuals - James A. Gregor

>>16900270
Thank you.

>>16900270
>James A. Gregor
A. James Gregor

>>16900270
What are corlorations today though. I don't mean to be pedantic. It needs to be considered how fractured our working class is though.

>>16900285
The word mean something different now, when fascists are talking about corporatism they mean this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

>>16900302
I know man. I mean think about today. We don't have worker activism. We dont have powerful militant unions. Our companies largely are the global they won't willingly concede or support us like Italys powerful unions did. This goes back to my first post. The main agreement in America is that our government is corrupt and untrustworthy. That's all we have in common after years of disunity tactics. Can't you see, this very site we're on is nothing more than a disunity tactic...

>>16899601
1. Stop spamming this thread. I've seen too many iterations of it to count, and every single time, we come to the same conclusion: "Right-wing is an incoherent, vague term which needs more precise modifiers." Stop using it.
2. As for traditionalist-type stuff, here's a few in no particular order (everything from moderate traditionalist stuff to fascism):
Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays by Michael Oakeshott
Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes
In defense of Freedom and Related Essays by Frank Meyer
The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk
Revolt Against the Modern World by Julius Evola
The Crisis of the Modern World by Rene Guenon
After Virtue by Alasdair MacIntyre
How to be a Conservative by Roger Scruton
Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke
Suicide of the West by James Burnham
Sovereignty by Bernard de Jouvenel
New Science of Politics by Eric Voegelin
Ideas have Consequences by Richard M Weaver

That should get you started. Some kooks and some pop-types are on this list (mainly because I don't know what you want), but most are good.
Sadly, it's tough for me to figure out what you want to see because this is a bad post, OP. Please make a better one next time.

>>16900364
>New Science of Politics by Eric Voegelin
Based. Voegelin is heavily underrated in conservative spheres.

>>16899601
There are several 'questions' that dominate the far right today, I know this doesn't contain that much actual political theory, but I find that this is what they spend their time talking about. Also this is the Far Right here so it will be rather extreme, don't yell at me for explaining it.

>1. The Sovereignty Question
The problem of how sovereignty is distributed, and why monarchy(or the like) is the best system. Anyone from Plato to Hobbes to Carlyle makes basically the same argument, about accountability, incentives, ability and character, efficiency, etc. A key idea here is that there is always a small elite, and it's better to have it out in the open as a Monarch and nobility than in any other form.

>2. The Economic Question
Usury is seen as the biggest economic problem in modern history. Read Goodson(history of central banking) and Rothbard(case against the fed). Otherwise economically speaking they mostly all like capitalism, with varying degrees of regulation by the central authority(it is a feature of far right thought that the monarch figure has some discretion here, and their views on taxation and welfare basically track the question 'is it eugenic?').

>3. The Sex Question
There is unfortunately no book about this that I know of. It's some hodgepodge of speculative evopsych and noticing that all successful civilizations seem to be very patriarchal. For evopsych read Sociobiology(wilson) and Selfish Gene(dawkins). The Dysgenics question is a another issue here since it relates to sexual reproduction. They basically want Biblical 'Man leads family' situation.

>4. The Race Question
Read Rushton's IQ papers, especially the meta-analyses. This involves 4b) the JQ, which is a lot more complicated. Ford(International Jew), Solzhenitsyn(200 years together), Shahak(J History, J Religion), MacDonald(CoC trilogy). Some Far Right people disagree with the JQ. For a very mild redpill you can read the Putnam study on diversity.

>5. The Religion Question
They are confused on this point. They seem to be unsure of whether culture is downstream from power or the reverse or both. I will say that they are very fond of talking about Schelling Points, means of coordinating cooperation without direct communication between all participating agents, so you could read the book where Schelling came up with the Focal Point, which is called The Strategy of Conflict(it's game theory). But basically they want a healthy religion that helps promote productive rather than corruptive cooperation between people(and there is always a state religion).

so basically...Fascist, antisemitic, conspiratorial, sexist, racist, machiavellian theocracy lel. There is a good reason that the political position of the far right sounds like a string of the worst insults from Progressives.

anyway if you want clarification on some point in here I will explain or rec a book, I ran out of space to post anything more detailed, so I tried to make it concise.

