/cg/ - Conservative General

[Anonymous No.10918437]

>In a 1928 letter to a mutual friend of T.S. Eliot, Virginia Woolf wrote:
"I have had a most shameful and distressing interview with dear Tom Eliot, who may be called dead to us all from this day forward. He has become an Anglo-Catholic believer in God and immortality, and goes to church. I was shocked. A corpse would seem to me more credible than he is. I mean, there’s something obscene in a living person sitting by the fire and believing in God."

A while backed I asked for suggestions for a conservative (not neocon or classical liberal, I mean classical conservative, also known as "traditionalist" or "paleoconservative") reading chart. You were all very helpful, and I am almost finished with it, it contains over fifty titles (limit one per author), including Roger Scruton, Richard Weaver, Gouverneur Morris, Louis de Bonald and Carl Schmitt. It is divided into two schools, Anglo-American and Continental (these are not limited by geography, for example Paul Gottfried is an American but his work is Continental school). Anglo-American school is normative and constitutionalist and starts from principles, whereas Continental school is existentialist and decisionist, and starts from facticity. I will talk about each in depth when I post the chart. If you have any last minute suggestions, now is the time to post them.

[Anonymous No.10918451]

my suggestion is just to cut all of the angloid mess

[Anonymous No.10918458]

>>10918437

As a classicist, I find it rewarding to explore the classical inspirations of early conservative writings. Burke draws on Lucretius when writing about the sublime for example. Who would have thought? It transforms one of the most atheistic ancient philosophers into a magnificent beacon of Christian piety.

[Anonymous No.10918469]

>>10918451
I can't really do that. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn is very much a Continental in approach, for instance, but alongside Donoso Cortes and Spengler, he also draws heavily on Burke and identifies closely with old school Whiggism (i.e. pro religious freedom, constitution and freedom to dissent, not as in Whig history, pro capitalism, pro legalizing sodomy, etc.) Also there are Anglo works which draw a lot on Continentals. The Natural Family: A Manifesto is an American work which uses research to argue for women being housewives, and homosexuality as subversive deviancy, but they also draw enormously on Bonald.

[Anonymous No.10918477]

>>10918458
Tbqh I love Burke's political work, but I don't much care for his romanticist aesthetics. I agree with Weaver's and Schmitt's critique of Romanticism as the groundwork for consumerism and communism.

[Anonymous No.10918483]

>>10918477

Hmmm. I wouldn't exactly call it romanticist.
Though he does focus on beauty, Burke doesn't diminish or conceal perils and dangers.

[Anonymous No.10918505]

>>10918483
I would call it very early Romantic because I would say it breaks from classical emphasis on proportion. But it does indeed have a Christian element. As an Orthodox Christian (I was baptized last year), I obviously don't have a "classical" aesthetic when it comes to Christianity, and Burke's perhaps captures the overwhelming sensation of God better than more rational conceptions of beauty (or sublimity) do.

[Anonymous No.10918510]

I was gonna come in here and shit on the idea of a /cg/ conservative general but this is some of the nicest and best conversation I've seen on the board in months.

[Anonymous No.10918513]

>>10918510
Yes, we try to keep it as narrow-minded and intolerant as possible, quite tidy that way.

[Anonymous No.10918514]

>>10918505

To expand on my approach, romanticism, for me, fails insofar as it dulls nature's edge. I may be approaching this from a different angle than you.

[Anonymous No.10918515]

Don't make political generals on this board, go to /pol/ to discuss political literature

[Anonymous No.10918519]

>>10918469
>he also draws heavily on Burke and identifies closely with old school Whiggism (i.e. pro religious freedom, constitution and freedom to dissent
see but that's all whack. J.S. Mill On Liberty type jawn. Fuck Burke.

[Anonymous No.10918525]

>>10918514

"A secularization followed in the nineteenth century—an apparently hybrid and impossible combination of aesthetic-romantic and economic-technical tendencies. In reality, the romanticism of the nineteenth century signifies (if we want to utilize the moderately didactic word romanticism in a way different from the phenomenon itself, i.e., as a vehicle of confusion) only the intermediary stage of the aesthetic between the moralism of the eighteenth and the economism of the nineteenth century, only a transition which precipitated the aestheticization of all intellectual domains. It did so very easily and successfully. The way from the metaphysical and moral domains is through the aesthetic domain, which is the surest and most comfortable way to the general economization of intellectual life and to a state of mind which finds the core categories of human existence in production and consumption."
-Carl Schmitt

"Into social thinking there now enters a statistical unit, the consumer, which has the power to destroy utterly that metaphysical structure supporting hierarchy. Let us remember that traditional society was organized around king and priest, soldier and poet, peasant and artisan. Now distinctions of vocation fade out, and the new organization, if such it may be termed, is to be around capacities to consume. Underlying the shift is the theory of romanticism; if we attach more significance to feeling than to thinking, we shall soon, by a simple extension, attach more to wanting than to deserving."
-Richard Weaver

[Anonymous No.10918536]

>>10918519
>if you advocate religious liberty you are literally J.S. Mill
Now look, you are free to hate Burke, Schmitt did. But he is still an anti-egalitarian to the core

[Anonymous No.10918540]

>>10918536
Cuius regio, eius religio.

[Anonymous No.10918541]

>>10918515
This is not a discussion of politics, simpleton, it is a discussion of literature and authors. Please refrain from posting without thinking next time thanks.

>>10918437
I'm shocked Woolf was so openly hostile to someone else's philosophical convictions.
>If you have any last minute suggestions, now is the time to post them.
Pic related. I don't know if it qualifies as politically conservative, because it isn't about politics, but Girard definitely engages with theology in a serious manner with a view to advancing Christian apologetics.

[Anonymous No.10918544]

>>10918541
Can you even read?

[Anonymous No.10918554]

>>10918541
I will check it out, thanks. I might add it

[Anonymous No.10918562]

>>10918525
Redpill me on Carl Schmitt. Where to start with him?

>>10918437
Any thoughts on Leo Strauss? I read Strauss's essay on German nihilism and found myself agreeing with his misgivings about nazism and his defence of authoritarianism. You can find the essay here:

http://www.interpretationjournal.com/backissues/Vol_26-3.pdf

[Anonymous No.10918570]

>>10918562
The Concept of the Political

Strauss is pretty much universally hated by paleocons due to his association with neoconservatism.

[Anonymous No.10918582]

>>10918515
>go to /pol/ to discuss political literature
Stop liking things I don't like: The Post

[Anonymous No.10918588]

>>10918562
If you are interested in the "state of exception" though, both Schmitt and Maistre discuss it. Solid historical examples are the Alien and Sedition Acts under John Adamsin the U.S., and Dollfuss banning the Nazi Party in Austria

[Anonymous No.10918608]

>>10918582
Perhaps he should be a conservative after all

[Anonymous No.10918616]

>>10918588
The state of exception was given citizenship in "left" (whatever that means) political parlance only in 1998 with Agamben's Homo Sacer and again in 2005 with his State of Exception. Note how the allegedly "backwards" conservatives turn out to be way ahead of their time and critics.

[Anonymous No.10918636]

>>10918616
Always like that, isn't it? Progressives may abhor Bonald and Maistre as "dark age" thinkers, but as Robert Nisbet points out, the work of French conservatives proved to be the basis of modern sociology

[Anonymous No.10918663]

>>10918636
It's because whenever something new under the sun shows up, the conservatives are the first on the scene. It's like the surgeon wants to take credit for the timeliness of the ambulance personnel, without which no life-saving could ever happen in the first place.

[Anonymous No.10918672]

>>10918570
>Strauss is pretty much universally hated by paleocons due to his association with neoconservatism.

His ties to the neoconservatism have been greatly exaggerated.

[Anonymous No.10918685]

>>10918663
I think the reason conservative theory tends to be more "cutting edge" is because we're more detail oriented and take great concern over the implications of every little thing. Richard Weaver for example, despite not being really religious, had tremendous appreciation for Medieval theological nitpicking, which looks like autism to most people. Weaver said every little detail in our worldview has enormous repercussions down the line. Conservatives carefully sift and scrutinize wrinkles that seem insignificant to everyone else until the major repercussions manifest

[Anonymous No.10918708]

>>10918672
That's correct, his work has neoconservativism read into it. But still the Wilsonian taint will remain. As for myself through, I still firmly reject him as a conservative due to his fixation on Lincoln's reading of the Declaration. Now I don't bear the hatred that some conservatives, like Mel Bradford, bear for Lincoln, but the only possible conservative interpretation of "all men are created equal" is that articulated in the Virginia Declaration of Rights preceding it: "That all men are born equally free and independent". Other interpretations are irreconcilable with conservatism.
Egalitarianism is not conservative.

[Anonymous No.10918716]

>>10918437
what's your opinion on based jew Paul Gottfried?

