/lit/ - Literature

>>22280892
Murray Rothbard

>>22280892
>jacobin
And I thought tewitter posting coudn't get any lower.

>>22280892
Jacobin isn't wrong. The endgame of right wing thought is "leftism is inevitable but leftists are awful, let's kill them and take over their project ourselves". And that's a good thing.

>>22280892
De Maistre, of course. The "bad cop" black-hooded executioner of austere Savoy to Burke's genteel gentleman of fair and pleasant England. If for nothing else, for the savage majesty of his prose.

>>22280892
Nick Land

>>22280892
He is actually the one you don't need since he got an updated and better version while he was alive. DeMaistre has better prose and is a better RW than Burke(an actual whig liberal IRL).

If there is such a thing as a metaphysical left and right (doubt it) I think it would fundamentally be about whether one holds a cynical or an optimistic view of human nature. Lefties think people are fundamentally good, it is only their milieu that corrupts them, while rightwingers seem to believe that human nature is by default corrupt and political ideas are seldom anything but masks for one's cynical and tribal interests. I have never met a lefty who thinks the latter or a rightwinger who believes in the former.

>>22281166
I think this description is marred by the grave sin of symmetrism. I'd say the right knows the nature of the mob is self-degrading and the left is out to lunch on the matter. I also think this particular dinstinction ought to be to the left's detriment. things rarely split down the middle irl and this is the case here as well

>>22280892
>conservatives defend things that conservatives like
riveting stuff, jacobin

I'm a proponent of aristocracy where the government is done by a handful of land owners and citizen burgeois people and hereditary monarchs as well as anyone who has the need and the will of participating in parliament or original ideas but under the strict exclusion of everyone else.

>>22280892
>Conservatives, by definition, are people who openly want to conserve the status quo and traditional relations
>Jacobin Mag publishes this shocking revelation as if it was some great "behind the mask" take and revealing to anyone
I'm actually a Marxist, but fucking hell man, these American left wing publications are really not the sharpest.

>>22280892
Isn't this the exact same talking point that chuds use against lefties, that lefty thought is all about creating a pretext for one class overtaking another (in truth for little reason besides that it is in possession of the power necessary to do so), or for ethnic groups to dress up their tribal interests in a humanitarian garb?

People take on ideologies that represent their interests and counteract the interests of those who are against them...what a shocking idea!

>>22281166
>political ideas are seldom anything but masks for one's cynical and tribal interests
That's right on the money for my case. The day I came to that conclusion is the day I realized I was "right wing", despite having been raised and educated in an otherwise very leftist environment.
I actually remain an adherent to Orthodox Marxist ideas on history and economic relations, I'm just not very optimistic about Class Consciousness ever actually being a real international force, nor do I trust any "vanguard party" nonsense.

>>22281279
The joke here is that as another anon said, Burke was a whig politician. He has nothing in common with contemporary chuds beyond the vaguest idea of "maybe the french revolution wasn't exactly the glorious triumph of Reason and Progress over the tyranny of the aristocracy and the church as its proponents claim".

>>22281291
>chuds use against lefties, that lefty thought is all about creating a pretext for one class overtaking another (in truth for little reason besides that it is in possession of the power necessary to do so),
That's not even necessarily a Chud thing, fucking Marx or Lenin themselves would tell you that's exactly what they espouse.

>>22281297
I suppose we ought not to be surprised that a magazine called JACOBIN is framing Burke as some reactionary tyrant kek

>>22280953
Sounds like an edgelord ?

>>22281292
Well, there are millions who could reconcile being communists in Europe, but being hardcore nationalists in the deserts of the middle east just a few years later. It's nothing that haven't been done before.

>>22281297
The French revolution was a primitive Marxist Revolution. The Jacobins were quite literal Marxists except for maybe the fact that the word Marxism didn't exist during that time. Abolish religion (wich went so far under the terror of the Jacobins that they invented a new calendary because the old one reminded them of Christianity), kill the royal family, kill everyone who disagrees with the regime, one party rule, public schooling, everyone is forced to labour under the state until old age, everyone has to be equal, etc. etc. The real redpill is that France had a socialist revolution much alike to that of Russia during the aftermaths of the first world War and one will have a hard time funding the differences between the Jacobins of France and the communists of Russia.

>>22281316
England did it all more than a century before.

>>22281316
>Liberalism is primitive Marxism

>>22281325
And before England, there was the entire protestant reformation which all over europe represented the rebellion of the urbanite middle classes against the aristocracy and the church.

>>22281325
England has never had any violent revolution of any sort, wich is proven by the fact that although they have democracy, the royal family and the nobilities are still around, unlike in France and in Russia, where they were quite literally genocide and swept under the table.

>>22281331
> he has no idea about the Jacobins
Why don't you cautiosly study the French revolution before embarrassing yourself on the internet?

>>22281331
There's a straight line leading from the maccabees to early christians, to the protestants, to liberals, to the bolsheviks, to whatever the fuck the contemporary western left is.

>>22281335
Uhh...did you forget that there was an entire civil war in England? That ultimately ended with the king getting beheaded by a parliament full off bourgeois representatives?

This Jacobin thing really just comes off as resentful.

>>22281332
Protestantism is Germanic revivalism, seen by the fact that they brought back divorce rape, an old Germanic institution outlawed by the catholic church. Also, there was many princes and Duques who became protestant, wich speaks much against the idea that protestantism was against the upper classes. Some later branches of protestantism indeed were, but definitely not for Lutheranism.
>>22281342
In wich participated at least some nobilities of England and Scotland if I recall correctly. Not burgeois people calling for the annihilation of the entire aristocratic class.

>>22281353
Have you heard of this guy called Philippe Égalité? Nobles supporting a revolution doesn't mean anything past those particular nobles trying to bet on the winning horse in the race...

>>22281372
Yes there was people from noble families in France who supported Jacobinism too. But I doubt that the nobles who participated in the Glorious Revolution were thinking of giving up their privileges. My knowledge about it isn't particularly fond but I read a Shakespeare novel about the subject. Wasn't it more about taking power away from the royal family?

Wouldn’t most old thinkers be considered chuds by modern standards? A lot of them went on tirades about nationalism, god and women. The real question is how the modern right manages to be completely worthless while endorsing the same points that great men in the past did. Now that I think about it even the left has been suffering from decadence and aggravated brainletism even though modern left-wing thinking is just a couple centuries old. Maybe people are just mentally devolving, I dunno.

>>22281391
I think the issue is that, left-wing or right-wing, there has not been good governance for a very long time and "thinkers" are getting more extreme out of desperation. No philosophies have bared utopian fruit.

>>22281391
>how the modern right manages to be completely worthless

Do you mean worthless in the sense of ineffectual? If so, I think there's a contradiction at play. To take on right-wing views nowadays, you almost invariably need to consider yourself or your milieu the losers of liberalism, because everyone grows up with the latter as the "standard" and the only people who turn to the former are people who have a problem with that status quo. To enact change, you need to possess power. But if you had power, you wouldn't consider yourself a victim of liberalism, but rather one of its main beneficiaries, if anything you'd probably want to take liberalism even further because you just aren't satisfied with the speed it is proceeding at the moment. But you'd never take on chuddy views because you have zero reason to, just like kings seldom make proponents of mass democracy.

>>22281391
>Wouldn’t most old thinkers be considered chuds by modern standards?
Yes, that's why Jacobin has published a piece whitewashing some comments by Marx.

>>22281391
>Wouldn’t most old thinkers be considered chuds by modern standards?
Smarter leftists have already reconciled with that, e.g. when Bakunin being a raging anti Semite is brought up, they simply state that his personal animosities are ultimately irrelevant to the application of his described anarchist ideas, and there's no reason to worship him as an individual when we can simply take his ideas and ignore his other personal characteristics.
Of course, the problem is that 90% of Leftists are *literally* immature teenagers and such. Young people who lack nuance, maturity to grapple with any moral ambiguity, and are generally radical extremists who demand a clear cut world.

Lately, I’ve been thinking that political theory arises out of left-wing tendencies. It is the result of a progressively teleological modernity, and is only right-wing in so far as it’s a reaction to that (i.e. German conservative Revolution). So much right-wing is simply grappling with the facts that modernity is real, that the revolutions happened, that liberalism and science won, that industry dominated. That’s what I’ve been thinking lately anyway.

>>22280892
>In other news, digging a ditch is little more than the repeated displacement of soil from the earth, often by use of a hand shovel
what a waste of time

>>22280892
>wait a second…the people defending existing social mores really just believe that those social mores are good?

>>22280892
Yeah, Dostoevsky, Mishima, Tolkien, Dalí, Wagner, Rand etc. etc. are all pretty bad artists, not worth anyone's time. Because right = bad, amirite, fellow redditors?

Isn't Jacobin that bourgeois left rag that advocated further empowering the bourgeois police state during COVID? Who are they writing for, guys who paint their fingernails?

>>22281705
Why did you sneak in Rand in that group of serious artists

>>22280892

there is not, because like any amerifat you believe history started in 1945. The reality is that this liberal elite has been in charge since 1649 and their Commonwealth, and their mores have not changed one bit since then.

breaking news:
-it is the bourgeois revolutionaries who created classical liberalism, in order to promote a society based on commerce and atheism by killing kings and priests
-it is the bourgeois revolutionaries who created new liberalism, in order to promote a society based on commerce and atheism by killing kings and priests

isnt it weird normies cant see the same people created the two political poles that normies fight for?

And guess what:classical liberalism started 3 CENTURIES AGO. NOT DECADES, FUCKING CENTURIES.
democratic republics were build by the bourgeois revolutionaries precisely to have a confluence between merchants (in finance and entertainment) and bureaucrats, ie they are both members of the bourgeois caste.

