/cg/ - Conservative General

[Anonymous No.10939824]

Reading chart (file was too big to upload, maybe someone can compress it): http://oi63.tinypic.com/14kdv0i.jpg

Gentlemen: let's narrow our minds: https://youtube.com/watch?v=SlRRpejYWSU


Conservative articles

>against meritocracy
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/05/the-decline-of-middle-america-and-the-problem-of-meritocracy/amp/

>against neo """conservativism"""
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/mccains-anti-trump-broadside-a-half-baked-brief-for-empire/

>against universal suffrage
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/08/the_vote_horse_has_bolted.html

[Anonymous No.10939832]

NOTE: I use "conservative" here to mean what is represented on the chart. Do not take it to mean neoconservative (Wilsonian) or fusionist or classical liberal or any of that, none of which I personally even consider conservative. Even more importantly, do not take it to mean "moderate". Classical conservativism is not, absolutely NOT, moderate. The way conservatives read Burke is far more right-wing than the way progressives do. Progressives read Burke's philosophy of change as "take-it-slow progressivism", which is grossly incorrect: Burke believed that improvement should be accomplished gradually, and believed in necessary change for the time (which does not necessarily mean "better", just that different times require different approaches and different places and cultures do); conservatives do not take this to mean Burke therefore endorsed a progressive march toward ever increasing equality or moral laxity, which he absolutely didn't; Burke considered hiearchy to be of vital importance, and was a puritanical moralist. Some will raise the objection, "But Burke was a WHIG!" Please note: Whigs in Burke's time could be either right-wing or left-wing, Whig simply meant someone who believed that monarch was not above the law (this did not necessarily mean republcanism; Burke was a staunch monarchist, even though he was commonly the king's opponent in politics). Someone could be a conservative Whig, someone could be a liberal Tory (Hobbes was the forerunner of the latter, and Hume was a solid example of it); Burke and Maistre are completely compatible, their main "disagreements" are not really disagreements at all, each simply supported the form of government of his own people. To support what I mean here, Orestes Brownson, in "The American Republic" (which is all about the government best suited to the American people), lavishes considerable praise upon "The illustrious Count de Maistre" and calls him one of the
Cont

[Anonymous No.10939835]

>>10939824
One thing I always wish there were more writings on from a conservative/reactionary perspective is the issue of women and how we get them back in the kitchen. This has to be THE central thing to establishing a traditional society. How do we get them to realize that they are better off breeding and raising white children, being subservient to their husband, and giving up the liberal notion of self-determination?
It saddens me when I look at the world as it is today. Wish we could have held on for virtue and decency a bit longer.
What are some essential writings on this? Practically, how do we take away their 'rights' or liberal 'freedoms'?

[Anonymous No.10939837]

>>10939832
greatest political thinkers of both the 18th and 19th Centuries, drawing significantly on Maistre's theories. Anglo-American conservativism comes out of right-wing Whiggism (liberal, by contrast Whiggism drew from Locke and Montesquieu), which was still common in the 18th Century, and which Burke was the greatest example of. It was not until the 19th Century that conservatism was purged from British Whigs (there was nonetheless conservatism among American Whigs, see "The Duty of a Conservative Whig"). Conservative Whigs were not revolutionaries and always saw revolution as a serious tragedy which was only justified when the government or king goes beyond its established authority (and even then, for a right-wing Whig, the monarch could never be legally punished, only disobeyed; to punish the monarch was sacrilegious as "the king can do no wrong", meaning he could never be formally charged with a crime; the king's person was sacred and inviolable). Revolutions for the right-wing Whig, even when forced, always did more harm than good. Gouverneur Morris inveighed strongly against America's revolt against Britain because he said it would destroy the class structure and ensure eventual control of America by the rabble; he only turned revolutionary when it was clear the king was not only violating the colonial charters, but was set on totally abolishing them and transforming the colonies from states distinct from the UK yet still under the crown, into vassals of the United Kingdom subject to tribute

[Anonymous No.10939843]

>>10939835
You're welcome

[Anonymous No.10939847]

>>10939843
Can you give a quick rundown on how we actually bring this about? looks interesting, thanks.