[Anonymous No.10918722]

>>10918716
Love him. My favorite living conservative.

[Anonymous No.10918860]

BTW, if anyone who isn't religious is interested in secular arguments against abortion and homosexuality, etc., Roger Scruton is your man. He is an atheist but has argued extensively on these topics.

[Anonymous No.10918898]

I really think traditional society is super-comfy and that its aesthetics and general culture should be actively cultivated but really do not believe in the underlying moralism. That means I'd be okay with a death penalty for gays but only for aesthetic, not ethical reasons. What does that make me? A hypocrite?

[Anonymous No.10918901]

I recommend this lecture it is excellent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB2U9XXpHP4

[Anonymous No.10918904]

>>10918898
an imbecile

[Anonymous No.10918909]

>>10918860
gimme the cliffnotes

[Anonymous No.10918910]

>>10918901
Thanks much

>>10918904
This

[Anonymous No.10918927]

>>10918909
Scruton argues fetuses should, have rights even without being persons. Argues that homosexuality perverts sexuality, saying that moral sex is based on an encounter between sexual distinctions, and that anything lacking this distinction is deviant and narcissistic fulfillment of sexual desire without the existential fulfillment of completing oneself sexually. This are just premises, of course, not his detailed arguments

[Anonymous No.10919169]

Is pic related the main text to read by de Maistre?

[Anonymous No.10919354]

>>10919169
Aye, but start with his later On the Generative Principles of Political Constitutions, which is quite short

[Anonymous No.10919443]

>>10918437
Could you post the reading chart? Would be greatly appreciated.

[Anonymous No.10919545]

>>10918570
Isn't that just East Coast Straussians though? Seems like Claremont Institute-type Straussians are in the ascendancy in the Trump era while the Kristols of the world are relegated to the political wilderness.

[Anonymous No.10920122]

>>10919443
I will try to tomorrow, just about done

>>10919545
I hope you aren't talking about that ultra neocon, Billy Kristol

[Anonymous No.10920123]

>>10918477
>romanticist aesthetics
Having a sublime experience helps understanding our place in the world and understanding the esential value of duty, morality and hierarchy. Burke's defence of the sublime is in its core a defence against a purely material view on the world which comes with the obsession of beauty and shifts the emphasis into more religious experiences as God is the embodiment of the sublime

[Anonymous No.10920133]

>>10918437
Gee, what a cunt. No wonder she killed herself.

[Anonymous No.10920136]

>>10920122
>I hope you aren't talking about that ultra neocon, Billy Kristol

I am. The guy is one of the last few NeverTrumper representatives of the old establishment still going around denouncing the president and openly musing as to whether he should join the Democrats. These guys are not the intellectual heavyweights of the conservative movement anymore

[Anonymous No.10920141]

>>10918519
>religious freedom, constitution and freedom to dissent
Anglo tradition. It is hard to attach conservatism with it for any other group of people but traditionalism is regional not universal and as such his defence of this values are just a result of English tradition.

[Anonymous No.10920148]

>>10918437
Post chart

[Anonymous No.10920221]

>>10920123
I won't argue against that it's against the "materialist calculators" in the sense that A Modest Proposal is. But while "sublime" here can be applied to religious experience it also can be applied to war and other worldly matters

>>10920136
But now we have John JUST Bolton

>>10920141
I would somewhat agree, although I think it possible to have a highly favored state church while not outright banning other religions, even Muslims often do that

>>10920148
Next thread

[Anonymous No.10920249]

>>10920221
>can be applied to religious experience it also can be applied to war and other worldly matters
It does. But a sublime experience makes you realise that there is way more to life than just accumulating wealth which is the materialist view on life. The most upstanding generations morally were those that had experienced war,famine and disasters while moral decay has been championed by the generations that have not experienced hardship. That's the underlying value of the sublime, that it makes people understand the importance of society rather than that of the individual which is characteristic of those people that have scrapped the surface of beauty but had never had a sublime experience

[Anonymous No.10920324]

>>10920249
The entire idea of the aesthetic value of the sublime is experiencing these things from a distance though. While I agree with your premise, that hardship imbues life with meaning beyond Hedonic calculus, you must also remember that person severe suffering is not an "aesthetic experience" for anyone. I also think trying to convert all content into aesthetics is the major problem with romanticism, as it turns everything into *an article of consumption*. The truth is that you cannot realize meaning just from aesthetics: baptism can be aesthetic, but it will never be mainly about that, and so can never be *an article of consumption*. Weddings are often just articles of consumption, which means there is no sense of the reality of hardship and sacrifice, and when these kick in you get divorce. No one is willing to die "for the aesthetics" unless they are narcissistic crackpots (like the woman Dostoevsky mentions who only fell in love so she could be like Ophelia and kill herself), or very strange souls like Mishima (and his unique devotion to aesthetics is strongly related to Japanese honor culture, where honor and aesthetics can be very close values)

[Anonymous No.10920330]

>>10920324
*personal severe suffering

[Anonymous No.10920343]

>>10918860
non-religious morality is a joke

[Anonymous No.10920351]

>>10918898
autistic

[Anonymous No.10920355]

>>10918927
>Scruton argues fetuses should, have rights even without being persons. Argues that homosexuality perverts sexuality, saying that moral sex is based on an encounter between sexual distinctions, and that anything lacking this distinction is deviant and narcissistic fulfillment of sexual desire without the existential fulfillment of completing oneself sexually.

He's just trying to back up his prior feelings with explanations seems really low-energy from your summary.

[Anonymous No.10920356]

>>10920343
I would personally quibble: materialist morality is a joke, but not necessarily non religious morality generally. Schopenhauer's overtly atheist moral philosophy is legit, for example

[Anonymous No.10920361]

>>10920324
>I also think trying to convert all content into aesthetics is the major problem with romanticism, as it turns everything into *an article of consumption*.
But that's just a result of materialism not the appreciation of beauty. Materialism is the end result of utilitarism and rationalism which is the antithesis of romanticism.
Either way I don't consider Burke a romantic eventhough if his aesthetics led to it, the same way Nietzsche is not a postmodernist eventhough he influenced them.

[Anonymous No.10920365]

>>10918898
you can enjoy the aesthic while youre getting hung with them

[Anonymous No.10920382]

>>10920355
It's really not crazy. The dead have rights despite being not legally persons. As for the sexual mores, it all has to do with whether you see sex as something which is relevant the whole community (as Wendell Berry does--he is one of the few classical liberals beloved by classical conservatives): are you realizing yourself within a community, or just gratifying your individualism? If it's the latter, Scruton is right in calling it narcissism

[Anonymous No.10920388]

>>10920324
Also the sublime doesn't always require pain or suffering. It just helps put things into perspective. 9/11 is a good example from this. Very few people actually died but it caused all of the US to have a wave of patriotism,solidarity and social conciousness that it didn't have prior to that.

[Anonymous No.10920394]

>>10920361
Well I would not call him classical. But I am willing to concede what you say here, that Burke is looking to spiritual significance instead of mere cosmetics

[Anonymous No.10920403]

>>10920382
blahblahblah i dont give a fuck about individuals' feelings about morals only what gets actually applied as law. Queer stuff isn't going away no matter what some conservative writers type out and the same is true for abortion but with some restrictions depending where you are.

[Anonymous No.10920409]

>>10920388
But 9/11 wasn't aesthetic

[Anonymous No.10920415]

>>10920409
>9/11 wasn't aesthetic

[Anonymous No.10920424]

>>10920409
>But 9/11 wasn't aesthetic
Under Burke's definition it was sublime in the sense that it is scary,powerful and with the capacity of destruction. Just like a Tsunami or an earthquake could be sublime

[Anonymous No.10920432]

>>10920403
I don't know about elsewhere, but in the U.S. all we would need is a streak of conservative judges to okay it, and many states would put pack their bans on sodomy and abortion in a heartbeat. When our endless consumption catches up with us, people will be pushed out of their soft complacency and individualism will no longer appeal

[Anonymous No.10920438]

>>10920424
Burke was talking about sublime as an aesthetic category, not as in, "Fuck, I just cut off my hand with the buzzsaw."

[Anonymous No.10920440]

>>10920388
>9/11
>Very few people actually died

[Anonymous No.10920482]

>>10920438
For Burke the sublime is scary. Something that is able to destroy you and it's sheer power and brutality is enourmous. Self harm is not sublime but something of majestic magnitudes and proportions like an earthquake or even the destruction if 2 enormous buildings can be considered sublime as a consecuence
>>10920440
More people die for arm violence in the US every year than in 9/11 and still one is way more compelling than the other due its sheer magnitude an scale

[Anonymous No.10920487]

>>10920432
take a break from right wing internet

[Anonymous No.10920499]

>>10920487
what the fuck is wrong with hispanics

[Anonymous No.10920503]

>>10918541
I'm working through Girard's Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World right now, it's really interesting

[Anonymous No.10920819]

>conservatives

[Anonymous No.10920897]

>>10918901
One must be careful with Berlin. He weaves his liberalism into every line he writes. Though a very good lecture you will see how he becomes utterly mad when in comes to his conclusions; as he did in the essay on which that lecture is based.