>>22281688
Yes the dichotomy classical-new liberalism is completely fake in the first place. historically,
-rightists= monarchists
-leftists = republicans
guess what happens to the right when there is no more king because the bourgeois killed him. the answer is that the right becomes the left and there is only a spectrum of leftisms, the choice between bourgeois pretending to be on the left and bourgeois pretending to be on the right, lol and the bourgeois revolution is achieved whose only goal was dodging monarchist taxes........hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
it's like the ''''''''''''''''''''people'''''''''''''''''''''' was a just gimmick to seize power and create a society based on global mercantilism...
rebels without a cause...
when you don't have enough problems in your life,
you latch on to any sort of issue you can think of,
just in order to feel fulfilled and respectable
It's sad...I see it a lot in my former group of classmates from a sheltered, private, catholic highschool where only the elite kids went...
99% of them have gone full SJW ''fight for the refugees/immigrants/(current cause)'', it's crazy...
None of them have actually achieved anything of their own doing. The only one that sort of made it won a grammy, but did it piggybacking on a SJW feminist/BLM subject matter in their piece, meanwhile that person is Jewish and her parents into local politics, her mother was on city council.

>>22281726
>another anon starts lashing out at imaginary americans

>>22281726
Do you advocate for monarchy?

>>22280892
Start with the Greeks
>right wing intellectual thought is little more than a series of dressed-up defenses of conventional social relations and traditional hierarchies.
No shit. Have they ever tried to hide this?

>>22280892
Hegel, although he arguably defies categorization.

Peter Sloterdijk

>>22281726
>killing kings and priests
They killed the kings who didn't have skin in the game, I support a Christ sanctioned monarchy but it has to justify itself by the Kings fighting their own wars and managing their own risk.

You can't be a King and not really risk your self.

>>22281705
>Rand in the same sentence as Dostoevsky
Come on now

>>22280892
Yockey

>>22281779
Unfortunately the model of monarchy practiced by the early French kings, though most commendable, is not practical with advances in modern weaponry. A king ought to be the first to risk his life for his country, but to put himself in the way of certain death without hope of victory would be foolishness. If Eisenhower had landed in the first wave on Omaha beach, the war would have been lost. Napoleon might be the closest one could get to the model at that time. This ideal is simply not possible when society itself is as dishonorable as it is now.

>>22281764
ACCELERATE THE DIALECTIC

>>22280892
Correct, but left-wing thought is little more than the opposite: dumbfuck losers who are mad they aren't winning.
All political thought is like that. It's just verbalist intralexuals excuses.
Read The Machiavellians, by James Burnham.

>>22282563
if the left wing isn't winning, and the right wing isn't winning, then who is?

>>22280892
>right wing wants to defend Traditional values passed on by our ancestors
>left wing wants to destroy it
Yes, that is generally how it goes, guess that guy is new to political thinking? Most leftists are, then they grow up and become increasingly right wing. Why does he think he should be writing articles? How conceited.

>>22282696
ethnocentrists with financial power.

>>22282696
Bankers who fund both sides of wars and enslave you through debt while anyone who awakens and criticizes their system is an extremist and probably an "anti-semite".

>>22281726
Redpilled and based

>>22281331
He's right

Having leftist tendencies is a mark of poor character. At least for men.

>>22282768
National socialism and national syndicalism are okay.

>>22281310
>edgelord
reddit word

>>22280892
>right-wing intellectual thought is dressed up defenses of conventional social relations
NO FUCKING WAI-- (;ﾟДﾟ)

>>22280892
There are three general types of conservative. The first are Burke types, restrained liberals who want to preserve existing social and cultural values within a liberal democratic political order. The second are the revolutionary conservatives, these are people who reject, liberalism, progress, and modernity which they see as having corrupted and destroyed society, and want to create a radical alternative that preserves a strict normative value system. Third are simply pundits and intellectual prostitutes who exist to justify whatever the US Republican party believes at any given moment. These people are basically American ultra liberals except they believe in Christianity and the nuclear family and have a delusional view of an idyllic American past that never existed. They are also very inconsistent and stupid, for example, the New York Daily Tribune was one a GOP mouthpiece. It's foreign correspondant in European affairs was none other than Karl Marx!

The first two types of conservative are defintely worth reading. The GOP fags should be avoided because they are pure cancer and don't know what their talking about most of the time, note their constant liberal bashing despite the fact they are liberals themselves!


>>22281308
The Jacobins would be considered right wing by Jacobin Mag's standards. They were French ethno-nationalists who believed in a republic led by an Enlightended dictatorship with total control over all aspects of life. They also hated non-French, especially ethnic Germans. Then again, Jacobin's Marxoid editors also believe in those things, just so long as it's all led by a communist party or something.

>>22281310
>animals eat each other
how is that edgy?

>>22280953
>Freemason thinks everyone should die
What a unique thinker.

>>22281166
I wouldn't disagree but I would paint it more as leftists think humanity can rationally achieve utopia while rightists have a skeptical view of rationality and its byproducts.

>>22281292
>The day I came to that conclusion is the day I realized I was "right wing"
>I actually remain an adherent to Orthodox Marxist ideas on history and economic relations
So you're the definition of based retard?

>>22280892
Murray Rothbard, Hans Hermann Hoppe, James Burnham, Sam Francis, Paul Gottfried, Pat Buchanan, Carl Schmidt, Bertrand de Jouvenel, Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, Robert Michels, Oswald Spengler, Joseph Tainter, Ted Kaczyinski, Curtis Yarvin, Nick Land. Not all of these are entirely right wing and they don't all agree with one another but this is basically the corpus that encompasses the actual American Right through the Old Right to its modern manifestations in paleoconservatism, libertarianism, the alt-right etc. It's what ideas and discussions have actually been floating around right wing spheres and this is what the guy in the OP tweet should have been reading.

>>22281279
Yeah, was it supposed to be a secret that 'the right' defends hierarchy? I've never heard of this "Jacobin" publication, but they seem to have very little news to cover.

>>22280892
Are there any left-wing thinkers worth reading besides Burke?
>ftfy

>Jacobin
>larping as a group that had no problem using secret police and public executions
>became so schizo that they started guillotining each other
checks out

>>22280892
>implying that there's anything wrong with defending conventional social relations and traditional heirarchies in the face of weaponized populism promulgated & exploited by enemies of the state, the people, the society, the law, and liberty itself...

...or that such concepts can even be thoughtfully considered by the brainwashed graduates of questionable schools and the maladjusted idiots clamoring against all of these critical elements of a perpetually prosperous society (which they themselves cannot meaningfully contribute to beyond providing simple labor, farcical entertainment, or, at best, rote technical or clerical work)...

...it is the truly "useless eaters" themselves which become the pawns of such foreign-funded unconventional assaults upon the bastions of their gracious hosts -- the healthy nations which stand against global slavery, et al -- who, once their wicked work is done, are simply "re-educated" in the squalor of gulags, then set to be overworked without adequate (or any) pay in plantations, mines & factories, or simply EXTERMINATED for being congenital threats to the stability of whatever STATE they find themselves under the power of...

...this is seen again & again with every Communist "Uprising" or "Liberation" -- the means of production & wealth are "liberated" from their rightful owners and confiscated into the mismanaged coffers of the State, the People are "liberated" from autonomy & liberty itself, and the "useful idiots," those pawns who zealously committed acts of arson, vandalism, sabotage, theft, assault & murder on behalf of the new "Communist" government they wish to usher in...

...those selfsame "Communist Activists" are "liberated" from life itself...

...ironically, the best defense for liberty against such vile machinations by the unwitting (and witting) servants of ontologically evil misanthropes perfidiously peddling pseudointellectual, pandering & pilpul...

...is to establish a HARD CORE FASCIST DICTATORSHIP ruled over by an inviolable cadre of truly enlightened & conscientious paragons of the very virtues which wickedness always seeks to erode, all in order to protect the people and their country...

...there is no other effective way, to my knowledge, for us to ensure that good people enjoy the safety of a healthy culture for themselves and their children...

...than to inerrantly adopt an absolute policy of...

...TOTAL LEFTIST DEATH...

...because...

...the...

...left...

...cannot...

...BREEVE/BREED/BE...

...but enough of these...

...ellipses...

...hopefully...

...this...

...triggers...

...(You).

>>22280892
>Are there any right-wing thinkers
No.

>>22280894
Bing "right wing" is a moral stance, so no Rothbard isn't a right winger

>>22282563
The power-owning elites.
Mostly bankers, tech billionaires, etc. Most of them have no ideology whatever, unless you consider money-making a form of ideology. Some of them have a little ideology (Soros seems to) and fund this or that cause, but usually not much, and usually if they fund a cause it's out of profit interests, and at any rate their ideology ends where their profit-making opportunities begin.

This >>22283744 reply was meant to >>22282696

Burke is an uppity bitch. I stan for Voltaire.

>>22281166
im a leftie who thinks humans are corrupt. but i was heavy into right wing thought a few years ago so it may just be residue from that

>>22283850
>stan
You are a man dressed as a woman and you hang yourself

>>22283893
I'm dressed in a t-shirt and boxers and am laying in bed.

>>22283939
polyester boxers, no doubt

>>22280892
>reading the works of a man from the 1700s shows that he values social conventions and traditionalism
much revelation

>>22280892

I think von Hayek is the best writer in this area. The problem with Jacobin revolutionaries is that they think they can take an organically constituted social body or a market economy and undermine it and put into its place some deliberately designed system of their own and everything will turn out wonderfully. It is pure arrogance and blindness. Look what happened when the socialist tried substituting a planned economy for a market economy. It was a complete disaster. And some socialist still insist that it can be done. Just look look at paracon (or participatory economics). It's beyond a joke.

And it is the same with feminism (chemical and surgical sterilization so women can live like men) and multiculturalism (distinct national groups competing to control important institutions and resources within a single state, of which the most problematic are the Jews [media, finance, pornography, public policy, etc]). All of these things are instances of gross social pathology that were advanced under the banner of "social justice."

>>22281153
Burke's entire shtick is being a snail's pace reformer.

>>22281166
Leftists mostly believe in materialism, so metaphysics for them is always reactionary even if there is communism in heaven(as in some forms of Christianity). They want the human to be satisfied while he/she is part of matter.