[Anonymous No.10939849]

>An explanation of the normative-existentialist and constitutionalist-decisionist distinctions mentioned in the chart
"Normative" means concerned with "norms" ("norms" here are principles, not as in "norm", whatever is average--the average can be *deviant*). The Anglo-American school of conservatism tends to take a great interest in how things ought to be and what one ought to do. It is firmly opposed to consequentialist ethics. For example, Richard M. Weaver, J.R.R. Tolkien and Russell Kirk all strongly condemned the atomic bombing of Japan (which specifically targetted non-combatants), because they were very much opposed to consequentialist ethics. Edmund Burke, John Adams and John Quincy Adams were all fiercely moralist, John Quincy Adams overtly rejected the maxim, "My country, right or wrong," and said he could never side with his country where she is in the wrong, but must oppose her. This is in contrast with Continental attitude: identifying what is good and what is evil is not so important, because for the Continental conservative, the enemy is not necessarily evil (certainly Ernst Junger and didn't see his enemy as evil), but even where the enemy is clearly evil, that's beside the point: he chooses evil as an existentialist affirmation; from this perspective, evil is not regarded so much as "invalid", even in the writings of the ultra pious of the Continental conservatives. Carl Schmitt regarded invoking morals to condemn the enemy in politics to be simply a tactical weapon, suggesting that one's political enemy isn't neccessarily evil, and one's political friend is not necessarily virtuous. Joseph de Maistre viewed the Jacobins with a great deal of equanimity, holding that
Cont

[Anonymous No.10939852]

>>10939847
Repeal laws which prohibit discrimination against women in pay and employment

[Anonymous No.10939859]

>i want to oppress minorites, go back to the 1950s when women were slaves, black people knew their place, and there weren't so many brown people around, but I'm also going to use big words and talk real intellectual

ummmmmmmmmm........................ try again sweetie :)))))))))

/lit/ is a left is boards

y'all don't come back now, you hear :)))))))))

[Anonymous No.10939860]

>me prefer way before than way now!

Conservatism is for fucking retards

[Anonymous No.10939862]

>>10939852
Sounds good to me! Thanks

[Anonymous No.10939863]

>>10939849
no real wrong was done to the aristocratic victims of the French Revolution (which included himself, even though his escaped murder), since all of humanity deserves damnation; at the very most, the victims of the revolution just got what they deserved. He considered the revolutionaries stupid, but he said it is wrong to hate people for being stupid.


"Constitutionalist" here means believing in the "rule of law" ("Constitutionalist" references a written, legal constitution; this should not be conflated with the deeper sense of "constitution" often used by conservatives such as Orestes Brownson, to
Cont

[Anonymous No.10939866]

>>10939863
mean what makes a nation what it is as distinct from other nations, and which written constitutions can only reflect). "Rule of law" is a phrase which means that the state is *subject* to the law, rather than above it. This theory of the state is extremely important for conservative support of revolutions, such as the American Revolution: what justifies this Revolution in the Anglo-American perspective), is that the British government broke the law: British parliament had no jurisdiction over the colonies, they were a foreign state. The British king did, but his authority was limited to what was stipulated in the colonial charters, and in British law the king cannot tax without parliament; rather than going through American assemblies to approve taxes, however, the king went through British parliament. Many Anglo-American conservatives saw this as a violation of the law, which justified revolt. John Adams, for example, held rule of law to be of the highest importance (he took great pride in being the successful legal defense for the British soldiers who perpetuated the "Boston Massacre"). Constitutionalist conservativism leads to a major conflict with progressivist legal theory in the United States: in William Blackstone's jurisprudence (which was accepted by all legal proponents of the American Revolution, and which was what the U.S. Constitution presumes), when judging equity ("equity" means what is not covered by the letter of the law) a law is to be interpreted according to *the reason it was made*. This is referred to as "Originalism" (contrary to popular belief, "Originalism" does not mean "only covering situations existing at the time the law was written", and Blackstone stresses this: the reason the law

[Anonymous No.10939869]

>>10939859
Maybe if you read some more you'd realize that we're superior to women and nonwhites. Conservatives are real men, and we aren't afraid to say that we're better and have more virtue

[Anonymous No.10939871]

>>10939866
was made, is what allows it to be applied to unforseen developments; Originalism is a method for judging equity). Progressives by contrast adhere to what in the United States is called, "Living Document" theory, which says that the reason for a law can change. Living Document theory grew out of the Darwinist craze, which tried to applie Darwin from everything to society and eugenics and art, to law.