[Anonymous No.10920951]

>>10920499
>what the fuck is wrong with hispanics
They are the biggest mutts.

[Anonymous No.10921083]

>>10920487
Take a break from thinking national majority rules in America, progressive. Our system doesn't work like that and wasn't intended to

[Anonymous No.10921105]

>>10921083

[Anonymous No.10921120]

>>10920819
he is a homosexual

[Anonymous No.10921156]

read this book its good

[Anonymous No.10921199]

>>10920221
>But now we have John JUST Bolton

Bolton is a nationalist and a unilateralist, not a neocon.

[Anonymous No.10921398]

>>10921199
He is a neocon. When you advocate Wilsonianism and dismiss all dissenters on the right as "moral relativists," that's classic neocon.

[Anonymous No.10921399]

>>10918437
I'm interested to get other people's opinions on this. I regard Kant as a continental, and while I don't agree with him on everything, I found myself agreeing with him a decent amount of the time. However, I believe, within the Continental school, there is a substantial group of people who are working within a post-Hegelian framework. That is, their works concerns dialectics as Hegel conceived of it, although they may disagree with his particular implementation.

I find this subset of the Continental Tradition irreconcilable with Christian Traditionalism, a view of the world I think naturally leads to Conservatism. But I don't think dialectics, that Tradition's focus, is an irredeemable concept.

Hegelian dialectics relies on two distinguished claims:
1. That one shape of (insert topic you're interested in) contains within it contradictions that give birth to a new shape; i.e. the principles of one shape refute themselves and provide the form of the next shape necessarily
2. That opposites (either complements or inversions) necessarily exist

These are the conditions which are necessary to make Hegel's method "logical." However, I think it is possible for Hegel's dialectical method to lead to false conclusions because I reject the necessary connection between shapes, and I reject the necessity of opposites existing. But it is undeniable that this process of refinement through contradiction happens in real life. Measure theory evolving from elementary measures to Lebesgue measures to even more general ideas is one example. Or memory storage in circuits evolving from SR-latches to D flip-flops.

It is my idea (and perhaps others) that dialectics is a natural result of the human tendency to lose a grip on their concepts, to redefine them. In debates, for example, there is often "goalpost moving," where the concept focused on in the debate is redefined in order to gain ground. What, then, distinguishes between goalpost moving and substantive movement of ideas?

I believe that people add ideas/criteria in order to refine a previous idea, but that they add criteria which leads to some endpoint they already have in mind, an endpoint that they set out with. For instance, in the memory circuits example, the leading idea is that memory ought to be stored in a circuit as faithfully as possible. This is the wellspring from which further refining criteria (can it store all types of data? can it withstand timing issues?) grow. Thus, what distinguishes between "good" dialectics and "bad" dialectics is the truth of the leading idea.

I'm interested to see if there are other thinkers who are concerned about dialectics, it's role in politics, and ways to combat its usage. Is progress inevitable, and once its begun we can only wait for it to destroy society? Can we turn back once we've already made an implicitly wrong assumption?

[Anonymous No.10921444]

>>10921399
Kant is not a conservative.

Hegel is not a conservative either, though Scruton regards The Philosophy of Right as a key work in conservative theory. Hegel is drawn upon a lot by conservative thinkers, but ultimately I agree with your assessment. But see George Grant (the Canadian).

I personally find Schopenhauer far more accomodating to a conservstive framework, even though he was a raging liberal and atheist (despite being a monarchist)

[Anonymous No.10921483]

>>10921444
I don't believe he's a conservative either (although he's more conservative than many people of our day and age)

Hegel's weird, to say the least. I just finished his Phenomenology of Spirit, which is why I'm interested in dialectics (and why it fails). Apparently I've achieved Absolute Knowing, so that's neat. I want to read his philosophy of right, although I've kinda skipped to the end where he says Germany is gonna have a cultural/political monopoly on the world.

I'll have to look into both Scruton and Grant; whenever their names pop up I tend to agree with them.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on Schopenhauer, but I haven't read much of him except some bullet points of his critique of the critique of pure reason.

[Anonymous No.10921501]

>>10921083
>we’re going to ban sodomy (which heteros do) and abortion (which rich republicans do
>this will surely stop technocapital

[Anonymous No.10921565]

>>10921444
>>10921483
Dontology is deeply conservative. Kant's ethics are compatible with a conservative society. His politics were just aligned with classical liberalism/federalist which is not conservatism,but the political spectrum has swifted so much to the left and materialism that he would be seen as a reactionary in most of Europe. I don't really see his politics to be that much different from those of Burke with his emphasis on slow transaction to democracy with Rechsstaat.

[Anonymous No.10921571]

>>10921565
>Dontology
*Deontology

[Anonymous No.10921574]

>>10921483
Another alternative to dialect is Kierkegaard, whom John Milbank and Carl Schmitt love (Carl Schmitt even likened the "state of exception" to the teleological suspension of the ethical)

>>10921501
Republicans are not a homogenous group, we are a coalition of diverse and often regional factions; my faction resembles the Constitution Party)

[Anonymous No.10921584]

>Republicans are not a homogenous group, we are a coalition of diverse and often regional factions; my faction resembles the Constitution Party)
cmon bruh

[Anonymous No.10921598]

>>10921565
Burke saying slow change is best change is NOT an endorsement of increasing democracy and the whittling away of sexual mores. Progresssives are stuck in a linear conception of progress and very incorrectly read Whig history into Burke

[Anonymous No.10921626]

>>10918860
Scruton is a Christian.

[Anonymous No.10921647]

>>10921565
I don't see how Deontology and "you gotta take time to change stuff bro" are compatible

[Anonymous No.10921655]

>>10921626
He's a cultural Christian and partisan of Christianity, but he does not believe in an afterlife or the resurrection

[Anonymous No.10921663]

>>10921598
Obviously.That wasn't my point. Mindless materialism and moral relativism goes strictly against Burke's or Kant's thoughts. My point was that Burke and Kant weren't that far away from each other politically speaking. My point was that the gap between De Maistre and Burke is bigger than the gap between Burke and Kant politically speaking

[Anonymous No.10921684]

>>10921647
The conservative school of thought is deontological by nature. Men have to fullfil certain duties as citizens, fathers, providers and so on.
The second part of my post was just relating Kant's idea of Reechstaat with the slow transition that Burke defended

[Anonymous No.10921709]

>>10918515
you dont fully comprehend how bad a disaster those become

[Anonymous No.10921737]

>>10921663
It only appears that way because you think conservatism is sn ideology, some universal economic-political system. It's not. Orestes Browson praised de Maistre as the most brilliant political thinker of the age. Different peoples need different forms of government. In America, Gouverneur Morris wanted a republic with an aristocratic senate, but in France he strongly supported absolute monarchy

[Anonymous No.10921763]

>>10921737
I understand that conservatism is regional but Kant was aligned with the english political school of thought and Burke was a whig all his life so he was not a conservative in most issues, eventhough his critique on the french revolution holds a lot of conservative thought

[Anonymous No.10921767]

>>10921398
He doesn't advocate Wilsonianism. He criticized Clinton's intervention in the Balkans and thinks the only problem with the conduct of the Iraq war was the fact that the US engaged in nation building instead of immediately pulling out. "Regime change" does not mean spreading democracy for Bolton, it means aggressively pursuing what he sees as threats to US national security. Is he a hawk? Sure. Wilsonian-universalist-neoconservative? No

[Anonymous No.10921796]

>>10921763
Kant was an internationalist....

[Anonymous No.10921842]

>>10921767
John Bolton is a neocon in my book for two reasons

1. He cares more about Israel's interests than ours
2. He attacks critics of regime toppling as moral relativists

[Anonymous No.10921854]

Any good conservative african authors?
Post XIX century please.

[Anonymous No.10921896]

>>10921854
You mean black, or actually African African? If the latter, then they're probably all white.

[Anonymous No.10921958]

Natural Law and Divine Law are synonymous, right?

[Anonymous No.10921969]

>>10921896
That is, while African conservatism is often critical of colonial foreign rule, it also tends to believe domestic rule under the whites was preferable to how the alternative turned out. There are many blacks who would agree in Africa, and not necessarily even out of racism, but I doubt there were many who extensively theorized about it in writing

[Anonymous No.10921981]

>>10921958
Yes and no. All natural law is divine law, but not all divine law is natutal law. William Blackstone divides divine law into natural law and revealed law.

[Anonymous No.10922015]

>conservative
What ?
What are you looking to conserve ?
Literally everything except for traditional Catholicism and some nice old buildings and churches are to destroy.