>>22280892
>Are there any right-wing thinkers worth reading besides Burke?
Marx

>>22284544
>communism is good in heaven
>b-but you can’t do it on earth!
Admit it nigga. You’re in hell.

>>22284039
Nah. I wear cotton drawls. The only non cotton part is the elastic band.

>>22281166
>I have never met a lefty who thinks the latter or a rightwinger who believes in the former.
I've met right wingers who believe the former, but you're correct about left wingers.

This isn't really related but I've been wondering whether the very strong reactions lefties have to chuddish opinions stem not only from a difference in politics but also the quality of the difference as well. That is to say, from the fact that adhering to chuddish views isn't something one can accidentally do like one can commit an accidental faux pas of PC policy in a lefty environment, but rather something one has to willfully consider as theirs, and only after willfully rejecting the status quo. Like in legal code or religious doctrine, willful sin is always thought of as much more grave than sins stemming from ignorance, a weakness in one's character, or a lack of willpower.

>>22284544
Heaven would by all rights be a post-scarcity society, so you can't really apply our economic frameworks to it. People try to do the same with Star Trek and call it an idealised Marxist society, which is sort of true but it necessitates matter replicators, which remove the need to "economise" altogether so you can't say it's economically left or right.

OP why not read Burke's contemporary and very good friend, Samuel Johnson? He wasn't necessarily a politician or a political philosopher but he did put out some opinions, and unlike Burke, the Whig, Johnson was a staunch Tory, a firm supporter of the power of the King against Parliament and the merchants.

You should read Boswell's biography, Johnson makes several political statements that Boswell records. You could also read the pamphlet he wrote denouncing the American colonists one year before the American Revolution.

Fun fact, Johnson hated Americans the entire rest of his life as a result of the Revolution. He considered them traitors.

The left-right thing is all about hierarchy. The left wants to level society (economically, culturally, racially, etc.) whereas the right wants to preserve the hierarchical relationships that already exist.

>>22284877
The left wants everyone to be equally stupid. The right recognises that a hierarchy is natural and inevitable.
the left are therefore evil

>>22283353
Burnham is not a right winger he’s a neocon Trotskyist that is definitely left wing

>>22280892
It’s not even “dressed up”. This is what we openly believe and espouse. So the tweet isn’t even correct

>>22281331
Kek btfo

>>22281773
How is he right wing?

>>22284627
That and they also completely buy into the idea that they are wholly morally and objectively correct. Therefore if you go out of your way to oppose their dogma you are either an ignorant simpleton who can’t see “objective truth” or you pretend not to see it because you’re an immoral person who rejects the morally correct ideology. The latter in their minds implies that you believe what you believe to cause pain and suffering. Think about all the times you’ve seen a Twitter leftist whip themselves into a frenzy about how evil conservatives are. That’s why. It’s not a rhetorical device, they genuinely believe conservatives are cruel sadists.
Don’t be surprised if you start hearing things like “our ideology is actually highly scientific” from them

>>22285028
It's the opposite, the left believes in enlightenment principles, while the right embraces anti-intellectual barbarism

the ancient city

>>22280892
Right wing = Monarchism
Left wing = Liberalism
modern people try way too hard to force these terms into continuation. Also the Jacobites were absolute fucking faggots that got stackwiped by all of France.

>>22280892
Are there any right-wing thinkers worth reading besides Burke?
Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Spengler, Schmitt, Jünger, Strauss, Voegelin, Huntington, Sam Francis, Paul Gottfried, Patrick Buchanan, Mishima, Furth, Kondylis, Sieferle just to name a few

>>22281726
It’s wrong to say there are no right wing values beyond monarchy though. The “right” obviously makes the most sense with the reference point of a traditional monarchy, but in Republican/Democratic politics it’s not wrong to say there exists a modern right with traditional values as it’s reference point which is independent of monarchy. As best I can tell, that right is just a schizophrenic mess because we are locked into liberal democracy and more importantly, progressive liberal democracy, with no way to escape and the right intuitively understands that. It’s a sentiment that, for example, technology has corrupted the politico-socio-economic life of people but also an understanding that there’s no obvious alternative. It’s only made more confusing that what we would call progressive, left-wing at least in a broader political context, movements of yesteryear like Soviet Communism appear basically reactionary from where we are now.

>>22284877
Key word: preserve? It’s not merely about hierarchy, but traditional hierarchy. The right would never accept a hierarchy where wealthy liberals and moralists sit at the top, for example. The right, in my mind, isn’t merely hierarchical. It’s in favor of what is natural and traditional, and only favors hierarchy in so far as it is that. Politics is also about ethics. In an American context, the right endorses Christian ethics while the left endorses ethics that are downstream of Christian ethics but not Christian ethics proper, basically, a confused Christian ethic.

>>22280892
Steve Sailer

>>22285104
>Schopenhauer
>right-wing

In a democracy, there is no left and no right.
All there is civil servants who only care about the rules they themselves made up.
If their rule says X is punishable by Y and they think you do X, they will fuck with you, especially if you are not a civil servant yourself or not rich. The second they remove, from their rule book, the rule about doing X, they wont give one shit about you doing X all day long in public lol.

In democracy you have 3 actors:
-the civil servants
-the merchants
-the plebs

The civil servants always base their life on their rule book and always care whether some event is in agreement with their rules. They don't give a shit about anything else
The merchants only care about making money. they will always ask ''who pays for this'' and that's all they care about
The plebs in democracy is just here as a milking cow for the civil servants to get rich by extortion, and for the merchants to sell them useless crap and making the GDP go up

Notice how in democracy nobody talks about morality, because merchants and bureaucrats say that morality impairs their profits. And historically they took power from absolute monarchies by saying ''morality is relative bro''

>>22285117
Yeah your whole post is just the usual liberal propaganda, in the historical sense.

>>22285117
>The right, in my mind, isn’t merely hierarchical. It’s in favor of what is natural and traditional, and only favors hierarchy in so far as it is that
If this was true, they would be for monarchy and not any form of republic.

>>22285117
>Politics is also about ethics. In an American context, the right endorses Christian ethics while the left endorses ethics that are downstream of Christian ethics but not Christian ethics proper, basically, a confused Christian ethic.
This is a joke. Bourgeois took power by saying morality is relative, ie personal, in order to base society purely on business. Atheism is a religion, but a preposterous one. For the first time, entirely crafted, by the bourgeois, to feed the cattle something to chew on.
atheism is a religion, just like any other one: it has symbols, priests, oppressions, lies, dogmas, creation myth, hierarchies, social rules and so on. It has also a theology, but it's atomized (ie the rats believe in self determination in order to be compatible with the propaganda of the human rights). The only novelty by atheist rats is that they say ''atheism is not religion, it's an ideology'', because those dimwits deeply believe that if they change the words they use, reality will change.

reminder that contrary to the atheist propaganda, there is no several flavors of atheism. The truth is that there is only one atheism but atheists keep making up various flavors, like social liberalism, nationalism, communism, to keep people running in circle among all the atheist religions. In other words, atheists use their fantasy of market to balkanize their own religion in order to keep people trapped in it while thinking they become free thinkers when they explore the various flavors of atheism.

the bourgeois created atheism and their revolutions precisely to remove any theology bigger than society, so that the wageslaves can ''create their own goals'' , ie self determination.

>>22285103
>Jacobites were absolute fucking faggots that got stackwiped by all of France.
You mean Jacobins.
Jacobites wwere scots opposed to the rightful king being supplanted by the dutch faggot pretende, jacobins were the masonic faggot propagandists who killed the rightfuk french king and destroyed the country forever

>>22285164
In what way is that liberal propaganda? It’s purely descriptive. If you don’t think the right favors traditions, you’re just blind or lying.

I read the rest of your reply and it reads of midwit by the way. You’re not even taking legitimate issue with the posts you’re replying to.

while this is funny, the screed of matthew 23 is basically Jesus lambasting the Jews for obsessing over rules and regulations and the letter of the law while not being able to practice the spirit of the law, given their penchant for power and control over the people.

You see the parallel between the bourgeois civil servants addicted to dogmatic rules, the bourgeois addicted to business, and the jews?

Jews are neurotic ritualists to begin with, god or not, they need mind games to play and beat, and their religion is all about mind wars. Now replace jews with ''bourgeois'' and you understand why democracy is shithole for anybody who isnt form this class.

>>22285156
Every government ever has had bureaucrats and the idea that it’s civil servants who create the law for subjective reasons is totally fucking ridiculous. In America, civil servants work on behalf of the executive branch to carry out governmental operations. This function has existed in basically every regime ever, but if it were a king you’d just call it a court. In so far as the civil service has undue power it’s because of failures at the top of the executive. It’s a well-known phenomenon now that a 4-year President fails to have absolute control over a lifelong civil service. Still, the civil service doesn’t craft the law as a matter of fact. Congress and parliaments aren’t even filled with “the merchants”, but the rich generally and very often lawyers, particularly in America, and lawyers that Americans vote for. This whole “le merchants usurped the aristocrats” is at best a 19th century relic that just doesn’t exist anymore. Merchants don’t even have the most money anymore. Technocrats do. And unsurprisingly, the lawyers legislate on behalf of their technocrat clients. This isn’t renaissance Italy anymore.

>>22285133
nationalism isn't exclusively right-wing, and it tends just to be an addendum onto right-wing populism, not conservatism

>>22285103
How exactly do monarchism and liberalism find themselves at opposite sides when populism can be extremely right wing and a monarch can be very liberal?

The democratization of literature has been a bigger tragedy than the democratization of politics. Now every low brow mouth breather with an affinity for /nsg/ endorses theories about the bourgeois and civil servants in the exact same way Con Inc. endorses theories about the professors and big government. At least Con Inc.’s unholy alliance boogeyman is actually a little bit real.