>>16900665
I'm reminded of those studies that show while right wingers understand left wing thought quite well the left wing have no idea about right wing thought.

https://theindependentwhig.com/haidt-passages/haidt/conservatives-understand-liberals-better-than-liberals-understand-conservatives/

>>16900706
Do you think I'm left wing?

>>16900728
I think you've got a shit understanding of right wing politics no matter what you are. The idea that right wing thought on sex comes from "speculative evopsyche" rather than transcendental moral order discerned through religion is ridiculous. Conservative sexual ethics stem from adherence to natural law ethics, not modern pseudoscience. Get with it.

>>16900757
Evospych and religious law come to the same conclusions about sex relations. the Bible and Koran say pretty similar stuff to the furthest out redpill site you can find. I even included a reference to the Bible in that section to note the similarity. I thought a Leftist was more likely to read evopsych than Biblical scripture.

You are correct that I'm not right wing, but I have read a very large quantity of right wingers and I am not imagining the categories I put in that post.

>>16900706
This is because right wingers have no political principles.

>>16899601
For a great overview of fascist doctrine, read A. James Gregor's "Mussolini's intellectuals"
The interwar period is where the literature you are looking for is at, read the warrior-esthetes such as d'Annunzio, Montherlant, Drieu la Rochelle, Ernst Jünger, Pasolini... read Céline, Brasillach, Rebatet... read Hamsun though he's not from the lost generation

>>16900813
No it's because right wing thought is basically the list of blasphemies in Progressivism, so they can't even look at what they are criticizing properly.

>>16900818
No, it's because there is a disjunction between overarching value (Justice, Freedom, Security, etc.) and specific policy belief. You can't guess a conservative's beliefs if you try and follow a principle you have to follow the guidelines of their specific political points.

>>16900831
That is true of practically anyone, not just conservatives, barely anyone is a philosopher with a rigorous path from premise to conclusion on all things they believe. Most people just have a vague amalgamation of values and beliefs handed down from their environment, the social circle they want to conform to, their need to protect their own ego, etc.

I will note that Prorgressives like to shut off the conversation if they hear certain things, they just can't deal with even hearing those ideas or responding to them, whereas the far right are willing to talk about whatever.

>>16899601
Since you posted Hitler and since I don't see it mentioned in the thread, Schopenhauer, Wagner, Burckhardt, and Nietzsche are all obvious must reads.

>>16900852
It's not true of everyone as far as policy or even punditry is concerned though. Conservatives believe only in the specific social paradigm in which they were raised, whereas the progressive, though he may well have simply adopted his beliefs as well, attempts to maximize a given value in every situation. The conservative is inconsistent, in fact he does not even belief consistency exists, he only appeals to overarching value for rhetorical purposes.

>>16900865
This is too childish a pose for me to really take seriously. You think the entire two halves of whatever country you live in are divided this way along political lines, disregarding the massive psychological dissimilarities existing within the Con or Prog demographic?

I honestly don't think you're really that dumb a person. But maybe we should test it?

I am a 'conservative by your bearing', and I believe that there is more evidence for human populations having different average intelligences, than every one having the same. Do you want to present your evidence that they all have the same intelligence, and I will present mine that they don't?

This would fall under my value of 'liking the scientific method, thinking empiricism works, especially when tempered by the reason of multiple voices offering their opinions'.

>>16900865
Can you give a list of some right wing literature you've read? This is the same nonsense all progressives push who have never stepped outside their ideological bubble. Conservatives value different things to progressives.