[Anonymous No.10939875]

>>10939824
Am I a conservative if I read SIEGE by James Mason, the esoteric works of Miguel Serrano and actively worship Adolf Hitler and Charles Manson as deities?

[Anonymous No.10939879]

>I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy. Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. … Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never.

-John Adams

[Anonymous No.10939881]

>>10939860
perfect pheno, admirable form, oppressive but honest gaze. ubermensch

he and N have the most impressive skull morphology of any authors, Schooenhauer, Schelling, Joyce and Virgil are the only others who even compare

honorable mentions for Dante, Plato, Homer, Junger

[Anonymous No.10939884]

>>10939875
Hitler was a socialist.

[Anonymous No.10939888]

Also from John Adams

>That all men are born to equal rights is true. Every being has a right to his own, as clear, as moral, as sacred, as any other being has. This is an indubitable as a moral government in the universe. But to teach that all men are born with equal powers and faculties, to equal influence in society, to equal property and advantages through life, is as gross a fraud, as glaring an imposition on the credulity of the people, as ever was practiced by monks, by Druids, by Brahmins, by priests of the immortal Lama, or by the self-styled philosophers of the French revolution.

>Nature, which has established in the universe a chain of being and universal order, descending from archangels to microscopic animalcules, has ordained that no two objects shall be perfectly alike, and no two creatures perfectly equal. Although, among men, all are subject by nature to equal laws of morality, and in society have a right to equal laws for their government, yet no two men are perfectly equal in person, property, understanding, activity, and virtue, or ever can be made so by any power less than that which created them.

Also

>the democracy of Montesquieu, and its principle of virtue, equality, frugality, &c., according to his definitions of them, are all mere figments of the brain, and delusive imaginations.

>The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will.

[Anonymous No.10939897]

Controversial opinion here, but I feel that the heirs to traditional conservative thinking in the 20th century aren't paleocons, but post-modernists and other self-declared leftists.

They are the ones who inherited the aim of re-politicizing contemporary discussions of politics with a sense that conflict is an inevitable part of public life and an unavoidable factor in all political decision making, who pronounced the historicity of humanity and all its endeavors. It's not a novel thinking either, many liberal intellectuals, like Richard Wolin and Alan Sokal, have remarked the influence that such post-modernist thinkers took from traditional conservatism, which they cluelessly call "fascism", since they don't know any better.

Even the economical criticism of capitalism that have motivated leftists for the whole 20th century is taken from the writings of Adam Muller and his conservative criticism of liberal economics in the XIXth century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Müller

>His position in political economy is defined by his strong opposition to Adam Smith's system of materialistic-liberal (so-called classical) political economy, or the so-called industry system. He censures Smith as presenting a one-sidedly material and individualistic conception of society, and as being too exclusively English in his views. Müller is thus also an adversary of free trade. In contrast with the economical individualism of Adam Smith, he emphasizes the ethical element in national economy, the duty of the state toward the individual, and the religious basis which is also necessary in this field. Müller's importance in the history of political economy is acknowledged even by the opponents of his religious and political point of view. His reaction against Adam Smith, says Roscher (Geschichte der National-Ökonomik, p. 763), "is not blind or hostile, but is important, and often truly helpful." Some of his ideas, freed from much of their alloy, are reproduced in the writings of the historical school of German economists.

>The reactionary and feudalistic thought in Müller's writings, which agreed so little with the spirit of the times, prevented his political ideas from exerting a more notable and lasting influence on his age, while their religious character prevented them from being justly appreciated. However, Müller's teachings had long-term effects in that they were taken up again by 20th century theorists of corporatism and the corporate state, for example Othmar Spann (Der wahre Staat. Vorlesungen über Abbruch und Neubau der Gesellschaft, Vienna, 1921).

Even the so famous criticism of the objectivity of science by post-modernists is in line with traditional conservative thinking. Such conservatives were always dubious of "reason" because they held that all science was shaped by human values and contingencies prevalent at any given period of time.
Cont

[Anonymous No.10939900]

>>10939835
>It saddens me when I look at the world as it is today. Wish we could have held on for virtue and decency a bit longer.
Virtue and decency exist in every age, as does depravity and decadence.