>>22285224
What makes you say populism can be extremely right wing? Every historical phenomenon of populism we could point to save for maybe Julius Caesar could be accurately described as democratizing or progressive. It seems to me populism is only right wing in so far as monarchy is the popular will. I don’t see populism or monarchy as diametrically opposed either. A monarch can be a populist, same as a Republican or a Democrat can be a populist.

>>22285249
hell, Lula is a populist and he is very left-wing

>Are there any right-wing thinkers
If they were thinkers they would not be right-wing in the first place L O L

>>22280892
Anyone from befere 1700s is right-winger by today's MSM standards. Most would be considered nazis.

>>22281166
Then why do they believe in revolution with dictatorship ruling? Just let people be, things will turn out ok.

>>22285525
Left-wing is when you knowingly or unknowingly support the aims of money-interests.

>>22285133
>noooo he wasn't a nationalist therefore you can't claim him as a man of the right, Chud

He was against democracy and let's say he wasn't a feminist. Good enough for me

>>22284590
Fundamental sky-daddy tier exoteric misunderstanding of heaven. But then, if a leftist understood the concept of heaven, he would no longer be a leftist.

>>22285835
>life sucks and is full of suffering
>but it’s just le TEST!!! So you can get into HEAVEN!!!!
>bro, just trust me bro, trust me, donate and trust me, and you can have your 72 virgins
There’s no such thing as heaven you dumb nigger. You got duped

>>22280892
I don't support conventional or traditional hierarchies. I simply accept the reality of hierarchies in principle and say that if one must exist (and it must), I'd like to be on top of it.

>>22281310
But does he sound wrong?

>>22280892
Burke is garbage. Read De Maistre instead

Julius Evola

>>22286195
Like I said bot

>>22281166
Actually I think people are fundamentally good, it's just that they're too dumb to realize they live in a utopia already. And then it's like a Tower of Babel thing. You just get too many cooks in the kitchen, and it never works, know what I mean? That doesn't mean people are bad. They're just dumb. And no, I'm not going to give power over me to some fucking dummy.

>>22280892
>We have to tear down and destroy everything for reasons.

>>22280892
>conservatism is...conservatism
woah

>>22280892
Hobbes

>>22287781
Unironically this but starting from a conservative point of view
If general society can get fucked up and perverted, especially if it can get as fucked up as the world today, and people actually tolerate this and hyperfocus on distractions instead of doing anything - then it's morally necessary to accelerate this process indefinitely.
If I could tolerate zoomer whining, I'd spend all day pushing estrogen and t-blockers to them behind their parents backs. Instead I push incel ideology to late millenials

>be Edmund Burke
> advocate greater accountability for monarchy
> support Americans in war of indepencence
> spoke against company rule in India
> supported catholic emancipation when it was dangerous in england
> says may be jacobins should not guillotine every one they disagree with
> 210 years later Burke was a heacking reactionary proto fascist
> mfw

>>22281316
>The Jacobins were quite literal Marxists except for maybe the fact that the word Marxism didn't exist during that time. Abolish religion (wich went so far under the terror of the Jacobins that they invented a new calendary because the old one reminded them of Christianity), kill the royal family, kill everyone who disagrees with the regime, one party rule, public schooling, everyone is forced to labour under the state until old age, everyone has to be equal,
Read an actual book you fucking retard.
You've identified some broad superficial similarities but that doesn't make the two movements the same.
Half the things you listed aren't even inherently communist. How is public schooling or being opposed to monarchy communist?

>>22281332
>protestant reformation which all over europe represented the rebellion of the urbanite middle classes against the aristocracy and the church.
Ah yes that middle class urbabite Henry VIII

>>22288101
>How is public schooling or being opposed to monarchy communist?
It's integrally part of communism.

>>22288124
Communist regimes also grow crops does that make crop growing communist?
Public schooling arose out of enlightenment liberalism and/or nationalism, not communism.

>>22287892
This is what I have come to understand reaction to be. If reactionaries are the other end of the spectrum from revolutionaries, and revolutionaries want, well, revolution, then don't reactionaries want a kind of revolution, too?

Reactionaries want revolution from the right-wing. This distinguishes them from conservatives, who don't believe in stopping or reversing left-wing progress, merely slowing it down. Reactionaries are right-wing radicals, that's their entire point.

This is why the whole idea of reaction finds so much purchase these days. A sense among right-wing people that there is simply nothing to conserve any more, relative to their values, so being a "conservative" is useless. A sense that something more dramatic will be needed, to get the world where they want it to be.

>>22288172
YES. DEMOCRATS EAT ONLY MEAT.

>>22285101
the enlightenment principles that rampaged through europe cutting off the heads of kings?

>>22288107
That anon was probably thinking of the huguenots and the case of switzerland and germany, not England which was reformed top-down for completely different reasons.

>>22280892
funny how leftoids haven't come up with a suitable replacement for conventional social relations and traditional hierarchies. it's a hurdle their retarded system just can't take and then they start crying and point the finger at others for supposedly not being intellectual enough.

>>22285249
Populism is right wing when anti populism is left wing and the elite favors a gradual destruction of the networks and foundations of traditional society and culture. Islam is hardly leftist but it as often been supported by populist movements against secular states

>>22289032
Despotism is left wing

>>22289064
I don’t know what despotism is here except special pleading. In the “liberal” (compared to the continent) Britain Burke was in, if you had political assembly without a permit or even a church service in some cases, you could be arrested. You could be tried in absentia as well. When you say “despotism” what do you mean? Do you consider lack of gay marriage to be despotism and therefore left wing?

>>22289096
Despotism is when a single ruler decides everything

>>22289102
So what Joseph de Maistre advocated? And Jacobites? Are you talking literally instead of by prerogative? Because that has never literally been the case as there is too much going on it a state for one man to do everything without an administration

>>22289124
Yes but I mean where one man is admitted complete power with no limitations of course he doesn't do literally all the governmental work
It is left wing because a conservative government would never give all power to one person, a government that is despotic can't be conservative

>>22289139
conservative alone is a meaningless word. it's conservative of something. And depending on what is is conservative, the despot may be conserve the thing.

>>22289184
Conservative of the societal order what else
The despot is there to change things why else should he have all the power

>>22288995
>funny how leftoids haven't come up with a suitable replacement for conventional social relations and traditional hierarchies
Because - spoiler alert - leftoids stem from Marx, Marx from Hegel, and Hegel from medieval scholastic hermeticism.
That is, 'merge with the Absolute' (via slicing off all the differences) 'nigredo-albedo-rubedo' death-cult.

>>22280892

>>22280892
Can any of you fags actually explain or offer an argument as to what's so great about monarchy?
Or is it just cool to you all cause it's old and different?
Arguably even if what is traditional is good, then in the U.S which has never had a tradition of monarchy, defending liberal democracy would be the traditional and conservative position.

>>22289532
>'merge with the Absolute' (via slicing off all the differences)
https://zerophilosophy.substack.com/p/the-worm-bins

"“The Brotherhood of Urban Composters,” Joyce read aloud. “It sounds innocent enough, I suppose,” he mumbled, without conviction. “There has to be a niche for such people.”
Clarke’s attention remained glued to the bins themselves.
“They can eat bones,” he explained. I said nothing. My skepticism must have been obvious.
<...>
“They would scarcely dispose of the body unless they had something to hide,” I remarked.
“If that’s what they were doing.”
“But you said …”
Clarke interrupted impatiently. “I accepted your suggestion that the corpse of Matthew Rigby had been fed to the worms. No definite motive was proposed.”
It was somehow obvious from his tone that he meant more than he had yet said.
§17 — Clarke shifted mode, to something almost pedagogic.
“You have heard of sky-burial?” he asked.
<...>
“Food for worms,” Joyce muttered, as if citing funeral liturgy, and then once again, though more hushed, and at a yet-greater pitch of distress: “My God!”
“Transmutation of the flesh,” Clarke noted. “It’s an old idea. You will, of course, be familiar with it from our own religious traditions. Certain tendencies in esoteric alchemy were especially oriented towards it.”
<...>
“Was Rigby already dying?” I asked.
“Oh, I see no reason to indulge that hypothesis,” Clarke answered, with entirely inappropriate steadiness.
“Then he was killed?”
“Murdered,” Joyce added, in correction.
“Unless, most probably, he sacrificed himself,” Clarke suggested, with unmistakable firmness of conviction.
“How could that possibly have been motivated?” I asked once again. “It could not have been thought an elevation.”
“My God!” repeated Joyce once more, revolted by my question, and meaning no such thing. His psychological state was visibly fraying.
Clarke sought to answer me, as directly as he could. “You know the expression ‘opening a can of worms’?” he asked. “It’s only partially like that. You see, the worm is the can, which is to say, the envelope.”
“The Great Envelope,” I said, recalling a cryptic inscription near the worm bins.
“Yes, exactly – Ouroboros,” he confirmed, “the all-enveloping worm.”
Joyce wanted the conversation to end, it was clear. He could accept no justification for it. Police procedure did not require such reflections. Evil was being indulged.
<...>
§19 — De Vermis Mysteriis can seem unnecessarily morbid on a first reading. It is easy to miss the subtle humor. How could it be imagined that feeding oneself to worms might be an attractive idea? But eventually, sense dawns. By the time you grasp the inevitability, its work is done."

>>22289566
The U.S. as a global superpower doesn’t have a consistent foreign policy. That’s a big problem because other states which we have relations with can’t depend on those relationships not to fluctuate when a new president is elected

>>22289583
I see so the idea is a permanent monarch or despot would have a more stable, consistent foreign policy.
Possibly, that certainly is a flaw of democracy is its short sightedness, but then again you could randomily get a monarch who is an absolute tard or who is terrible at statecraft.

>>22289583
>The U.S. as a global superpower doesn’t have a consistent foreign policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-perception_theory
"people develop their attitudes (when there is no previous attitude due to a lack of experience, etc.—and the emotional response is ambiguous) by observing their own behavior and concluding what attitudes must have caused it. The theory is counterintuitive in nature, as the conventional wisdom is that attitudes determine behaviors. <...> The person interprets their own overt behaviors rationally in the same way they attempt to explain others' behaviors."