Embrance revolutionary counter-revolution, organicist monarchism and Western fascisto-thomist imperialism.

[Anonymous No.10922086]

>>10922015
>Samuel T. Francis, Thomas Fleming and some other paleoconservatives de-emphasized the "conservative" part of the "paleoconservative" label, saying that they do not want the status quo preserved.[12][13] Fleming and Paul Gottfried called such thinking "stupid tenacity" and described it as "a series of trenches dug in defense of last year's revolution".[14]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism

[Anonymous No.10922244]

Can anyone recommend the essential conservative aesthetics? I have access to the Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, so if anyone can point me in the right direction, I'd appreciate it. Just to indicate where I'm at, in the past I've read some Plato, Aristotle's Poetics, Hume's Of the Standard of Taste, some Kant, Eliot on Tradition, and Pound's ABCs of Reading. I'd need to brush up.

I see Burke a lot in this thread...

If anyone has any second sources on aesthetics, I'd appreciate that, too. Maybe some good works on the sublime, beauty, etc. I'm already familiar with social critiques of literature, but would like to study more about form and I think this thread is the best place to ask.

I already have an innate sense of what makes some literature "bad", and can at least expound upon why I prefer one work to another sometimes. But this is something I want to further develop.

[Anonymous No.10922264]

>>10922244
Read Richard Weaver , Russell Kirk and Roger Scruton.

Conservative aesthetics generally favor awe and restraint (which mixed often produce reverence )

[Anonymous No.10922299]

>>10922264
Of those three, on a quick glance, I believe Scruton may be the most fruitful for my aims, but Russell Kirk's Conservative Mind, as well as his book on Eliot, seem rewarding. Thank you.

[Anonymous No.10922314]

>conservatism

[Anonymous No.10922426]

>>10918437
>Being an actual convinced conservative
>While reading political philosophy

Jeez.

Libertarianism, classical liberalism and perhaps even some random exceedingly moralist political treatise is acceptable, but conservatism is just a philistine, dogmatic worldview that suffers from constant appeal to tradition. Hayek in his "Why I Am Not a Conservative" part of "The Constitution of Liberty" wrote a thousand times more than what a hundered books defending conservatism could muster. There is not a single convincing argument found in Burke, not a single profound thought in Scruton - it's just people who are unwilling to reject their intial conservative impulses and hence try to intellectualize them. You are wasting your time.

[Anonymous No.10922434]

>>10922299
But if you want a quick work which includes a discussion of the social implications of art, Ideas Have Consequences includes that

[Anonymous No.10922438]

>>10922314
truly, the left cannot meme

[Anonymous No.10922450]

>>10922426
Rebut this, my Hayek loving friend
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/05/the-decline-of-middle-america-and-the-problem-of-meritocracy/amp/

[Anonymous No.10922503]

>>10921574
Kierkegaard is an excellent suggestion, makes a good defence of the religious over the ethical.

[Anonymous No.10922509]

>>10922426

[Anonymous No.10922553]

>>10922450
Alright I read this up until the halfway and I do not see what there is to refute. It asserts "meritocracy is bad", "meritocracy is a lie" and "equality of opportunity is silly" but the closest thing to an argument here is a bunch of vaguely connected quotes. What also doesn't help is the use of populist slogans such as "globalist and "centralist" without propert warrant. How can you expect me to refute something which is not even a robust, unveiled argument?
>>10922509
Nice ad hominem argument

[Anonymous No.10922561]

>>10922553
>Nice ad hominem argument

[Anonymous No.10922651]

My knowledge of conservatism is limited to the Wrath of Gnon twitter account, which I enjoy. What do I read next?

[Anonymous No.10922685]

>>10922015

Thomism is based on faulty logic though. See Jay Dyer's critiques and realize you're in schism.

[Anonymous No.10922690]

>>10922651
Begin and end with Hobbes

[Anonymous No.10922706]

>>10918437
>Virginia Woolf
>that quote
She's just the gift that keeps on giving for me. Every once in awhile I stumble upon a quote from her that makes me hate her just a little more.

Lately it seems impossible to imagine how one cannot be a conservative without being Roman Catholic these days. I've heard my call from God and started attending Mass again. However, I've noticed quite a few Catholic posters on here with an anti-American streak even though our Revolution was so much more successful from a conservative standpoint compared to France's. I'm not sure if they were self-loathing Europeans or butthurt Euros, but hey, there's nothing inherently wrong with our Constitution.

>>10918458
Have you entered graduate school for classics or teach at a university? I'm seriously contemplating studying classics for a degree. I used to study English at an elite university but withdrew due to frustration with their obsession over identity politics. What do you see as the pros and cons of the discipline in 2018? Do you think there's a job market for it?

[Anonymous No.10922766]

>>10920897
I read a (probably misinterpreted quote) in a random book, is it true he hated a certain liberalism? he called a form of it totalitarian, which seems a bit oxymoronic?

[Anonymous No.10922783]

>>10922426
>Hayek
Lo. He is not taken seriously in economics let alone politics

[Anonymous No.10922794]

>>10922706
How do we get women back in the kitchen where they belong, mate?

[Anonymous No.10922799]

>>10922426
>Libertarianism
You have to be kidding me

[Anonymous No.10922831]

>>10922706
>there's nothing inherently wrong with our Constitution.
Based on a false definition of freedom and inspired by masonry.
It seems better than the French Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen, but it doesn't mean that it is good.
See Koninck's On the primacy of the Common Good, debunks both liberal and marxist views on the relationship between the City and the persons.

[Anonymous No.10922896]

>>10922706
this is the worst post ive seen on /lit/ in a while, please leave forever.

[Anonymous No.10922910]

>>10922794
>back in the kitchen
Oh, I don't have that perspective, per se. I think traditional roles are just fine for women and they are probably better suited for them. Unfortunately I doubt we'll convince them of that in our lifetime. However, I love Austen, the Brontës, and Eliot, even if Eliot was sort of a progenitor for Woolf.

What repulsed me most of all was Woolf sardonic little witticism about there being something obscene about someone actually believing in God. As if the opposite is a decent thing for someone to do. Nasty little bitch.

>>10922831
>Koninck
Who?

[Anonymous No.10922915]

>>10922896
What offends you so much?

[Anonymous No.10922933]

>>10922915
I'm not offended, it's just that every single thing you said was braindead retarded.

[Anonymous No.10922965]

>>10922783
>He is not taken seriously in economics
He is one of the leading and most widely cited academic economists.
>let alone politics
He is one of the forefront liberal theorists

[Anonymous No.10922997]

>>10922965
>He is one of the leading and most widely cited academic economists.
In austrian autism circles. No one takes them seriously

[Anonymous No.10924087]

>>10922799
Left-libertarians are chill

[Anonymous No.10924953]

>>10924087
Left-libertarianism is as dumb if not dumber than NAP autism

[Anonymous No.10925466]

>>10920487
These statistics prove that sexual self-identification is a social construct and can be changed through changing cultural norms and what is acceptable.

[Anonymous No.10925492]

>>10925466
>prove

[Anonymous No.10925507]

>>10922426
>it's just people who are unwilling to reject their intial conservative impulses and hence try to intellectualize them
Brainlet please. That's the only wise action.

[Anonymous No.10925532]

>>10922426
>intial conservative impulses
absolutely spooked

[Anonymous No.10925553]

>social construct

[Anonymous No.10925749]

>>10922690
OP here: anon has no clue what he's talking about, Hobbes is an ultra liberal, just anti democratic, even though he influenced Schmitt. Being anti democratic correlates with conservativism, but please remember that democracy and liberalism ARE NOT THE SAME. Hobbes was opposed to the democratic Puritans.

All conservatives should read Hobbes for his ideas on human nature and dictatorship, but he isn't a "conservative" compared to Burke, even though Burke was opposed to absolute monarchy (but a staunch supporter of a monarch executive). Burke's conception of society is very conservative, whereas Hobbes has a completely individualist idea of society

[Anonymous No.10925757]

>>10922706
based

[Anonymous No.10925770]

>>10918437
Add McLuhan

[Anonymous No.10926010]

>>10925749
When's the chart coming

[Anonymous No.10926043]

>>10925749
all burkeans must hang, your reactionary zeal is insufficient

[Anonymous No.10926277]

>>10926043
M8, I'll fucking cut you. I favor limiting suffrage to landowners, permitting (and encouraging) discrimination against women when it comes to hiring, and allowing the various American states to have established religions (the Constitution only bars religious recognition on the part of Federal Congress ). I am an actual Burkean, it's not my fault the term is misused as much as "socialist". I also see nothing incompatible with a republic and conservatism, IF the people and country are suited to such, which mine are. Republics are an ancient and noble form of government and are not necessarily populist or democratic

[Anonymous No.10926350]

>>10926043
And while you are busy worshipping a monarch, don't forget it was George V who got the Acodof Parliament 1911 passed by threatening to create a wave liberal peers if the House of Lords didn't comply. That was the worst thing to happen to Great Britain, it was even worse than the 17th Amendment over here, which was a travesty

[Anonymous No.10926396]

[Anonymous No.10926437]

>>10926277
>constitutional monarchy guys am i right?
pass
>Republics are an ancient and noble form of government and are not necessarily populist or democratic
that's what our founders thought, too. all whigs get the rope.