[Anonymous No.10939907]

>>10939900
Imagine living in a white world with women subservient to us and centred around God. Makes me cry almost

[Anonymous No.10939918]

>>10939897
>Even the economical criticism of capitalism that have motivated leftists for the whole 20th century is taken from the writings of Adam Muller and his conservative criticism of liberal economics in the XIXth century.
Ah yes, must be because of some literal who Anglo. Not because of Marx or anything, nono.

[Anonymous No.10939923]

>>10939884
Hitler was not human, many people close to him said they felt he was imbued with a mystic archetypal power. According to Devi the Fuhrer was a prefiguration of Kalki, Vishnu's last Avatara. When the real Kalki comes, he shall have no mercy, he shall inflict divine vengeance upon our enemies, thus bringing an end to the Kali Yuga. if anything the third reich was too merciful, a mere warning of what's to come. Hitler never died. He slumbers under the Himalayas in the Mystic Halls of Shambhala, growing stronger every day.

Charles Manson was an Avatara of Dionysios, the Greek God of Drunkeness and cultic ritual. The Manson girls were Meneads transplanted to 60s california from the primeval macedonian wilderness. Tate-LaBianca was a ritual sacrifice, meant to hasten the final conflagration, the resurrection and the transfiguration of the Fuhrer and the restoration of Esoteric Hitlerite Truth.

[Anonymous No.10939927]

>>10939897
My only problem with post-modernists is that after thrashing the Enlightenment using the same arguments that conservatives used 150 years previously, but without referencing God so that it could be acceptable in academia, they double down in their attachment to revolutionary and emancipatory politics. If only they subjected "Revolution" and "Emancipation" to the same thorough criticism they subject every other grand metanarrative, they might as well be counted in the conservative pantheon.

So what we have in the late 20th and early 21st century is this bizarre situation where what calls itself conservatism is the universalist and mechanicist philosophy of earlier radicals, while what calls itself "leftism" is the thinking of old conservatives sans God and with a profound attachment for the idea of revolution.

The path for conservatives in the 21st century is to drop the stupid prejudice against post-mmodernists inherited from the likes of Alan Sokal (who isn't our friend) and read all that stuff, Foucault, Baudrillard, Lyotard, Feyerabend, and adapt it to conservative purposes. With enough Foucauldianism, you can promote even Evolian "Hyperborean Aryans from Atlantis" stuff as acceptable discourse.

[Anonymous No.10939928]

>>10939897
Leftists already knew that before, that's why Donoso Cortes and Carl Schmitt held leftism in much higher regard than liberalism

[Anonymous No.10939931]

MODS BTFO

add mcluhan to list

[Anonymous No.10939932]

>>10939907
>being religious after the 19th century
lol

[Anonymous No.10939938]

>>10939881
based phrenology poster

[Anonymous No.10939946]

>>10939918
Adam Muller was German, his conservative criticism of capitalism influenced Friedrich List, who in turn influenced every nationalist, protectionist, and developmentalist economic theory of the 20th century, the theories that were actually adopted by the left (and the least retarded part of the right).

The economic thinking of Marx was accelerationist. He wanted capitalism to envelop the entire earth, to destroy all alternative economic modes of production so that communism could be born out of its own exhaustion. His thinking would be completely alien to the typical leftist who rails against TPP and the IMF. Milton Friedman was more in line with Marx's thinking than José Bové.

[Anonymous No.10939948]

>>10939927
>just do what the left does
lmao that don't work bro

[Anonymous No.10939984]

>>10939923
What's the true significance of Gamergate? was it the most influential conservative movement of the 21st century? To this very day, the sole mention of Gamergate is enough to drive the Fear of God into the tiny black hearts of transatlantic elites(google Tavistock Institute), blue haired gynocrats and establishment pigs of all varieties. Maybe there is an occult power inherent in the lumpenized Gamer. Gamergate was the rending of the veil, the Cathedral hasn't been the same ever since. We must summon this occult power yet again.

[Anonymous No.10939994]

>>10939984
The conservative position is that video games were a mistake :^)

[Anonymous No.10940000]

>>10939984
Gamergate was an unsuccessful attempt to create a "Gamer identity" which could be counted to be a base for conservative politics. Something like the left did with "gays". Pick up a personal trait or interest and build an identity around it.