Whatever you do, you'll consider it 'consistent' afterwards upon committing it.

>>22289598
Monarchs are seldom random but groomed as successors by the prior monarch

>>22289624
>Monarchs are seldom random but groomed as successors by the prior monarch
And the U.S. elite are the hereditary oligarchy.

>>22289638
Right, which a monarchy was considered preferable to by many thinkers since the monarch often serves as a powerful check on the oligarchy as they look to advance their power at the expense of his

>>22289648
It works the other way too. Who's gonna be a powerful check on a monarch?
Suppose, your beloved sovereign decrees that you have to attend and subject yourself to obligatory ass-rapings each Saturday. Your move?

>>22283724
>Bing
Wahoo.

>>22289660
the mob.
t. The french revolution

>>22289697
Based

>>22289697
>t. The french revolution
So the snake tangued propagandists?

>>22289566
A country where people compete for becoming the legitimate monarch has more soul than a country where no one is and wants to be a monarch.

>>22280892
Start with Aeschylus

>>22289697
>the mob

>>22290305
That guy was a literal actor, everything we're told is such a blatant farce it's unreal.

hereditory monarch vs non hereditory monarch, which is better objectively speaking?

>>22283373
they claim their namesake is inspired by the "black jacobins" of the haitian revolution, not the french

>>22290320
Hereditary monarch of course what do you even mean by this question

>>22290278
>A country where people compete for becoming the legitimate monarch
Some monarchies worked like that i guess like elective monarchies where the nobles would elect one of their own.
Or i guess if there was some confusion about succession in a hereditary monarchy.
But I don't think "people" in general were competing to be a monarch outside of aristocratic families that either had a claim or could make one up to succession.
Anyways it having soul is vague and not a real argument as to its efficacy as a form of government.
Seems to me an elected despot might combine the best of both worlds.

>>22280892
Cuckservatives deserve the bullet as much as leftists.

>>22290417
No I mean a country where there is a hereditary monarch but his legitimacy is constantly contested by other families with people who want to become monarchs and there's like a hundred monarchs in that country declaring themselves as the legitimate monarch and they fight against each other because no monarch recognizes the other monarchs as such. What a spirited country compared to the silliness of modernity! I don't care if it's more efficient.

>>22287915
because he was against the french revolution

>>22290341
>believing there's a difference

>>22290500
I guess it makes for a cool Shakespearean drama, but I wouldn't want to actually live in a state where nobles are clashing and having bloodfeuds all the time and me a pleb would have to pick a side to die for to receive my daily scraps.
I kind of like living in a (relatively) stable state with little violence.

>>22290614
You are only a pleb because you have mentally decided to be one. Why don't you declare yourself a hereditary nobleman because your mom said so like everyone else did? At worst you come into a duel with another nobleman and die nobly and honorably. I advocate for anarcho-monarchism.

>>22289566
living like cavemen is the ultimate tradition if you think about it

>>22280892
I went on that Jacobin site, they're larping, right?

>>22280926
>Retards represent
No. The endgame of right-wing thought is preserving tradition that is beneficial for the species and the soul. It is to follow Christian doctrine to maximally spread the gospel and live decent lives. If you want to talk in “endgames” then the right is only holding out until the return of Christ whereas as left wing progress within their dogmatics ends in utopia or the meaningless passing of time.

>>22285133
This is actually the opposite of how it works in the US. People who call themselves nationalists hate the country and are obsessed with its faults to the point of literally siding against it on foreign policy. Meanwhile all the smug cosmopolitan urbanites are all hardcore american imperialists.

>>22281166
You are ignoring massive amounts of religious conservatism which does pose that man is an inherently good creature corrupted by worldly sin.
Your dichotomy only applies to secular circles. And doesn't always worth there, either. See the sentimentality of fascists.

>>22280892
Heraclitus, Aristotle, Confucius, Xunzi, Hume, Tocqueville, The Federalist Papers, Hayek, Friedman, Schmitt, Strauss, MacIntyre, Spencer, Scruton, Gray, Hazony, Dostoevsky, Hegel, Nietzsche...

>>22281279
Basically came here to post this.

>>22280892
my dairy desu

>>22281279
>I'm actually a Marxist,

>>22290318
i liked how the democrats tried to stop the footage coming out of the police walking him around the building

>>22291106
This is why rightwingers are spiritually superior to leftwingers.

>>22289566
Not a monarchist myself but I heard many argue that a monarchy tying the elite down to the land, by tying them to the person of the monarch, is a much preferable alternative to the cosmopolitanism of the financial elite that liberal democracies have, from the standpoint of the state. Plus a monarch is personally interested in the prosperity and continuity of the state he governs, unlike the managerial elite.

>>22291837
>Not a monarchist myself but I heard many argue that a monarchy tying the elite down to the land, by tying them to the person of the monarch, is a much preferable alternative to the cosmopolitanism of the financial elite that liberal democracies have, from the standpoint of the state.
That's an argument for a landed aristocracy, not a monarchy. Many monarchies decided to ally with financial elites themselves.
>Plus a monarch is personally interested in the prosperity and continuity of the state he governs, unlike the managerial elite.
I don't understand what this means. Why would the managerial elite not be interested in the continuity of what they govern? And why would a monarch be moreso?

>>22291853
Managerial elites only have loyalty to the little bubble of power they managed to grab onto, not the state or a people in a general sense. They are unthinking, servile automatons, like bureaucrats generally are. This is why they are much more likely to stay where they are even during a change in regime. While a monarch knows for certain that in the case of a regime change not only will he be certain to get deposed, but also probably likely to get it the worst of all people, and not only himself, but any family he might have who are also super high priority targets in those scenarios, like we seen in the case of the french and the russian revolutions.

>>22291864
So if there's a monarchical revolution the managerial elites are unlikely to be deposed anyway?
Weren't thousands of bureaucrats executed by Stalin and Robespierre?

>>22281316
> kill everyone
> 9200 in a nation of 30 million
> same decade when england kills 60 000 Irish repressing a republican movement

>>22292283
They created the Terror. They were the first terrorists.

>>22280892
>reveals something important, that right wing intellectual thought is [ strawman for right wind intellectual thought ]
Ah yes, classic staple of any good argument

>>22280892
Rothbard, Hayek, Bastiat. More modern ones I would suggest Douglas Murray and Michale Knowles book Speechless

>>22289583
That could all be solved with a one party state

>>22289032
In other words, “populism is not inherently right wing”.

>>22289566
Monarchy is more stable, more effective, allows for longer foresight, prepares better leaders and civil servants, and elevates the political norm rather than reduces it to the lowest common denominator. In America, we effectively have a 4-year king but instead of someone that spent his life being prepared to rule, he is someone that spent his life hustling as a professional and grifting for a buck, then he gets into office and even if he is good he has to leave and make room for the next grifter to get in.

>>22281316
they were masons

>>22281726
I appreciate the longer perspective.

>>22292596
Are monarchies like Syria and North Korea more stable and more effective?

>>22292981
Constitutional monarchy isn’t the same as absolute monarchy, which has been loathed since antiquity. A constitutional monarchy just means a relatively muscular executive branch which is hereditary.

There are plenty of Far-Right thinkers, the trouble is that people keep trying to find them in the Liberal Tradition, there are none. They are only slightly Right of their Left Wing rivals, look outside the Liberal Tradition and you will find a breadth of different thinkers that embody entirely different ideals and values.

>Thomas Carlyle
- On heroes hero-worship and the heroic in history
Covers why heroes are made and espouses the Great Man Theory, one that is entirely Right Wing. Aristocracy
- Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches: with Elucidations
I've not read this but I have been recommended to it.

>Oswald Spengler
- Prussianism & Socialism
Outlines a Anti-Marxist means to organize society based on the Prussian State, one that was so effective and danger to its enemies that it was forcibly dissolved after WW1, despite not being conquered, invaded or defeated.
- Man & Technics
Explores mans relationship with technology, not in the way that Ted K. bemoans it, but in the way that man engages with. A good anti-utopian read.

>Carl Schmitt
- Dictatorship
Presents the legal, moral and philosophical arguments for a strong executive officer and the means by which one can arise.
- The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy
A criticism of the moral underpinnings of the Democratic System and why every single one is gradually becoming worse and worse.
Other assorted thinkers and writers
>SS Warrior-Poet, Kurt Eggers
>A New Nobility Of Blood & Soil, Walter Darre
>Why I'm Not A Liberal, Jonathon Bowden. Also has many talks and speeches on Spotify and youtube

Under no account are you to read Evola, he is a red-herring that is utterly boring and empty of any materialist organization of society. It is empty in the sense that it offers meta-physical analysis of the world and offers nothing on how to organize a society or help a lost man.

>>22293079

>>22293079
>- Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches: with Elucidations
How was the regicide right wing?

>>22293079
Muh society
Political theories are useless when they aren't applied to a specific country or nation

>>22293079
>For My Legionaries, Corneliu Codreanu
An auto-biography by a Romanian Iron Guard founded, details his reasons, his thoughts and his motives for embracing a vitalist authoritarian way of life, which he imposed via the Legion of the Arch Angel Michael, a very passionate and arguably one of my most favorite books.

>>22293096
>details his reasons, his thoughts and his motives
some jews shat into his food plate in university, and thus he felt 'betrayed'. Yes, really.

>>22293096
>through its concepts
No such thing. Therefore, wrong.