>>10926350
out of all the horrible amendments, you choose the 17th? anyways, i don't really care about bongland or their 20th century sham king. it's totally irrelevant to my politics

>>10926396
>incentive structures don't matter
>planned and emergent institutions are functionally equivalent
le galaxy brain

[Anonymous No.10926451]

>>10926437
arguing on japanese cartoon porn forums is great political praxis

[Anonymous No.10926482]

>>10926451
>Everything has to be done to achieve something
Maybe and just maybe people are just trying to understand what they have read and discuss it with others

[Anonymous No.10926488]

>>10926451
>praxis
pinko detected

[Anonymous No.10926547]

>>10926437
Daily reminder that being a Tory doesn't make you conservative, if the whole point of your monarchism (as with Hobbes ) is to safeguard the individual from being infringed on from others. Hobbes argued the all men are created equal. And not even equally free (like the Founders believed ) but literally equal in all respects. I will carry my republicanism to the grave while you are arguing that Caesar was more conservative than Brutus

[Anonymous No.10926597]

>>10926437
I support absolute monarchy in France. I don't support it in my country, it has never been suitable to Anglos, this much was made clear by Richard II. Gouverneur Morris felt the same way. Absolute monarchy does not always conserve, Peter the Great proves this. It's good for France, but not for us

[Anonymous No.10926635]

>>10926547
>being a Tory doesn't make you conservative
Conservatives are adrift on the great sea of values and ideas, with no way to chart a course. Tory politics are fundamentally religious; God is our sextant, and we are never lost. The rest of your post is unrelated nonsense and not worth addressing.

>>10926597
>I support absolute monarchy in France. I don't support it in my country, it has never been suitable to Anglos.
I can begin to understand this viewpoint, but imo you're just hopped up on Protestantism. England was happily Catholic (and absolutist) for centuries. If your monarch goes astray, well, may the Devil take him. Given the sorry state of bongland at the moment, I think they might be wise to try their luck.

[Anonymous No.10926723]

>>10926635
>God is our sextant
Explain Hume

>muh Catholicism
Thank Henry VIII.

I am Orthodox, not Protestant. But it is true I carry a grudge against Catholics for flooding my country with immigrants (Irish, Italian and Mexican). Also your Pope is a subversive pinko

[Anonymous No.10926752]

>>10926723
I'm not Catholic. I've been going to an Orthodox church, but haven't been through the confirmation process yet. Still, the Pope hasn't exerted real influence on the affairs of nations for quite some time, and many Catholic countries number among the most anti-migrant. The problem with America is that it's nobody's homeland. Pre-'65 we were a garbage dump for all of the losers in Europe, and not just Catholics. The Forty-Eighters, for instance.

I'm really not sure what you mean by "explain Hume"

[Anonymous No.10926783]

>>10926752
Hume and Gibbon both despised Christianity, yet were rabid Tories. Compare with the Whig John Jay

The U.S. Council of Bishops literally ordered Catholics to support the DREAM Act

[Anonymous No.10926790]

>being a catholic
>while being an ethnonationalist
is there a biggest sign of someone LARPing?

[Anonymous No.10926831]

>>10920324
>The entire idea of the aesthetic value of the sublime is experiencing these things from a distance
Gondola

>that person's severe suffering is not an "aesthetic experience" for anyone.
FeelsGuy (and Smug Pepe)

[Anonymous No.10926864]

Pic very related

[Anonymous No.10926881]

>>10926783
>Hume and Gibbon both despised Christianity, yet were rabid Tories. Compare with the Whig John Jay
There's nothing in need of explanation here. not every political question is a religious question; in fact, few are. Morals exist at the individual and not the state level. I'm not convinced, for example, that there is a moral reason either to support or to oppose immigration in the abstract. As opposed to Whigs of all stripes, I don't see Tory politics as looking towards institutions for our salvation. It's up to us to do what is right, it is not our duty to violently coerce others into doing what is right. The monarch, in conjunction with the Church, is the one who has the divine authority to cast judgment here on Earth.

>The U.S. Council of Bishops literally ordered Catholics to support the DREAM Act
immigrants support immigrants, who would have thought? Anyways, it's up to God to judge them for their apparent abuses of authority. I would take no issue were the government to silence them.

[Anonymous No.10926893]

>>10926752
I understand where you are coming from, btw. I have read "Nihilism" by Father Seraphim Rose, which your position (that absolute monarchy is the only government deriving authority from God rather than man) matches. I can understand if you are a Jacobite. My position differs from yours mainly because I think the Anglo is a people uniquely unsuited to absolute monarchy

[Anonymous No.10927059]

>>10926881
All significant concepts of
the theory of the modern state are secularized theological concepts.

[Anonymous No.10927112]

>>10927059
Ty, Schmitt

[Anonymous No.10927150]

>>10926881
>it is not our duty to violently coerce others into doing what is right.
I feel like this is liberal shilling. On the one hand, of course you are right, it's not our duty as INDIVIDUALS. On the other hand, it absolutely is our duty as communities to at least prohibit things like pornography and casinos. That's not really compelling someone to do something, just saying they can't shit where we eat

[Anonymous No.10927177]

>>10926864

Unless you are an Evolatard, there is no firm distinction between reactionary and tradcon (which includes Maistre and Donoso Cortes)

[Anonymous No.10927197]

>>10927177
Tradcon dictates a commitment to a certain past. Reactionary is an orientation towards the future, the past is an ambivilent fact towards it
Its a nuanced but profound difference

[Anonymous No.10927219]

>>10927150
social censure > violent suppression
the second is weighty, and I'm content to let the burden fall upon a king.

[Anonymous No.10927240]

>>10927197
This is blithering abstract nonsense, many would say it's the other way around. The truth is there is no difference in literature or political positions

[Anonymous No.10927258]

>>10927219
Kings don't write common law and never have, even when autocrats

[Anonymous No.10927299]

>>10927258
>he doesn't know about the Comstock laws, the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, etc.
"obscenity" is not a traditional common law offense, and banning offensive/obscene/revolutionary material has always been the prerogative of lawgivers.

[Anonymous No.10927302]

>/pol/faggots need their own hugbox thread to escape the fact that /lit/ is largely leftist

pathetic

[Anonymous No.10927330]

>>10927240
>many would say it's the other way around

And they'd be wrong. Its immanent in the names. Tradition-alism emphasises the past. React-ionary implies action taken against something happening or coming towards us
Frankly I find so much of the past distant and recent so utterly repulsive I can't hold the least loyalty to it. But the direction we're heading happens to be so much worse. It is the true essence of the third way to demand more

[Anonymous No.10927346]

xd just install a monarchy bro who cares about the actual structure of government

[Anonymous No.10927358]

>>10927299
Obscenity isn't, But pandering is

[Anonymous No.10927366]

>>10927330
Please cite one non-conservative reactionary thinker

[Anonymous No.10927394]

>>10927358
you know, it's actually not

[Anonymous No.10927398]

>>10927366
Moldbug
that other anon is an idiot though

[Anonymous No.10927408]

>>10927366
Dostoevsky, Céline, Jesus Christ

[Anonymous No.10927411]

>>10927398
Moldbug is an accelerationist Kike not a reactionary despite his claims otherwise

[Anonymous No.10927412]

>>10927398
He said thinkers anon

[Anonymous No.10927435]

>>10927412
whether or not you like Moldbug, he revitalized a strain of thought that had been largely dormant for close to a century.

>>10927411
he vanished before coming down on either the HRx or NRx side

[Anonymous No.10927445]

>>10927408
Dostoevsky was politically aligned with the Slavophiles

[Anonymous No.10927449]

>>10920355
>He's just trying to back up his prior feelings with explanations seems really low-energy from your summary.

You'd be surprised at how many political opinions are really just rationalizations, even those from highly influential philosophers and theorists.

[Anonymous No.10927479]

>>10927449
"Rationalization" (apologism) is hardly a bad thing, it was only stigmatized by the Enlightenment idiocy which posited politics as a matter of pure reason, and not a struggle between enemies over different ways of life

[Anonymous No.10927492]

>>10927479
Why is it not a bad thing? Why even bother with apologism if you're just trying to rationally justify what you feel?