>>16900890
I was talking about overarching political activity rather than specific belief, for which naming a specific belief would be a poor test of difference. But I can take your example. If your value is "following the scientific method," to which I've seen many conservatives appeal, then the issue is not with the specific data of iq and its biological correlations but with the conclusions of that data. I've seen many people bring up that "science shows that different populations have different scores." I've seen far fewer follow the science so far as to see that IQ is fluid, that it improves markedly between both generations and from test to test, that it improves significantly with generational wealth, that it is not a static limit of intellectual ability, that it can change with education, or that despite the correlative properties that are evidenced in biological cause, their is no evidence that IQ is "set" by genetics or that it is a holistic measure of social capacity. You would need to also accept these to fit your value of "accepting empiricism." But my guess, as with many who bring up IQ disparities, is that you take the base data, draw unsupported conclusions with IQ as a personal clinamen that does not conform to scientific use, and call a group of people unfit for certain social demands.

>>16900905
They do indeed value different things. My issue is not with the different values but with their consistency. The mainstream American conservative, in the early age of Trump, was an objectivist when it came to industry, a moral majoritarian when it came to social propriety, and a legalist on issues of crime and immigration. These are three distinct political philosophies chosen to fit one's culturally-specific whims, and when one notices that the demarcations for each standard stratify along lines of race and income level, then that becomes your unifying principle.

ERNST VON SALOMON.

He's a very comfy Novellist who wrote about Germany in the time frame of 1916 to 1950, mostly autobiographical stuff, because he participated in all right-wing paramilitaries, conspiracies and coups in the Weimar Republic before Nazis took power. His brother is a communist and his girlfriend is a jew, he isnt a radical nazi but rather a follower of the old prussian elitism with national revolutionary ideals sprinkled in. It is from that Perspective he writes his novels, talking about the Extremist intellectual circles he frequented, his time in prison, assassination-attempts and so on. His books (especially The Questionary, his master piece) really help greatly with understanding those turbulent times. I recommend it to anyone, if you're interested in (german) history from that time then it is definitely a good read and Salomons prose is the best his times have to offer, the quality and clarity of the way he writes german are only exceeded by Stefan Zweig, and perhaps Freud. (And I dare anyone to say obscurantist idiots like Mann, Kafka or Döblin with their clumsy, awkward way of writing, which they definitely did not do on purpose, are better).

>>16900920
here is a good study for you to read
http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
It replicates over and over, it aligns with every observed outcome.

Now that doesn't imply any particular policy to be made about it. Do you think it might be better to just, idk, stop taking stats on Race and making it a political issue, because this is clearly very combustive? Which would also involve stopping the hatred against White people for their supposed oppression of Black people, that is supposed to explain the disparity in outcome?

Perhaps we could try to help everyone, without race hatred, based on what they need?

Conservatism is "right wing", what you call far right is the third position. Conservatives are girondins they are absolutely 100% on with the program of the jacobin they just disagree with their methods. Third position disagrees with the entire premise of the Assembly, it is at the same time a true revolutionary and true reactionary movement.

Read Marinetti's futurist manifesto but also Evola's Pagan Imperialism

>>16900920
Based

>>16900927
And the mainstream progressive is a contemptuous hedonistic parasite with no real thought out political philosophy beyond "that which makes me feel good", what's your point? That 90% of people fail to live up to their own professed ideology? Sounds like a point in favor of conservatisms support of strict social hierarchies to me.

>>16899601
https://files.catbox.moe/z6uo7g.pdf


>>16899618
but basically this, the broadness, relativity, and incompatible definitions of left and right are particularly insidious.

>>16900920
after taking into account the Flynn effect (iq improving and stuff), niggers are still retarded. Do you not think professional psychometrists know all that shit? Niggers have literally never had a great civilisation, we have way more DNA in common with Ancient Egyptians than niggers do.