"The key to this account, however, is the process of retrieval and what it consists of. What does one retrieve? A concept? And is a concept a stable object in memory, or something else? An experiment by Barsalou and his students (Barsalou, Solomon, and Wu 1999; Wu 1995)
involves making a tacit concept explicit by listing the properties of the concept. Subjects are presented with a word, for instance, “dog,” and are asked to list the properties that are typically true of the denoted objects. Psychologists of concepts assume that in this task, subjects retrieve their concepts from their long term memory and use the knowledge stored in the concept to solve the task. (Machery 2009: 112)""

"The results of these experiments, however, show that **subjects list different things when they list the properties of dogs,** that what they list is dependent on the context, that is to say on such things as the expectations of others. This is not a dramatic finding, but it is suggestive: Presumably it means that what is in the subjects long-term memory about dogs, that is to say something tacit they are making explicit, is personal, a collection of their perceptual experiences, rather than collective, and certainly not collective in the sense implied by philosophical theories of concepts as shared objects of thought which one either possesses or not, and that **the “concept”** that comes to mind for them, exhibited in lists of properties, **is constructed on the fly** out of these materials, rather than sitting in the brain in some fixed form."

"Thus there is nothing like “matching” between subjects with respect to concepts, but rather more or less overlap in properties made explicit and instability between occasions for the subjects themselves."

>>22293153
>>yes, he names the jews
>Specific breed with higher than average verbal iq, occupying the niche that selects for higher than average verbal iq? How dare they!

>>22293178
Leftist - equality, 1=1, i.e. your absolute replaceability, i.e. go merge with the Absolute/Demiurge
Rightist - inequality, i.e. local catastrophes bottleneck filtering, i.e. Eternal Hell

>>22293178
Right wing versus left wing is not a matter of individual policy like healthcare or military, it is about fundamental views of how the world should be or is. For example right wing views are typically elitist, aristocratic, very hierarchical and very formal. While the left view is typically egalitarian or motivated from the bottom up or it is concerned with the masses itself in the form of capitalism or communism.

>>22293118
More like recent immigrant Jews from Russia were 50% of the university student bodies and monopolizing all urban trades in Romania, and then after the Bolshevik Revolution they were 90% of communists in Romania and were openly making jokes about throwing the gates open when the Russians reached the border, which people genuinely thought could happen any day, so Codreanu broke up the university communists and swore an oath with some friends to retreat into the woods and take up partisan activities against the Russians if they invaded

Codreanu was one of the most interesting men of the 20th century

>>22293118
>>22293139
>>22293192

>>22293189
>For example right wing views are typically elitist, aristocratic, very hierarchical and very formal.
Counterpoint: fascism

>>22293238
I am that anon and sympathetic to Fascism, National-Socialism, Falangism (Phalanxism) and similar related ways of organizing society.

>>22292981
Tbf those countries are more dictatorships than monarchies, although NK is hereditary.
Saudis Arabia is probably the closest the modern world has to a monarchy.

>>22293245
Okay and? My point is that fascism has anti-elitist and populist elements.
As well as many contemporary right wing politicians like Trump

>>22291106
you cant win a war against time and change :)

>>22293258
In addition the National Social Worker's Party had egalitarian elements in its emphasis on workers and the common (German) man. And at its creation many of the old elites and aristocracy were opppsed to it for precisely these reasons.

>>22293258
>right wing politicians like Trump
Oh, you were retarded.

The biggest lie of all time is that progress is good. By any standard the social and scientific advances of the last several centuries have resulted in the bloodiest, most depraved, most destructive period in human history.

>>22293258
No, it does not. You are confusing mass appeal with Populism. Because people support something, does not imply Populism, Trump was Populist as he entered politics with the idea of implementing what the people wanted and played to them. Hitler, Mussolini and Franco had their own ideas and implemented them on society.

Modern contemporary politics, especially the Right Wing is an absolute shit-show of human detritus, that said they are all somewhere on the broader Left of the political spectrum.

Fascism is elitist and Right Wing on the basis that humanity is unequal in ability and achievement and that must be recognized and included in society, in some way. Be it in leadership ability, in intrinsic mindsets, physical characteristics or even abstract ones.

>>22293266
You again are confusing a celebration and the support of the Germanic Peasant (which in German is Bauer) which in English is akin to a Freeholder or land owner. They celebrated the farmer and his abilities, his mindset and his strength as the source of strength for the nation. None of them had any authority over the nation, only their farmstead if they owned one. In the factories, they reported directly to their Shop Steward, to their Union leader, who reported up the chain. The hierarchy went vertical, based on the same leadership principles as a military. Many, many of the Old Elites supported it as they found places in the party based on their leadership and organization skills, regardless of their Christian trappings.

You again confuse care and support for the poor man with egalitarianism and uplifting him to a position above his capabilities.

>>22293189
Leftists are just as hierarchical; it’s just a different hierarchy.

>>22293275
Most would consider him right wing. I'm not really interested in playing the no true scotsman game with you. Like when commies claim liberals aren't REALLY left wing.
Left v.s right is relative and in the contemporary American context Trump is considered right wing. I dont really give a shit if he isn't extreme enough for you.
The point is that there are many examples of people thought of as right wing that are populist in their politics. Which shows that the dichtomy between left = egalitarian right = hierarchical is simplistic, as there are many counter-examples.

>>22293187
>>22293189
>missing the point

>>22293299
I should have made clearer.

Right-Wing - Vertical Hierarchy
Left-Wing - Horizontal Hierarchy

The Right is broadly speaking content with barriers to entry in certain spaces, they are largely exclusionary on the basis of sex, class and race. They discriminate, both positively and negatively.

The Left is broadly opposed to any sort of exclusion and are very inclusive of anything and everything. The Left loathe discrimination, of any kind.

>>22289566
Accountability.

>>22290341
You mean the people that literally genocided all whites from Haiti?

>>22292519
libertarianism is sem-distinct from conservatism due to its emphasis on fiscal and not social issues.

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

>>22293291
In power the Nazis implimented the Strength Through Joy program which contained many policies for the welfare of workers.
These policies bare some similarity to the New Deal programs created in the U.S.
In addition the NSDAP had as part of its platform the nationalization of the banks and a policy of redistribution, a promise which scared away much of the commercial elites. (Though once in power they eased up and went back pmany of these promises in order to win the support of these elites)
As for the "old elites", many of the Junker nobility looked down upon the Nazi movement given these populist elements and the common place background of many Nazi leader.
They came on board hoping the Nazis would , but it was a strategic decision they did not all necessarily like the Nazis.

>>22293330
*would preserve their waning power

>>22293311
The "progressive stack" is a vertical hierarchy.

>>22293362
No, it is horizontal as it seeks to remove barriers in society and allow the free movement of people. That is what intersectionality is, that is the core of progressive politics, that people suffer discrimination at various levels and that should be stopped.

>>22293392
>it is horizontal as it seeks to remove barriers in society
This is like saying that Christianity is left-wing, since it seeks to remove sin. Evil as alienation; actualization of the Absolute; merge with the Demiurge.

>>22293392
Incorrect, the core of intersectionality is a hierarchy of importance based on minority/sexuality/gender/bodily status. The tierlist is as follows:
>white/heteronormative/male/bi: evil/lmao tier
>east asian/gay/lesbian: technicality tier
>middle eastern/indian/NA: light brownie points
>black African: entire brownie cake
>African American: kang tier
>Female: kween tier
>Trans++: god kwang tier

>>22293467
No. You're confusing the means with the goal. They are disenfranchising Straight Whites because they correctly realize they are at the top of most hierarchies, especially within their own native lands. While they bring this group down they are also trying to uplift the blacks and browns. This is removal and subversion of all social hierarchies.

The point is the removal of all differences between these groups, which is Left-Wing. To the Left we are all the same, nations are just economic areas.

>>22293439
You are so close to understanding.

>another chud bait thread

>>22293439
Christianity is left-wing, read Evola

Anyone who aspires to conservatism, and likewise anyone who fervently and passionately rails against conservatism, is fucking weaksauce.

>>22293483
The left most certainly values parts of the stack over others anon, they constantly infight.

>>22293557
That is a symptom of a horizontal hierarchy. It is natural to value your in-group more than the out-group, that is the biological support for the family. An inherently hierarchical and fascist structure, this is their justification to destroy it.

Would this be an accurate summarisation?
Left = feminine
right = masculine

>>22293590
That is crude symbolism only, it is neither entirely true or entirely false.

>>22293589
Be the change you want to see

>>22293615
Men like hierarchies of abiility and loyalty to their tribe
women like equality and harm avoidance

I feel like these are key elements shared with the left vs right concept.
Of course it is extremely crude

>>22293627
Some men do not like hierarchies, an example of all the Men who support Libertarianism, Democracy and Marxian Socialism.

>>22281316
And Russia was sucking French dick for a long long time
>>22281331
Yes see Demons by Dosto

>>22293639
>men do not like hierarchies support Marxian Socialism

Are you some kind of retard?

>>22281717
Correct

>>22293639
>Some men do not like hierarchies, an example of all the Men who support Libertarianism
I don't think you understand what I mean by hierarchies of ability.
libertarianism is all about them in a very fluid way.

>>22293668
>hierarchies of ability.
They can not exist in a Democracy, if this was an anti-democratic state wherein ability was the only measure I would be inclined to agree. However in a free market these are largely obscured as there is no sure way to observe them. Metrics for competency and ability are completely owned and controlled by financial interests who have no intention of releasing their monopoly on them.

These can only work on a small, local scale outside of dense population centers. Because the greater market has not been able to control them.

>libertarianism is all about them in a very fluid way.
Libertarianism is the subversion of natural hierarchies as one can use money to subvert, buy, lie, cheat and steal one places. Further there is no need to be seen doing good, only that the message is that you are doing good.

My political theory is that a government should be legal. What is this babble about muh what shoshiety should look like? That's not even the point of political theory. Everyone who thinks like this is a total retard.

>>22293316
Accountability through an unaccountable monarch?
Not going to pretend that elected leaders are all that accountable either, but it seems to me if anything the strength of a monarchy was always in its unaccountability. That a singular leader with more power than any one noble lead to a stronger, less divided and ore centralized state

>>22293706
What's that argument about money that it was developed to get people to do what they normally wouldn't?

As I said before it's a very crude assertion. and getting people to do something via deceit seems very feminine.