[Anonymous No.10927493]

>>10927479
this

[Anonymous No.10927496]

>>10927492
Pericles: this is what seems good for me and for you, let us do it
Clinton: this policy is our objective moral duty, damn the costs

unironically, which do you prefer

[Anonymous No.10927510]

>>10927496
But the latter is also a rationalization

[Anonymous No.10927570]

>>10918708
>the only possible conservative interpretation of "all men are created equal" is that articulated in the Virginia Declaration of Rights preceding it: "That all men are born equally free and independent". Other interpretations are irreconcilable with conservatism.

But Lincoln goes no further than this. He was certainly not an egalitarian.

That said, Lincoln *was* convinced that the Declaration's "all men are created equal" should be our touchstone in interpreting the Constitution, a conviction that arguably gave rise, by and by, to the Civil War and the "new birth of freedom" that war brought forth.

[Anonymous No.10927576]

>>10927492

A man who is sane and healthy, sees things a certain way. He explains to others how he feels and why he thinks it is sensible, and other sane and healthy men might suddenly understand and come to agree. If someone is impaired to the point that they think vomit tastes good, onesity is beautiful, being a man or women is a choice, and feces is great art, only so much can be done of course.

[Anonymous No.10927584]

>>10927576
*obesity is beautiful

[Anonymous No.10927605]

>>10918708
Youre mixing up political history with contemporary talk news bullshit. Any conservative with half a brain has no issue with 'all men are created equal'. This IQ race chart stuff youre into is for teenagers and outright racist idiots.
tdlr; I wish fringe element infiltrators would stop ruining normal politics

[Anonymous No.10927616]

>>10927605
equal in what way lmao

[Anonymous No.10927636]

>>10920499
Mexico is particular is a very fruity place. Puerto Rico is very conservative with 99.9% of people being hetero. For some reason though the mexican community is like half gay, half tranny. Its a degenerate culture.

[Anonymous No.10927642]

>>10927636
Must be the proximity with the usa

[Anonymous No.10927650]

>>10927605
Wrong, anyone who says "all men are created" is a liberal.

[Anonymous No.10927669]

>>10927605
I am not into racialism. Egalitarianism is vile even within one race. Letting people who don't pay taxes have a say in government, GUARANTEES a fiscally irresponsible government. Gouveurner Morris knew this, and he was more opposed to slavery than any other Founding Father

[Anonymous No.10927684]

>>10918437
Sounds very good. I am very much interested in this.

>>10922426
Libertarian is boneless liberalism and brainless conservatism.

[Anonymous No.10927688]

>>10922706
I'm a European Catholic and yes, we hate America. By our terms there's no really no conservatism y9ou have at all, unless groveling to international business is in some sense 'conservative'. You are really a giant corporation. Your politics leaves most of your whites in the middle of the country in desperate poverty, begging for a retard like Trump. This is no triumph of conservatism.

[Anonymous No.10927700]

>>10922910
It sounds more 'bitchy' because we think of Richard Dawkins et al saying something similar, but its quite a good description of sincere religious belief in an educated person. Its just kind of...embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.10927707]

>>10927688
Try Richard Weaver, who specifically warned that corporations destroy private property in the same way communism does, by putting it under the control of faceless bureaucracy

[Anonymous No.10927719]

>>10927669
You dont even know what the word fiscal means. Youre using it like Sean Hannity does. You're 'thinking' in talkshow terms.

[Anonymous No.10927721]

>>10926723
>But it is true I carry a grudge against Catholics for flooding my country with immigrants (Irish, Italian and Mexican).
Protestants ran "your country" then you heretic fool. And plenty of immigrants who were Protestant (Germany and Scandinavia) actually did come as part of the 19th century muttification of America, it's clear you're just larping against Catholic immigrants in particular as a search for a meaningful identity as an Amerishart Protestant.

[Anonymous No.10927723]

>>10927688
Also, try The Natural Family: A Manifesto. It rips into "fusionism" (the bs pandering you refer to) while extolling Bonald and Carl Polyani

[Anonymous No.10927741]

>>10927719
I don't listen to talkshow

See Paul Gottfried's nice article on this

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/08/the_vote_horse_has_bolted.html

[Anonymous No.10927750]

>>10927721
More like I strongly identify with John Jay . Federalist Paper No. 2, based af

[Anonymous No.10927777]

>>10918562
>Any thoughts on Leo Strauss?

>In his maturity, Strauss was a great admirer of Machiavelli, who he believes he understood better than anyone. In his Thoughts on Machiavelli, he parts from the intellectual trend of trying to rehabilitate the author of The Prince against the popular opinion regarding his work as immoral. Strauss recognizes the absolute immorality of Machiavelli, which he sees as the source of his revolutionary genius...

>The thought of Machiavelli is so radical and pure, says Strauss, that its ultimate implications could not be spelled out: “Machiavelli does not go to the end of the road; the last part of the road must be travelled by the reader who understands what is omitted by the writer.”

>Strauss is the guide who can help the reader do that, for “to discover from [Strauss’] writings what he regarded as the truth is hard; it is not impossible.”

>This truth that Machiavelli and Strauss share is not a blinding light, but rather a black hole that only the philosopher can contemplate without turning into a beast: there is no afterlife, and neither good nor evil; therefore the ruling elite shaping the destiny of their nation need not worry about the salvation of their own souls. Hence Machiavelli, according to Strauss, is the perfect patriot.

>Neoconservatism is essentially a modern Jewish version of Machiavelli’s political strategy. What characterizes the neoconservative movement is therefore not as much Judaism as a religious tradition, but rather Judaism as a political project, i.e. Zionism, by Machiavellian means.

>Note that, in a 1999 article in the Jewish World Review, the neoconservative Michael Ledeen defends the thesis that Machiavelli was a crypto-Jew, as were at the time thousands of families nominally converted to Catholicism under threat of expulsion of death.

>“Listen to his political philosophy, and you will hear the Jewish music,” wrote Ledeen, citing in particular Machiavelli’s contempt for the nonviolent ethics of Jesus and his admiration for the pragmatism of Moses, who was able to kill countless men in the interests of enforcing his new law.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35106.htm

[Anonymous No.10927801]

>>10927777
Excellent quads, but see Gottfried's rebuttal
https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/677925?section=pre-2008&keywords=for-israelwithout&year=2004&month=01&date=29&id=677925&aliaspath=%2FManage%2FArticles%2FTemplate-Main

[Anonymous No.10927818]

>>10927570
>a conviction that arguably gave rise, by and by, to the Civil War and the "new birth of freedom" that war brought forth.
>the civil war wasn't a power struggle between two regions as economically and socially different as two countries
>emancipation proclamation wasn't just an act of convenience

[Anonymous No.10927827]

>>10927721
>Protestants ran "your country" then you heretic fool.
A good deal of the leftist sentiment here is catholic in origin
> And plenty of immigrants who were Protestant (Germany and Scandinavia)
Scandi immigration has had little to no effect on this country. German immigration was divided between protestants and catholics.
>amerishart mutt mongrel wah
feeble stuff, even for a foreigner

[Anonymous No.10927832]

>>10927818
I suggest you read The Heresy of Equality, it is quite short
http://www.mmisi.org/ma/20_01/bradford.pdf

[Anonymous No.10927838]

>>10927688
You're a literal bastion of atheism. Your opinion on religion is worth less than nothing. In fact, it may be actively harmful to implement anything you suggest.

[Anonymous No.10927845]

>>10927832
Link won't work,what is it

[Anonymous No.10927863]

>>10927845
It's essay by Mel Bradford, you can find it on his wiki page in bibliography. He explains why ideology WAS a major factor in the Civil War

[Anonymous No.10927867]

>>10927818
>>the civil war wasn't a power struggle between two regions as economically and socially different as two countries

It's pretty to think so, and a neat way to avoid the ideological battle at the heart of the conflict, but to reduce the Civil War to a mere "power struggle" is neither accurate nor honest.

>emancipation proclamation wasn't just an act of convenience

It certainly wasn't just that. It was, too, a brilliant move on the military, political, diplomatic, and legal fronts.

[Anonymous No.10927879]

>>10927867
>It's pretty to think so, and a neat way to avoid the ideological battle at the heart of the conflict, but to reduce the Civil War to a mere "power struggle" is neither accurate nor honest.
It's more honest than le slavery war
>It certainly wasn't just that. It was, too, a brilliant move on the military, political, diplomatic, and legal fronts.
It was an obvious way to weaken a foe without a chance of winning and garnering foreign acquiescence

[Anonymous No.10927932]

>>10927879
>>It's more honest than le slavery war

Meh. Much more accurate is this:
>One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war.

To which might be added, with equal accuracy:
>To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.

>It was an obvious way to weaken a foe without a chance of winning.

We can never know for certain, of course, but if Lee had fought a defensive war of attrition he might have eventually beaten a North that had grown very tired of war (Shelby Foote's "one arm tied behind their backs" theory notwithstanding). His decision to take a stand at Gettysburg ultimately sealed his (and the South's) fate (although even that was closely fought, to say the least, and might gone the other way).