It failed, I don't know why, it was a good idea, after all. I guess its leaders were just stupid.

[Anonymous No.10940003]

That thread last time seemed pretty dang good so heres a bump.

[Anonymous No.10940024]

>>10939994
what about 'ethics in videogame journalism'? i'm of the opinion all journalism is videogame journalism. indie gamedevs and game journalists play a key role in the transatlantic managerial MKULTRA spook leviathan(see also the ESALEN institute, it's links to the Kennedy Assasination, the CIA'S LSD mind control program, the role of the deepstate in the videogame industry) that's why gamergate provoked such a dispropportionate scorched earth reaction from the media elites. Trump wouldn't be president now if it wasn't for gamergate.

[Anonymous No.10940030]

>>10940024
How old are you? You sound utterly retarded. Do you watch anime too?

[Anonymous No.10940050]

>>10939984
I honestly can't tell if you're being satirical or not.

[Anonymous No.10940055]

>>10940030
You haven't disproved anything, Mr MOSSAD plant. I think prejudice towards animu in right wing circles is misguided, some works of Japanimation such as AKIRA, Steins:Gate, Serial Experiments Lain and Neon Genesis Evangelion, contain deep iniciatic truths. Think of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as divine revelation. Oppenheimer's vedic interests are well documented.

[Anonymous No.10940057]

>>10939946
>The economic thinking of Marx was accelerationist. He wanted capitalism to envelop the entire earth, to destroy all alternative economic modes of production so that communism could be born out of its own exhaustion.
You don't understand Marx nor you understand modern day economical processes, but this isn't suprising considering that you think that some literal who german (my bad) influenced the left more than Marx himself.
Marx didn't want capitalism to do anything, Marx simply described a process. The capitalism Marx was describing was extremely different from today's capitalism, which is consumer and improvement driven. Marx was right when he said that capitalism would die, the type of capitalism of the time did infact die but it gave rise to another kind of capitalism. Milton Friedman didn't believe in dialectical materialism and he didn't think that liberalism would exhaust itself. Marx believed that capitalism empoverished its workers, Friedman that a liberal, non protectionist type of global capitalism enriched everyone involved. Furthermore, the economic insight is only a part of the insight that one can derive from Marx as he is considered one of the fathers of sociology and his method of historical and class analysis are universally adopted amongst the left.
Please stick to cultural outrage and making half assed connections between reactionaries and post-modernism, who aren't even a real movement.

[Anonymous No.10940090]

>>10939824
if you like this musical piece, my friend, you are of my kind. i insist that you partake of this work. it will without question be to your taste.

https://youtu.be/FrN0pqmwk-I

[Anonymous No.10940104]

>>10940024
MKULTRA was constructed by former Nazis and right wing CIA people, the left leaning deep state had not penetrated the intel agencies until the program was panned in the 70's when Kissinger came into his own as a king maker

[Anonymous No.10940125]

>>10939860
this a bit

>>10939875
No, you're just an occult freak.

>>10939884
National-socialist*.
Literally nothing wrong, not against private property but against both capitalism and communism.
Common good > private interests.

[Anonymous No.10940158]

>>10940104
Post-war american culture is an uneasy compromise between the utopian aspirations of the counterculture and the military industrial consumer death machine.The right wing CIA types and the hippies are more similar than most people think, there has always been a certain overlap between the two. WWII think tanks are the prototype behind sillincon valley. ESALEN prefigured the communicative dynamics of social media and the postfordian workplace back in the 50s. Remember the human terrain program back in Iraq II?

>What started with GG AutoBlocker became Project Shield, Google’s effort to automatically censor anyone who doesn’t conform to Silicon Valley moral supremacy. Project Shield is a multi-layered part-human, part-AI platform that uses mostly meta data signatures to preemptively discover and stop “problematic” opinions. If you recall, this initiative was created with great fanfare at nearly every phase, with Gamer Gate’s “Literally Whos” invited to participate in Google Ideas, which lead directly to Jigsaw.

https://cultstate.com/2017/10/13/The-Butterfly-War/

[Anonymous No.10940161]

>>10940057
Nothing you said changes the fact that the approach most of the modern left takes to free-market capitalism is restrictionist, they want to limit it through legislation and cultural change. When they see industrial farming destroying family farms, for example, their instinct is to oppose it, not support it as part of a process inherent to the capitalist accumulation.