>>22293761
>What's that argument about money that it was developed to get people to do what they normally wouldn't?

I've never heard that argument before, what is the premise of it?

>>22293075
>Constitutional monarchy isn’t the same as absolute monarchy, which has been loathed since antiquity. A constitutional monarchy just means a relatively muscular executive branch which is hereditary.
So you don't support an actual monarchy. Constitutional monarchies had an appointed cabinet which frequently changed personnel and policy and overruled the monarch.

>>22293254
>Tbf those countries are more dictatorships than monarchies, although NK is hereditary.
This is another no true Scotsman. Syria and North Korea are ruled by hereditary rulers for life with supreme authority. They are effective monarchies.

If you think hereditary rulers are good because they provide stability and continuity and they are more invested in the success of their country, then the Assads and Kims should be doing better than elected republics.

>>22293801
I'm hazy on it but i think it was said in the context of honour or karma.
doing good things to earn honour and that bad things could tarnish that honour, that this honour could in a sense be exchangeable.for something or other. Or the idea of our souls having a karma debt we must balance out to move on in the next life.
But gold has no smell or something like that.

My memory is really patchy but I think it was someone discussing the idea of the value of honour in modern society. I didn't really pay much attention to it but you reminded me of it a little.

>>22293835
>Syria and North Korea are ruled by hereditary rulers for life with supreme authority.
Bashar did not get his power through legitimate father-son succession though - he played the same political game as his opponents game and got ahead in no small part to his connections and nepotism, but if that qualifies as a monarchic regime then USA was one between 2001 and 2009. North Korea is the only straightforward example. Even Saudi Arabia is extremely far from monarchic rule - it's a blatant clan oligarchy.

>>22293590
>Left = feminine
>right = masculine
Left = Tiamat
right = Marduk

Revolutionary Demonology (2023)
"The End Times are here. The Digital Middle Ages approaches, the plague reaps its deadly harvest, climate apocalypse is around the corner, and fanaticism, fascism, and madness are rampant. The idea that we might gain the upper hand over the dark abyss into which the planet is tumbling is a form of magical thinking, laboring under the delusion that we can subdue eternity with relentless bloodlust, brutish exploitation, abuse of power, and violence. Revolutionary Demonology responds to this ritual of control, typical of what esoteric tradition calls the “Dogma of the Right Hand,” by reactivating the occult forces of a Left Hand Path that strives for the entropic disintegration of all creation, so as to make peace with the darkness and nourish the Great Beast that will finally break the seals of Cosmic Love."

>>22293743
Monarchy has been the most common form of government in Europe for 900 years while Liberalism holds for less than 300 years. No need to pretend that monarchy is objectively better, but no need to pretend that liberalism was proven to be the better form of government either.

>>22280892
Follow your King i to oblivion

>>22293963
Implying that stability is betterment.

All life is inherently instability - growth, change, transformation, learning, evolution, struggle, expansion and succession. Death is the only stable and constant thing. Should liberalism lasts for as long as European monarchy did it will only serve to prove that it has finally become something as rotten and stagnant.

>>22294005
The point is that liberalism still has 600 years of hardship to proof itself better than monarchy.
What do you mean with betterment? What is there to better in the first place?

>>22294005
The point of government isn't "to make things better". Governments arise from entirely different needs, it is only after long periods of wealth and stability that they start to endeavour something like the improvement of muh society.

>>22280892
Niggas be wanting an absolute monarchy till he’s bad or goes against their views
>then you can just kill him
Because nations with wild political instability are great places to live

>>22293963
Come to think of it - true monarchy was an invention of of Enlightenment era, and it did not, in fact, last even 300 years. Prior to that, monarch was a mediator between his vassals, did not wield unchallenged power over them, and in most cases and periods was not even the most significant power figure in his own kingdom between his largest vassals, religious leaders, merchants, councillors and bureaucrats.

>>22294024
>What is there to better in the first place?
https://web.archive.org/web/20170720201038/http://www.xenosystems.net/what-is-intelligence/

"The basic cybernetic model, therefore, is not preservative, but productive. Organizations of conservative (negative) feedback have themselves been produced as solutions to local thermodynamic problems, by intrinsically intelligent processes of sustained extropy increase, (positive) feedback assemblage, or escalation. In nature, where nothing is simply given (so that everything must be built), the existence of self-sustaining improbability is the index of a deeper *runaway departure from probability*. It is this *cybernetic intensification* that is *intelligence*, abstractly conceived.

Intelligence, as we know it, built itself through cybernetic intensification, within terrestrial biological history. It is naturally apprehended as an escalating trend, sustained for over 3,000,000,000 years, to the production of ever more extreme feedback sensitivity, extropic improbability, or operationally-relevant information. Intelligence increase enables adaptive responses of superior complexity and generality, in growing part because the augmentation of intelligence itself becomes a general purpose adaptive response.

Thus:
— Intelligence is a cybernetic topic.
— Intelligence increase precedes intelligence preservation.
— Evolution is intrinsically intelligent, when intelligence is comprehended at an adequate level of abstraction.
— Cybernetic degeneration and intelligence decline are factually indistinguishable, and — in principle — rigorously quantifiable (as processes of local and global entropy production)."

>>22294024
>What do you mean with betterment?
What do (you) mean:
>600 years of hardship to proof itself better
?

What makes you assume that "lasted longer" = better? Would that make monarchy many orders of magnitude worse than tribal forms of organization, which lasted for hundreds of thousands of years?

>>22294032
The point of Government is to instruct and reinforce the behavior of a people, the State itself is an expression of these people. The Modern American concept of the State, of Government and of its duties is utterly ignorant of every prior day of history and ought to be burned down.

The Prussian apparatus was the highest we achieved in the world and its history and it was torn down by lesser minds out of spite, fear and jealousy.

>>22294032
>The point of government isn't "to make things better".
The point for whom, tho?

>>22293835
An actual monarchy? Absolute monarchy is simply one kind of monarchy just like Athenian democracy is just one kind of democracy. Hamiltonian monarchy was the question since it was asked if monarchy makes since in America from a trad perspective. Hamilton’s suggestion is a lifetime ruler, preferably hereditary but also maybe elected (elective monarchy would have drawbacks of less consistency from administrations) as the executive branch, which legislative and judicial branches besides that and a separation of powers

>>22294050
>the Prussian apparatus was the highest we achieved in the world and its history and it was torn down by lesser minds out of spite, fear and jealousy.
The highest by which measure? The literal height of the pointy hats?

>>22294024
>What is there to better
https://web.archive.org/web/20190220062945/http://www.xenosystems.net/hell-baked/

"The logical consequence of Social Darwinism is that everything of value has been built in Hell.

It is only due to a predominance of influences that are not only entirely morally indifferent, but indeed — from a human perspective — indescribably cruel, that nature has been capable of constructive action. Specifically, it is solely by way of the relentless, brutal culling of populations that any complex or adaptive traits have been sieved — with torturous inefficiency — from the chaos of natural existence. All health, beauty, intelligence, and social grace has been teased from a vast butcher’s yard of unbounded carnage, requiring incalculable eons of massacre to draw forth even the subtlest of advantages. This is not only a matter of the bloody grinding mills of selection, either, but also of the innumerable mutational abominations thrown up by the madness of chance, as it pursues its directionless path to some negligible preservable trait, and then — still further — of the unavowable horrors that ‘fitness’ (or sheer survival) itself predominantly entails. We are a minuscule sample of agonized matter, comprising genetic survival monsters, fished from a cosmic ocean of vile mutants, by a pitiless killing machine of infinite appetite. (This is still, perhaps, to put an irresponsibly positive spin on the story, but it should suffice for our purposes here.)

Crucially, any attempt to escape this fatality — or, more realistically, any mere accidental and temporary reprieve from it — leads inexorably to the undoing of its work. Malthusian relaxation is the whole of mercy, and it is the greatest engine of destruction our universe is able to bring about. To the precise extent that we are spared, even for a moment, we degenerate — and this Iron Law applies to every dimension and scale of existence: phylogenetic and ontogenetic, individual, social, and institutional, genomic, cellular, organic, and cultural. There is no machinery extant, or even rigorously imaginable, that can sustain a single iota of attained value outside the forges of Hell.

What is it that Neoreaction — perhaps I should say The Dark Enlightenment — has to offer the world, if all goes optimally (which, of course, it won’t)? Really, the honest answer to this question is: Eternal Hell. It’s not an easy marketing brief. We could perhaps try: But it could be worse (and almost certainly will be)."

>>22294043
Ok anyways government serves several roles but I don't think that cyberbabble is among the most important ones.
>>22294045
Because it means that monarchy even if flawed is more reliable than liberalism. No one can proof that it will show as persistent as monarchy in the test of time.
>>22294051
What is there to be bettered?
>>22294064
> moralism babble
Tell me something that has to do with how a government should be run and I will not stop reading after half your post, promise.

>>22294055
>Organization of society
>Virtues embodied in their leadership
>Economical policy
>Social Policy
>Behavior of those outside of leadership
>Social Cohesion
>Stated goals of the 'Nation'
>Aesthetics of their heraldry
>The pursuit of intellect
>Martial ability

There are many more categories but it would be a waste to list them here.

>>22294069
>Tell me something that has to do with how a government should be run
>>To the precise extent that we are spared, even for a moment, we degenerate — and this Iron Law applies to every dimension and scale of existence: phylogenetic and ontogenetic, individual, social, and institutional, genomic, cellular, organic, and cultural.
>>Neoreaction
>>the honest answer to this question is: Eternal Hell.
Learn to read, cretin.

>but I don't think that cyberbabble is among the most important ones
For you, yes. For the likes of you intelligence is not an important topic. That's why conservicucks are considered dumb.

>>22294086
Shut up you unironical retard. I asked you: WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH GOVERNMENT?!!
> >>Neoreaction
>>the honest answer to this question is: Eternal Hell
I don't care, I literally don't care.
Learn what a government is before embarrassing yourself on the internet again, your understanding of politics amounts to that of holes.

