Who the fuck did this retard "traditionalist" chart?

[Anonymous No.11041894]

> In the same chart that you put "Why liberalism failed" you also put "Defense of the Constitution of the United States
> In the same chart that you put books against the French Revolution, you put books supporting the American Revolution
> You put people who literally say NOT to be traditionalist

Is this place so pathetic that those who think they are "traditionalists" are only liberals with years of delay? Did someone really read these books or did they know those authors? God.

[Anonymous No.11041904]

>>11041894
>taking 4chan this seriously
Get a life

[Anonymous No.11041958]

>>11041904
>t. mongoloid

[Anonymous No.11041963]

>>11041904
found a trump supporter

[Anonymous No.11041970]

>>11041958
MONGOLOID HE WAS A MONGOLOID
HAPPIER THAN YOU AND ME

[Anonymous No.11041975]

>>11041894
thought you might be joking and then saw it starts with Burke. maybe it's the ambivalent redneck chart and just needs a rename?

[Anonymous No.11042495]

>>11041894
He ment liberalism as a synonym for leftism and not the ideology of the 18th century philosophers you sperg

[Anonymous No.11042555]

>>11041970
I legit can't read or use the word 'mongoloid' without thinking of that song, is there a name for when something ties itself so strongly to a word?

[Anonymous No.11042571]

Kek no one thinks of muh classical liberalism as current liberalism

[Anonymous No.11042599]

>>11041894
>Plinio Correia de Oliveira
Fuck, I already know who did this. Some fucking stupid as latin american conservative-wanna-be. Probably brazilian.

[Anonymous No.11042602]

>>11042495
>>11042571
even so, it doesnt add up

[Anonymous No.11042617]

>>11042495
>He ment liberalism as a synonym for leftism and not the ideology
It doesn't matter because it's still contradictory. Also liberalism didn't stop being a thing, it's now the dominant ideology of the world, nearly the entire first world is comprised of liberal democracies. Liberalism is so entrenched that people no longer even think of it as a distinct ideology, they see it as the natural political landscape, and now the US political races are between different liberal factions with slightly different liberal agendas.

[Anonymous No.11043468]

>>11041894
Why don't you read the books instead of the titles? Maybe there is more too it than you "think".

[Anonymous No.11043852]

>>11042555
meme?

[Anonymous No.11043865]

>>11042555
Autism?

[Anonymous No.11044952]

>>11042495
If they think traditionalism is merely opposing modern leftism while supporting classical liberalism then they belong on /pol/ not here. This is ass backwards political theory, probably put together by someone who hasn't read half of those books.

[Anonymous No.11044977]

>>11044952
Put together by an American for other Americans.

[Anonymous No.11045017]

>>11041904

[Anonymous No.11046000]

>>11043468
>people at the bottom of a hierarchy never resent their position
>t. some guy on twitter

[Anonymous No.11046011]

>>11043468
unhealthy to even contemplate such a notion

[Anonymous No.11046404]

>>11043468

WoG is hit or miss. That one's a miss for sure.

[Anonymous No.11046485]

>>11041894
What did you expect from a chart made by neocons?

[I made it No.11046545]

>>11041894
Please read Gentz

Then read

>>11035695
>>11035698
>>11035702
>>11035706

>>11041975
Please see
>>11035731

[Anonymous No.11046552]

"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."

[I made it No.11046569]

>Taking it for granted that I do not write to the disciples of the Parisian philosophy, I may assume, that the awful Author of our being is the Author of our place in the order of existence; and that, having disposed and marshalled us by a divine tactic, not according to our will, but according to his, he has, in and by that disposition, virtually subjected us to act the part which belongs to the place assigned us. We have obligations to mankind at large, which are not in consequence of any special voluntary pact. They arise from the relation of man to man, and the relation of man to God, which relations are not matters of choice. On the contrary, the force of all the pacts which we enter into with any particular person, or number of persons, amongst mankind, depends upon those prior obligations. In some cases the subordinate relations are voluntary, in others they are necessary—but the duties are all compulsive. When we marry, the choice is voluntary, but the duties are not matter of choice. They are dictated by the nature of the situation. Dark and inscrutable are the ways by which we come into the world. The instincts which give rise to this mysterious process of nature are not of our making. But out of physical causes, unknown to us, perhaps unknowable, arise moral duties, which, as we are able perfectly to comprehend, we are bound indispensably to perform. Parents may not be consenting to their moral relation; but consenting or not, they are bound to a long train of burthensome duties towards those with whom they have never made a convention of any sort. Children are not consenting to their relation, but their relation, without their actual consent, binds them to its duties; or rather it implies their consent, because the presumed consent of every rational creature is in unison with the predisposed order of things. Men come in that manner into a community with the social state of their parents, endowed with all the benefits, loaded with all the duties, of their situation. If the social ties and ligaments, spun out of those physical relations which are the elements of the commonwealth, in most cases begin, and alway continue, independently of our will, so, without any stipulation on our own part, are we bound by that relation called our country, which comprehends (as it has been well said) "all the charities of all." Nor are we left without powerful instincts to make this duty as dear and grateful to us, as it is awful and coercive. It consists, in a great measure, in the ancient order into which we are born. We may have the same geographical situation, but another country; as we may have the same country in another soil. The place that determines our duty to our country is a social, civil relation.

-Edmund Burke

[I made it No.11046583]

Let's not forget than John Adams advocated am hereditary Senate based on titles of nobility

>>11046552
>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.

[I made it No.11046607]

>>11042495
No, I mean liberalism as in Locke.

>>11042599
I am an American

>>11046485
I am an isolationist and an opponent of meritocracy

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.11046612]

>>11041894
I must be a brainlet because I don't know how anyone can just be a "traditionalist". Traditions contradict each other all the time. I understand if you're a traditionalist x or y but without that descriptor it's basically a coexist bumper sticker.

[I made it No.11046617]

>>11046612
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_conservatism

[I made it No.11046658]

Also OP there is nothing liberal about the Constitution except the clause against inherited titles. The Bill of Rights (which was attached later) was only to ensure states didn't have to put up with shit from the Federal government; it did not apply to the States themselves until the 20th Century when precedent was completely overturned to force liberalism on all the states.

[Anonymous No.11046674]

>>11041894
It's like time doesn't pass, things don't happen, and language doesn't evolve.

[I made it No.11046702]

>>11046674
It's more like the OP is can't grasp the difference between the French Revolution, which was about overturning the law, and the American Revolution, which was about one nation fighting another that was trying to impose an illegal tyranny. I do not use "liberalism" to mean progressivism. I consider Locke, Jefferson, Paine etc to be classical liberals. But not all the Founding Fathers were liberals, the Federalists were not (the Alien and Sedition Acts show that); John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and ESPECIALLY Gouverneur Morris were all conservative, they all supported either an hereditary monarch or hereditary senate, all were strong proponents of religion, all have a very right wing stance on immigration. Gouverneur Morris was in France during the French Revolution and said absolute monarchy was the only fit government for the French state

[Anonymous No.11046734]

>>11046674
Past, present, and future are illusions, and onlt time itself is eternal; nothing is happening in the "real" world, and language is a shitty medium of expressing abstract thoughts.

[Anonymous No.11046739]

Haha sorry it was me, I thought it would be funny I didn't mean to make you mad. Cheer up and smile. =)

[Anonymous No.11046744]

>>11046734
Time is meaningless without past, present, and future.