L'audace, l'audace is not always a winning strategy.

[Anonymous No.10927963]

>>10927827
>>10927867
>>10927879
>>10927932
You niggers seriously need to learn how to write. Greentext is retarded.

[Anonymous No.10927983]

>>10927932
>To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.
Extending that interest meant more power. Why quote an ignoramus like Lincoln, who accused Taney of le ebil conspiracy? The aftermath of the war proves that the South was right to fear domination by a growing industrial power.

[Anonymous No.10927985]

>>10927863

Here's the Bradford essay, 'The Heresy of Equality':
>http://www.unz.com/print/ModernAge-1976q1-00062/

And here's the Jaffa essay, 'Equality as a Conservative Principle,' to which Bradford was responding:
http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1193&context=llr

[Anonymous No.10927991]

>>10927963
>Greentext is retarded.

kys

[Anonymous No.10928006]

>>10927963
people have been quoting like that since the days of mofherfucking usenet u god damn newshit, those greentexts arent even really using greentext vernacular, those are just standard quotes, in other words you are fucking stupid, have a nice day

[Anonymous No.10928020]

>>10928006
I wouldn't give a shit if the Egyptians did it. Responding to individual sentences is a retarded way to express yourself. It's lazy as shit and it unnecessarily makes it hard to respond without also doing it which makes the conversation harder to follow.

[Anonymous No.10928029]

>>10928020
>>>10928006
>I wouldn't give a shit if the Egyptians did it. Responding to individual sentences is a retarded way to express yourself. It's lazy as shit and it unnecessarily makes it hard to respond without also doing it which makes the conversation harder to follow.
breaking up ur reply is better

[Anonymous No.10928031]

>>10928029
Yeah if you're a mental midget and can't handle responding to multiple points at a time.

[Anonymous No.10928035]

>>10928020
responding to individual lines is one of the oldest forum practices and is considered proper etiquette when in an involved debate or discussion with another user, you have no fucking room to talk about something being stupid when its extremely common practice on significantly higher iq forums than this shit hole

[Anonymous No.10928053]

>>10928035
Like I said already, I wouldn't care if the Egyptians did it. It's retarded and should stop. It being done in the past is not a reason to do it. It's an empty appeal to tradition.

[Anonymous No.10928083]

>>10927838
No, youre confused. Its you who is the colony. What you call 'Chrsitian' is very strange conept indeed. American 'Christians' are Israeli nationalists. This is surely one of the strangest things in the history of the world, that half of the US population is more Israeli nationalistic than people actually from Israel. I know israeli people who are so puzzled as to why American 'dispensationalists' are taking this strange position and propping up the extremists in Likud. This is not Christianity you have, its some strange fusion of corporate internationalism and a millenarian cult. How can you tell me that youre more European than I am, even though youve never been here and know nothing about us, and be more Jewish than the Israelis, and you want to bulldoze the Palestinians into the dirt when even nobody but the most extreme elements in Israel want this? No, its you who knows nothing about the Christ or Europe, you are a brainwashed victim of cold war propaganda. I feel bad for you though, its not your fault.

[Anonymous No.10928123]

>>10922766
Well, he was no ordinary liberal, that much is true. His defense of pluralism and a sort of soft perspectivism, which is Vico's most pronounced print upon him, certainly led him away from the sort of liberalism most common to the English speaking world. However, his conclusions are, without any doubt, liberal (freedom of religion, expression, a defense of negative liberty, etc.); he merely arrives there by an unusual path.

[Anonymous No.10928143]

>>10928083
go away German/Anglo anon useful idiot spook puppet

[Anonymous No.10928286]

>>10928083
>How can you tell me that youre more European than I am
I am not European and your posts make it seem undesirable.

[Anonymous No.10928299]

>>10920897
haha, true, Berlin calls de Maistre THE proto-fascist

>>10922766
yes, it has to do with his critique of 'positive liberty' and Rousseau

[Anonymous No.10928346]

>>10928299
Indeed, and for very odd reasons too. Also, in the essay I mentioned, he uses quotes, always from other liberal authors, to paint a caricature of de Maistre that borders on the laughable.

[Anonymous No.10928419]

>>10927302
>/lit/ is largely leftist
Even the leftists are reactionaries now, anon.

[Anonymous No.10928558]

>>10920324
>While I agree with your premise, that hardship imbues life with meaning beyond Hedonic calculus, you must also remember that person severe suffering is not an "aesthetic experience" for anyone.

Why can't you people ever express a point without trying to sound like insecure English lit PhD candidate

[Anonymous No.10929416]

>>10926790
Yes, how do people combine these two positions, please explain

[Anonymous No.10929422]

>>10927445
>Slavophiles were a political movement
You mean ideologically aligned

[Anonymous No.10929493]

We should all unite under an Orbanist approach of soft paternalism, i.e. shifting the state's moralism from individualist liberalism to conservative ends while preserving all the liberties.

Why is that useful? The EU tried to kill Orban's reform programs because they don't follow liberal universalism as their guiding ideology. But the courts actually ruled that it is fine because the reforms follow the previously established liberal/legalist framework.

Orbanism is of course not an end in itself and illiberal democracy is just a means but once a conservative movement takes over a country and systematically starts stuffing the administrative offices with their guys we are half-way there.

[Anonymous No.10929557]

>>10929493
Let me embellish some points. Following Gramscist theory state power and cultural power are a pair of shoes naturally worn together but they can become misaligned at times. However for us as conservatives the goal of attaining state power must always be to attain cultural hegemony. America is so conservative because on its soil there are several conservative media groups which can project their ideology into the minds of the general populace.

Taking over the state means always taking over the state media. That is the ultimate goal. But it is not always necessary if conservative news sources become widespread by themselves

[Anonymous No.10929569]

>>10918437
Conservative general? Y’all are fuckin retards lmfao

[Anonymous No.10929580]

>>10929569
Thanks for bumping moron.

[Anonymous No.10929626]

Red Toryism is the most based political position FYI

[Anonymous No.10929728]

Are you going to post the fucking chart now ir what?
Please

[Anonymous No.10930005]

>>10921398
>>10921842
John Bolton calls himself a Burkean and talks shit on Neocons.
>He cares more about Israel's interests than ours
His entire worldview is built on rigorous, constant, and unilateral pursuit of American interests over any and all others. He supports Israel insofar as they are a country-sized FOB. Doubting John Bolton's commitment to American interests is laughable, it's defined his entire career.
>He attacks critics of regime toppling as moral relativists
When in particular did he wrongly accuse right-wing critics of "regime toppling" of moral relativism?

[Anonymous No.10930607]

>>10929728
>Maurras

[Anonymous No.10930687]

>>10929728
Maurras was a fascist and not a conservative.

[Anonymous No.10930868]

>>10930687
He might not have been a conservative but he certainly wasn't a fascist either,he wasn't a statist for a start

[Anonymous No.10930876]

>>10930005
I don't like the guy because he seems like a warmonger. Am I wrong?

Not all traps are gay. Pic related.

[Anonymous No.10931305]

>>10930868
im a non-binary genderqueer, how do ya like them apples

[Anonymous No.10931321]

>>10921796
So was Jesus

[Anonymous No.10931577]

>>10931305

[Anonymous No.10931689]

>>10930876
I agree with most of what he says but I don't see the point of saying it out loud and showing all your cards

[Anonymous No.10931726]

>>10922706
>Lately it seems impossible to imagine how one cannot be a conservative without being Roman Catholic these days. I've heard my call from God and started attending Mass again.

America's notion of catholicism, which created the egalitarianism and social justice they despise so much, will always be fucking hilarious

[Anonymous No.10931755]

>support the Vietnam War yet think the war on terror is a lost cause
>believe that democracy is rule by idiots but hate the government

I’m a walking contradiction, what am I?

[Anonymous No.10931817]

>>10930687
>Maurras was a fascist and not a conservative.
Brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10931874]

>>10931755
a douche

[Anonymous No.10931989]

>>10931755
Horkheimer

[Anonymous No.10931992]

>>10931755
>representative democracy is ochlocracy
brainletwojak.jpg

[Anonymous No.10932021]

>>10931992
>”yeah just let a bunch of retards elect officials that want to destroy their own rights”

The only way is either full blown authority by one competent individual or libertarianism

[Anonymous No.10932450]

Kind of want to read some more pro-Muslim Brotherhood stuff after reading this

https://www.memri.org/reports/sumaya-al-ghannouchi-daughter-rachid-al-ghannouchi-saudi-arabia-muslim-brotherhood-mb

[Anonymous No.10932515]

test

Also where's the chart OP?

[Anonymous No.10932756]

>>10932450
Can't give you that but I love this sufi perspective on Evola:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07Ien1qo_qI&t=2s

[Anonymous No.10932976]

>>10922314
>liberalism

[Anonymous No.10932990]

>>10932021
>officials that want to destroy their own rights
ahhahah yeah right it's not like there are checks and balances or something loooool

[Anonymous No.10932995]

>>10918451
Kek

[Anonymous No.10933213]

Any books that explain the importance and social work that the church had in civil society prior to the French revolution?