>>22294078
I thought you were not memeposting anon I believed in you(((

>>22294100
>WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH GOVERNMENT?!!
Precisely the point. What do the feedback algorithms have to do with conservicuck's monarchy?

>Learn what a government is
A virtue-speak fable for buffoons. You've been told: your government should be run like a machine, biorobot. Your 'politics' are obsolete. Learn what cybernetics is.

>>22294122
Schizo but based and also checked.

>>22294053
So the same system, except removing some checks on the executive, while still hobbling them with veto powers from the legislature and judiciary. What would be the advantage of this over the current system? If you had an unpopular president the country's policy would be hobbled until he either abdicated power to the legislature (what happened in the 18th century British constitution this copies) or died.

>>22294122
Because if we acknowledge that if a people needs a government for whatever reason, then the question immediately arises what purpose this government should serve. So, for example, if until this point the defense of the citizens was done by everyone himself, it might be better if this task is centralized under the governmental house (because for example an imminent threat came upon the people, like a warmongering tribe). So, now, I raise the question, is it unreasonable for the head figure of the government to be an hereditary monarch? My answer is, no, it is not unreasonable for the head of the government to be represented by a hereditary monarch. Hence, monarchy is not an inherently flawed form of government and it is only under special circumstances that the head of the government should be represented by a senate, by an elected leader, etc etc.
> You've been told: your government should be run like a machine, biorobot. Your 'politics' are obsolete. Learn what cybernetics is.
I am gigastrong, I don't need machines replacing me. THEY serve ME, not the other way around.

>>22294143
>is it unreasonable for the head figure of the government to be an hereditary monarch?
It is entirely unreasonable if the existence of such a head figure is inherently unreasonable.
>I am gigastrong
Then why do you need a government and a figure on top of it?

>>22294151
I'm not the one needing a government. I have a political instinct, government has to be something constructive, the negotiation of interests under many heads, debates that serve the achievement of goals.

>>22294164
>I'm not the one needing a government
Then why are you shilling something that you don't need?

>>22294165
I don't need it, it's just a hobby of mine.

>>22294171
Cope.

>>22294189
Modern politics is cope. I have a sane idea of what a government is and what it should look like. Modern governments, in the West, what are they? Look at these people. They just look pissed. It's not even enjoyable anymore. Politics should be something fun.

>>22294196
>Politics should be something fun.
Oh they are extremely fun. Just not for you. That's what Modern governments in the West are: the history's most efficient mechanism for transforming the maximum amount of people in history into safe fun for the fewest number of other people in history. If you love fun, then your resentment is motivated entirely by being left out of it. And what options aside from resentment you have?

>>22294226
Oh I'm not resentful of the political discourse of nowadays I just don't see the modern governments resembling anyhow constructive institutions. They quarrel hatefully like a flock of hens, then they go on to talk bad about the other politicians on the newspapers and TV so everyone can hear what bitches these and these politicians are, and nothing gets ever done.

>>22294132
Advantages would be a consistent foreign policy, which is kind of important for a country that tries to be the center of the world order

>>22294254
>I just don't see the modern governments resembling anyhow constructive institutions.
I just explained how they are constructive - by pointing out what they are constructed for. For that goal, they are currently incredibly effective and efficient, more so than any form of government that ever preceded them.

> They quarrel hatefully like a flock of hens, then they go on to talk bad about the other politicians on the newspapers and TV so everyone can hear what bitches these and these politicians are
Because that's a part of their function.

>and nothing gets ever done
because that is also a part of their function. A part of every government's function in fact. If an entity has achieved a maximum of power that it can amass, then the situation is optimal for it. Things don't need to get done anymore. Even worse - things can contribute to the entity losing power, so it is actively desirable that things don't get done, or something might change and damage the existing state of affairs. For a man at the top of the world, there is no desire for the world other than for said world to remain exactly as it is for as long as possible. Even the great shakeups, wars, competitions and scrambles of nations, all were driven by an existing power's efforts to preserve the part of the status quo that includes said power remaining on top for as long as possible. The time fails to stop not because this or that ruler eventually changes his mind and desires for things to start happening again, it does so because perpetuation of power is irrefutably an inherently doomed endeavor that cannot succeed no matter what form of power is behind it.

>>22294268
Consistent foreign policy is the worst thing for any government in the world - like a consistent strategy for a chess player, if it is truly consistent, then it is infinitely exploitable. If everyone knows how you are going to react, then everyone is free to implement a fool-proof strategy for royally fucking you over.

That is exactly why all modern foreign policies are so inconsistent. They are striving to remain just unpredictable enough that any aggressive move is risky gamble with unpredictable results, which drives everyone who doesn't like risky gambles (i.e. everyone with a lot to lose) to avoid aggressive moves as much as possible.

>>22294299
I think you are being misled by the Marxist idea that government is the only relevant power thereis. I have been constantly making the point that government can indeed be very constructive under the two circumstances that it's goals are clearly specified and second that it's participants work together instead of against each other. You trying to shill me anarchism under the table only makes your post even more ironic. Anarchists are some of the worst politicians there are. Their form of government is probably the most destructive of all, one only needs to look at the decade of Anarchy in France during the end of the 18th Century. I don't mean tribal anarchy, anarcho-primitivism or anarcho-agriculturalism, those are societies that never had any government at all.

>>22294318
>I think you are being misled by the Marxist idea that government is the only relevant power thereis.
No, because Marxist idea is that government is just one form of power, as government by itself is not fundamentally different from any other organization.

>it's goals are clearly specified
>it's participants work together
But both of those are entirely true for the modern governments. Just waiting for you to discover the concept of social class for yourself.

>You trying to shill me anarchism under the table only makes your post even more ironic
I'm not shilling anarchism though - I'm using anarchist critique of your approach, because however fucked up it is on it's own, anarchism's arguments are entirely valid in this case - just like absolute monarchy's arguments are an entirely valid and in fact the best critique of low-level feudalism.

>Their form of government is probably the most destructive of all
Destructive for whom, though?

>>22294350
You are correct, government is an organization like any other, one that specified for politics.
> But both of those are entirely true for the modern governments
I wouldn't say that. A large part of the political debate nowadays is about what the task of government should be: from nightguard to some sort of complete control impossible to be implemented in any realistic way, government can't even find a common term on that. In times of prosperity, a bad government doesn't make itself much felt, in times of crisis however, the entire nation soon falls to inner and outer perils.
> Just waiting for you to discover the concept of social class for yourself
Government is done by the upper classes, not the other way around. Social stratification doesn't arise from there being a government or not.
> Destructive for whom, though
For everyone. Chaos, disorder, death, murder, such are the marvels of the people who aim at nothing less than pulverizing the governmental power to the ground.

>>22281166
This is interesting and seems ostensibly true but the problem is a lot of people (left and right) don't affirm the notion of their being a human nature, or even if there is one, that human nature doesn't possess moral attributes.
I think a more pragmatic way of viewing the divide (without moral terms) is that lefties see human mature as naturally pro social while righties see human nature as naturally selfish. A problem with this though is that human nature for many people that is each person's individual nature is always affected by an environment, and you can't test what something would be like independent of a conditional factor required for its existence i.e the environment that allows behaviors to maturate.
>>22291424
This is also a good point.

scruton.
thats about it.

>>22294386
Yeah, I get what you mean. Maybe social darwinism would be a better way to express the idea? Not as an idea that rightwingers necessarily like but as something that they think is the unavoidable fundamental ground of politics. Which is why "how about we treat each other nice" sort of arguments don't work on chuds, because they don't believe in there being such a state as "nice" to begin with. They'd much sooner try to discern that in whose interest it would be to demand passivity from them, that is to say, who is trying to lull people into "being nice" while obviously not being "nice" themselves. This is also why this perspective comes off as "evil" to true believer lefties, because they don't get why people would even imply that they are acting in bad faith, in their understanding, that's something only their ideological opponents, the chuds do.

>>22294313
Unfortunately if you make an agreement with another state one year or a promise and then back out the next enough, other countries stop depending on you or seeing you as reliable, which is not good if you want to be the center of the world order

>>22294268
US foreign policy isn't really inconsistent. Both Bush and Obama did drone strikes. Both Bush and Obama did regime change in the Middle East. Both Trump and Biden sanctioned China. Both Trump and Biden sent weapons to Ukraine. Both Trump and Biden courted India. Every US President supports Israel. Where is the super inconsistent foreign policy that requiers a literal President for life to solve?

>>22294504
>Where is the super inconsistent foreign policy that requiers a literal President for life to solve?
the deepstate is a conspiracy theory, chud!

>>22280892
>conservatives want to… hmmm…
>conserve
Wow deep shit
and they say it in such a pompous way too. What retards. Hoping the article wasn’t written by that effeminate fag McManus

Lol no way it was actually him. What a bumbling retard

>>22281166
This is Sowell’s main idea in A Conflict of Visions

>>22293589
>That is a symptom of a horizontal hierarchy
No, it's the direct product of a vertical hierarchy that they've created by design. They intentionally value certain identities above others, as a way to counteract a perceived inverted hierarchy. But the end result of this is not making all groups equal, it's privileging groups over each other according to their ideal of value. The idea of a horizontal hierarchy, and that the left disdains discrimination, is nothing but an illusion.

>>22293743
>Accountability through an unaccountable monarch?
Monarch is a mortal being. Infinite financial and beurocratic shadow elite is not.

>>22295669
The end result of all Left Wing thought is to make peoples equal, read any of their theory. Because some groups are privileged and others under-so means correctivr action needs to be taken. The discrimination is needed in order to equalize them. Thus the horizontal hierarchy is born, the more people remove differences the more horizontal it gets, there will of course be leaders, rulers and elites.

You think that the way dumb niggers, gays and fags act and think is what they all want? No, they are the crude instrument with which they make more people equitable.

This is also what the Modern Right is doing with economics, all buy the same shit, all consume the same product, all buy the same and all be the same.