I believe this is a mode of economic thinking influenced by conservative criticism of liberalism in the XIXth century, exemplified by Adam Muller. He did influence Friedrich List and the historical school of economics, and that is not negligible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_List#Legacy

Every country that has adopted developmentalist and nationalist economic policies in the 20th century, many of them under left-wing governments, has been influenced by Adam Muller through Friedrich List. In the field of actual economic policy (as opposed to economy as a science or sociology) he was certainly more influential than Karl Marx, if only because he actually proposed something that could be adopted, as it did, with remarkable success.

[Anonymous No.10940186]

>>10940125
I'm far more moved by occult powers than by the tired liturgy of the Church. Black Sun=Lucifer=Nietszche's Hidden God.

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

[Anonymous No.10940191]

>>10940125
stop posting your wankoff chart

[Anonymous No.10940207]

>>10939824
what do conservatives in here think about trans people? Is trans compatible with conservatism?

[Anonymous No.10940215]

>>10940003
I will try to keep up the quality, although it appears we are already being sabotaged by shitposters

>>10940090
It is excellent, verily it is fine to encounter a fellow gentleman with taste and style.

Really, interesting piece. I love it

[Anonymous No.10940224]

>>10940186
just a reminder: HP Blavatsky is the person who came up with the idea of the Black Sun, which ariosophers stole from her without crediting her, then gave to the Thule Society and the SS and then esoteric hitlerists. The Black Sun doesn't have anything to do with the White Race or with White Supremacy its an idea she grafted from Alchemy that she thought had some merit in relation to the cosmology of Tibetan Buddhists and possibly esoteric Vedic belief. You'll never hear where most of the ideas of the tradfags and Thule Society nerds come from, because none of them want to associate with her, but it is her idea.

[Anonymous No.10940232]

>>10940207
Nah. I used to me more sympathetic to their problems but I have found them to be firmly subversive politically, wanting to prohibit religious private schools etc and force their morals on everyone else (we conservatives want to force too, ofc, it's a conflict ). Legitimizing transsexualism inevitably means Christian morals being seen as bigoted. My sympathy if that's your plight, but it's you or us

[Anonymous No.10940233]

>>10940224
you don't come up with archetypes, you channel them, they come to you.

[Anonymous No.10940236]

>>10940232
Christian morals are bigoted they wholesale slaughtered pagans, Jews, muslims, and mystics for centuries. Burning a church isn't even close to what should happen to the christniggers

[Anonymous No.10940243]

>>10940215
>verily it is fine to encounter a fellow gentleman with taste and style.

[Anonymous No.10940251]

>>10940125
Please stop posting your snowflake chart in conservative threads

t. OP

[Anonymous No.10940261]

>>10940233
shut the fuck up nigger you didn’t even know she was the one who came up with it. they didn’t channel anything they were part of the ariosophy movement, Guido Von List the fucking thief stole her ideas, gave them to his friends who then brought them into the Thules society and eventually himmler-hitler-hesse came into contact with them. There’s a documented lineage from blavatsky to Himmler, her traitorous acolytes Beasant and Bailey exacerbated this devolution with their own insanity

[Anonymous No.10940275]

>>10940236
t. heathen
https://youtube.com/watch?v=cvKRbi2ovDY

>>10940243
As Hitler was to the White Man, Eliot was to the Gentleman

[Anonymous No.10940296]

>>10940261
you call it insanity, I call it Revelation! The Bon masters of the Himalayas foretold the coming of the Fuhrer 60,000 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAjU2YfO4x4

[Anonymous No.10940304]

you people are quick, I'm still mulling over the first Evola thread from last week.

[Anonymous No.10940308]

>>10940296
im not watching Neo-Nazi shit. The Chakravartin is not Hitler, Hitler blew his brains out after suffering an overwhelming defeat at the hands of the Allies and Russia.

If there was a Chakravartin, which is a fringe belief, even among Tibetan buddhists (who are not 6,000 years of age) then its not someone we’ve seen yet

[Anonymous No.10940315]

>>10940207
no

[Anonymous No.10940320]

>>10940236
every moral system is bigoted

[Anonymous No.10940324]

>>10939927
No. They're all fucking liberals.
>b-but if they were conservatives instead they would be conservatives
Fuck off with this bullshit. Also Baudrillard is a worthless thinker.