>>16899601
Life at the bottom - Theodore Dalrymple
Our culture, what's left of it - T. Dalrymple
Beyond Good and Evil - Nietzsche

>>16900935
This still isn't "empirical" not him btw.
It states all things being equal which is an impossibility to test empirically. That's a minor discretion though. The real cake is that IQ is largely heritable from parent to child. This isn't disputed, it's as empirical as IQ studies(which have there own innate problems with empiricism.)can be. So what happens if the parents of the subject weren't at equal levels of opportunity or education. With blacks, they've been barred from education and opportunity for alot of their time in the states and prior to that were already ages behind races that had the huge benefit of The Fertile Crescent and easily domesticable animals.(which most of Africa did not) Also, have you seen the studies between reading children and non-reading? Huge increases in IQ. Maybe poorer blacks have less access to transportation to the library and affordable books. Dolly Parton is a saint, but she cant fill every poor house with books. There's no reason to assume like many so often do that blacks will always be inferior in IQ espescially when we've been seeing black IQ rise as conditions do and white IQs lower as conditions do. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't deny that race has alot to do with IQ. I just deny that race is extremely important in the matter, espescially when there exist so many outliers and considering that IQ is hardly that relevant to average daily life, it just seems like a pointless discretion. Hard work accounts more for knowledge and intelligence than IQ and a trait that outweighs them both in polite society is character. Now, thess are all things that could be used to explain that gap and you know, there are many more factors that have been observed to impact IQ. So, science it is. Empiricism it is not. These are the lengths you will have to go to to gain support for "race realism". The common and more correct view IMO is that races have seperate and unique characteristics, but the thing central to them all is humanity and consciousness. Also to say they can't exist in harmony is purely un empirical. The world's only global superpower for decades was simultaneously the most multicultural. Any attempt to blame proximity to other people as a cause for societal decline will result in failure of evidence(like most race based studies.)

Overall you could greatly strengthen the Fascist appeal if you remove racism and ethnocentrism as a central pillar. It's by far the weakest link.

>>16901021
No, you don't understand. I'm not making a point about the personal hypocrisy of a group. I'm saying that the professed political vision of the conservative is itself confused to such a degree that it has been difficult, in the last decade or so, for conservatives as a group to offer any kind of positive policy reforms. A wrong belief that is consistent is far more worthwhile in a democracy than several beliefs that are in disagreement with each other. The Progressive is consistent. He believes in a deep (almost religiously minded) egalitarianism, he believes in attempting to minimize differences in quality of life, he believes in the importance of social permissivism. He may be WRONG about those beliefs, or he may be pursuing those beliefs in a manner that does not bring about their outcome materially but he is CONSISTENT. He maximizes that value in every case. The same can be said for the liberal, the libertarian, and even some fascists. But the conservative's political beliefs are an olla podrida of convenience and personal taste, they are poor tools for constructing frameworks for dealing with new, unforeseen issues that are the purview of government administration.

>>16901033
That chart is not an argument against the Flynn affect, but my posts are not attempting to impugn the validity of race/IQ data.

>>16901044
Racism is the easiest point to make, i think that's why you guys don't want to hear it
http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

You could read a bunch of boring, meme philosophers, but it's often overlooked how much political movements are influenced by other art forms. For example, the Romantic poets had a huge influence on the reactionary/traditionalist movements; and could you imagine what Fascism would be without the Futurists? All political movements are attempts to make one aesthetic dominant over another; so learning about political philosophy, without learning about the aesthetics and art forms that influenced those movements, is incomplete.

If you want to learn about right-wingers, read Dostoyevsky before you read Dugin, read Shelly before you read Spengler, and read the Futurist Manifesto before you read the Fascist Manifesto.

>>16901106
kek
you will never see even a tiny bit of me

>>16901100
Are you a bot? This is the same study I was referring to. Wouldn't be surpirsed if you were, I know they make them to spread "redpills."

>>16901118
Have you read that study? I mean would you agree it makes the idea of racial equality silly?

>>16901127
No lmao. Racial equality is still necessary.Why should human beings be treated based on their IQ? Perhaps a more individualized method of primary edu ation is required. I still stand by my above post.

>>16899874
Pure wishful thinking. We need absolute monarchy and NO democracy at all

>>16899601
At least read the beginning of Mein Kampf where he talks about the parliamentary democracy. If you ignore the parts where he says shit like social democracy is the new world plague etc. You see he basically wrote the perfect revolutionary call. Its very convincing.

>>16900254
Shut up you blue haired pseud fggot