[Anonymous No.10933619]

>>10918515
/pol/ is applied memetics, and it is genius at that. But any other concern is secondary there.

[Anonymous No.10933663]

>>10926790
>>10929416
I don't see it.
You have one universal Church and a definite nation (hence non-inclusive, whatever the criteria).

[Anonymous No.10933666]

>>10933619
cringe

[Anonymous No.10933674]

>you cant be catholic and nationalist
*polskas your path*

[Anonymous No.10933675]

>>10918437
>If you have any last minute suggestions, now is the time to post them.

Wouldn't it be better if we presented ourselves as the victims?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y3a3vSTgPI

[Anonymous No.10933676]

>>10929626
If by Red Toryism you mean like the Canadian George Grant.

[Anonymous No.10933735]

>>10929422

Slavophiles had political objectives, like abolishing serfdom (which was largely introduced by Peter and Catherine ) and abolishing the death (Vladimir the Great had abolished it, so they saw its use as western contamination ).

Although roughly speaking, it seems by "reactionary" anon means like J.R.R. Tolkien and Wendell Berry (both of whom preferred to be called reactionaries rather than conservatives )

[Anonymous No.10933752]

>>10931321
Not politically. Joseph de Maistre too praised missionary work, but when it came to political internationalism he said it's stupid, even to stamp human sacrifice

[Anonymous No.10933762]

>>10933752
Stamp *out

[Anonymous No.10933789]

>>10929728
I will post it with the fresh brrad tomorrow.

Maurras will not be on it. But Taine and Le Bon will

[Anonymous No.10935014]

Bump

[Anonymous No.10935090]

>>10930005
Strike First, Mr. Lorax

[Anonymous No.10935112]

>>10933663
You don't see the contradiction? But ethnonationalists frequently want to force others out of their nation and things like that. Is the slogan "France for French" compatible with Christianity? Isn't it against all ideas of helping others?

[Anonymous No.10935246]

>>10935112
>>>10933663
>You don't see the contradiction?
u dont seem able to explain it

[Anonymous No.10935265]

>>10935112
You can love your neighbor in the distance and segregated

[Anonymous No.10935269]

>>10935246
oh come on, "there is no greek or jew we are all one in Christ Jesus." I am completely sympathetic to nationalism, but I don't see how Christians can act as though the bible sanctions it

[Anonymous No.10935344]

>>10935269
thats saying the church should be spread everywhere not that you should let muslims flood your country.
Aquinas had something about degrees of community
neighbourhood>city>state>country>world for example.

>2000 years of tribal/natinalist christians
now its beyond the pale because the mainstream secular society is pushing antinationalism?

[Anonymous No.10935420]

>>10918562
>Any thoughts on Leo Strauss?
Strauss is hard, and, arguably, not for conservatives qua conservatives. That's arguable, because students of his like Harry Jaffa (and the members of his school in Claremont) make much of Strauss as a kind of political conservative. Unlikely, because the works of his written after his period of teaching at the New School (where Jaffa studied under him) show more and more what he came to claim in the preface to his Spinoza book, that the guiding theme of all of his work was the "theological-political problem", and the students of him who came into close contact with him while he was formulating his understanding of that theme more boldly (Seth Benardete, Stanley Rosen, Alan Bloom, Victor Gourevitch) all notice the extent to which conservatism for Strauss is a rhetorical gesture in defense of speculative philosophy. This wasn't merely recognized by a later set of students either, but by one of Jaffa's fellow students at the New School, Richard Kennington, whose understanding of Strauss matches that of those noted above. Jaffa seems to be the peculiar outlier. Strauss is at bottom a philosophical radical, wary of radical politics for epistemological and ontological reasons, and not on account of moral ones.

It's really weird the extent to which some conservatives really have taken to him.

[Anonymous No.10935468]

>>10935344
but what about black christians amigo

[Anonymous No.10935882]

>>10927642
It's the opposite. The only place like that is CDMX, while the north is really conservative

[Anonymous No.10936289]

>>10933789
Alright then, Taine is a great choice but I don't know Le bon enough except for his crowd psychology
I supposed Barres is also out of question? Renan too?

[Anonymous No.10936625]

>>10935468
Are you really sure you want to make the "Slaves, obey your masters" and "The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted" guy the hero of brown emancipation? Do you want their freedom taken away with a second slavery, a slavery not to an individual purchaser of people, but to the God of Europeans and secular and religious authorities founded by Europeans?

Then again they could be Christians in their own country, away from imperialism disguised as secular universalism, and obedient to a brown king of their own, and also chosen by God according to Paul, and where they don't have to worry about loving their enemy and turning the other cheek with racist white cops, and the bullets thereof.

[Anonymous No.10937249]

>>10935265
based anon

[Anonymous No.10937568]

Radical leftist here, are there any good materiaist conservative writers? I'd like to engage more with serious conservative thought but I don't really go in for idealist superstition

[Anonymous No.10937620]

>>10937568
Or maybe you could grow up and read Carl Schmitt like your heroes' heroes and teachers' teachers Benjamin, Arendt, Derrida, Agamben, Mouffe, etc. did, without getting too triggered by references to religious concepts. Oh, and Žižek, too. It only hurts the first time.

[Anonymous No.10937622]

>>10922426
Hayek was a philosophical conservative. He just didn't like the label because of cuckolded mainstream conservative politics, which is just a futile exercise in slightly slowing the left's obsessive march towards Gomorrah.

His description of "evolutionary liberalism" in The Constitution of Liberty is actually a pretty good synopsis of English conservatism from Burke. It's also interesting that there are serious parallels between Hayek's mature political and social philosophy in Law, Legislation and Liberty and Oakeshott's articulate conservatism - particular the importance of the cosmos/taxis or nomos/telos dichotomy.

[Anonymous No.10937643]

[Anonymous No.10937679]

>>10937620
I was raised Catholic and I'm quite interested in theology thanks. My interest does not, however, mean that it's a good idea to hold a single religious practice's truth axiom to introduce into a discussion about society
Plenty of important leftists have been religious

[Anonymous No.10937681]

>>10937679
As an axiom* fuck

[Anonymous No.10937721]

>>10937643
i fucken cringed.
are you some faggy 14 year old? get off this board please

[Anonymous No.10937745]

>>10937679
Have you read Péguy?

[Anonymous No.10937773]

>>10937745
I'll have to check him out. Any recs for a translation of his essays I don't speak French

[Anonymous No.10938129]

>>10924087
Left-libertarian is an oxymoron.

[Anonymous No.10938201]

>>10918477
Any thoughts on T E Hulme’s critique of Romanticism? In “romanticism and classicism” ?

“A Tory philosophy” by him is also excellent, and largely draws on the above. He’s a very interesting man, one of the big ‘what ifs’ in my view

[Anonymous No.10938213]

>>10918860
Do you have a source for this, I always interpreted him as a moderate high Church Anglican with an ability to comprehend atheist points of view

[Anonymous No.10938241]

>>10937643
>Hobbes
Hobbes is a liberal

[Anonymous No.10938314]

FRESH BREAD

>>10938288

>>10938288

>>10938288

[Anonymous No.10938343]

>>10938314
The mods moved it to /his/, guys.

[Anonymous No.10938347]

There is nothing left to conserve

[Anonymous No.10938371]

>>10918860
>secular arguments against abortion and homosexuality, etc.
no thanks

[Anonymous No.10938402]

>>10922706
>american revolution is humanity's peak
>butthurt euros
Yeah, that's an american alright. Let's just forget who were the financiers behind the revolution, shall we?

[Anonymous No.10938536]

>>10938314
>>10938343

[Anonymous No.10938560]

>>10938536
I filled the thread with elaboration on the Anglo-American/Continental distinction, for all those interested

[Anonymous No.10938616]

>>10938536
How come this gets taken down but Peterson shitposting etc not? There's even a reading chart in the OP

Fucking leftypol cancerfags

[Anonymous No.10938684]

>>10938616
Well at least you can repost the chart here when you need

[Anonymous No.10938697]

I appealed to the mods, but I don't think they want our books contaminating this board

[Anonymous No.10938714]

>>10938684
detected the modfag

[Anonymous No.10938790]

>10938684
chart suckes tho

[Anonymous No.10938800]

>>10938790
Only so much room

[Anonymous No.10938815]

>>10938616
peterson threads also get taken dwon

[Anonymous No.10939108]

>>10935269
That means all people can be Christian.
Paul in the very same sentence says that "there are no men and women", do you think he was advocating people to all become gender fluid pandemisexual?

[Anonymous No.10939190]

>>10918437
I had nightmares because of pic.