[Anonymous No.10940329]

>>10940315
What if you met a cute, well read Christian trans girl well versed in scholastic theology?

[Anonymous No.10940331]

>>10939835
Hi leftypol please go back to rebbit or tumblr and stop your false flagging

[Anonymous No.10940347]

>>10940329
im not a sodomite

[Anonymous No.10940358]

>>10940329
also scholastic theology is fkn lame

[Anonymous No.10940360]

>>10940347
I didn't bring up sodomy, you did. you sick minded pervert

[Anonymous No.10940366]

>>10940320
no.
>>10940275
i don’t care at all christfaggot i would gladly throw acid on a work of christian art and watch every basilica and cathedral in europe light up the night air with sweet embers stoked with the hatred of hundreds of millions of fallen free peoples. burn in your self created hell of insecurity nigger

[Anonymous No.10940372]

>>10940207
>trans people
Liberals right down to their gender.
>>10940236
>stop being bigoted against immorality
typical fucking liberal

[Anonymous No.10940379]

>>10940360
only jesus could love you insufferable faggots

[Anonymous No.10940387]

>>10940366
get a load of this bigot

[Anonymous No.10940389]

>>10940000
>It failed, I don't know why, it was a good idea, after all.
Why is it a good idea? Basing politics around Bread and Circus is the worst possible thing to happen.

See: Ancient Roman politics

[Anonymous No.10940399]

>>10940387
slave morality in action, masquerading as rougish trolling enigmatic wit

[Anonymous No.10940413]

>>10940372
how do you explain the existence of trans people in pre-modern societies? In Napoli, they even have an associated patron saint and feast

[Anonymous No.10940420]

>>10940191
>wankoff chart
>>10940251
>snowflake chart

btw

Here are the books on that list that you can find in English and probably in .pdf :

All Carl Schmitt
Life of St Louis, by Joinville
Works by Mussolini, Hitler and Primo de Rivera (you can add Degrelle to that)
Céline's Mea Culpa, Trifles for a Massacre, School for corpses
Bardèche's Nuremberg
add some revisionist stuff you know to that, as long as it's as solid as Reynouard's or Faurrisson's
Try to read a biography of Adrien Arcand, even if you don't find his texts
Saint Thomas Aquinas can be easily found
Koninck's On the Primacy of the Common Good. Against the Personalists
Garrigou-Lagrange's God in 2 volumes
Catechism of Trent or Saint Pius the Xth's one are great
Mgr Lefebvre's They Have Uncrowned Him
Amerio's Iota Unum

[Anonymous No.10940421]

>>10940057
>but this isn't suprising considering that you think that some literal who german
Not that guy but this line is more a reflection of YOUR historical ignorance than anything else. Just because someone isn't talked about in the present day DOES NOT mean that he wasn't heavily talked about in his own time. List and Muller were absolutely engaged with by late 19th century American academics and were responsible for the formation of the protectionist school of thinking in that country. Protectionism was taken seriously in thought and in policy making and it's no surprise that these two figures might influence other intellectual developments that we are more familiar with today.

[Anonymous No.10940497]

>>10940413
I don't need to "explain" it because it doesn't change anything. Trans is a liberal expression of gender, right now, today, in the west. Regardless of whether it existed in pre-modern societies, and regardless of whether it was a conservative or liberal expression of gender then.

I don't care that much about it though because its a lost battle that was less than a grain of sand in a war that was over before the battle even started. They're still fucking liberals though.

[Anonymous No.10940534]

>>10940186
>tired liturgy of the Church
>ridiculous new ageish video

I had the Passion recital just like this one these days, it was incredibly deeper than your stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gW12CV1ESE
(The passion narrative according to the Gospel of John; John 18:1-19:42.)

Did you ever go to a latin mass ? If not, how can you be so sure that the liturgy is "tired" ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PRh29kqsl0
Or even the St Hubert masses with hunting horns are quite moving, even in non-traditional form.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIHXYhdTKSA

[Anonymous No.10940543]

>implying conservative positions are intellectually defensible
Not even baiting, if you're anything right of center I unironically believe you are unintelligent or are so heavily indoctrinated in an ideology that you are subconsciously compelled not to question it.