/cg/ - Conservative General

[Anonymous No.11066508]

From Roger Scruton (if you are interested in his philosophical examination of this, see his work "Sexual Desire")

>Western societies have, in recent decades, undergone a radical change in their attitudes to homosexuality. What was once regarded as an intolerable vice is now regarded as an "orientation", no different in kind, though different in direction, from the inclinations that lead men to unite with women, and children to be born. This radical change began with the decriminalisation of homosexual conduct, and with a growing readiness not just to tolerate homosexuality in private, but to talk about it in public. We saw the emergence of the "public homosexual", the flamboyant propagandist for that "other" way of life who, like Quentin Crisp, tried to persuade us that "gay" is after all the right description. There followed the movement for "gay pride" and the "coming out" of public figures —to the point where it is no longer very interesting to know whether someone is or is not of the other persuasion.

>For the most part, the people of this country have gone along with the changes. They may not be comfortable with its more demonstrative expressions, but they are prepared to tolerate the homosexual way of life, provided it keeps within the bounds of decency, and does no violence to fundamental norms. However, this attitude does not satisfy the activists. For to tolerate is to disapprove. It is only when conduct offends you that you need to exercise your toleration, and the activists want people to treat homosexuality as normal. Through the slippery notions of discrimination and human rights, they have used the law to advance their agenda.

[Anonymous No.11066525]

>>11066508
How to we get women back in the kitchen? This has to be the center of how we regain our power and virtue. Women have to relinquish their right to vote etc., but how do we bring that about?
And how do we get rid of all the non-Westerners in our white countries that are sullying our ancestor's vision?

[Anonymous No.11066549]

>>11066525
I understand where you're coming from, I would like women to be homemakers to, and I oppose female suffrage too (although tbf I oppose most people voting, and I think one vote per head of a household would be best). However "back in the kitchen" is an inflammatory phrase (one I would never use) often employed by imbeciles, and so I am unable to discern if you're serious.

[Anonymous No.11066612]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11066828]

>>11066508

[Anonymous No.11066841]

>>11066828
10/10

[Anonymous No.11066847]

>>11066525
>>11066549
I don't know which post is more hilarious

[Anonymous No.11066872]

>>11066508
>oy voey got buy these cigarettes
Why do people take this guy seriously?

[Anonymous No.11066935]

>>11066872
Because an episode of corruption doesn't really invalidate his corpus

[Anonymous No.11067005]

>>11066847
As the writer of the second, I don't think there is anything irrational about my position. It's very archaic, but I think it would be much better for families and homes if women were not competing with men for jobs. Also just because housewives are not "employees" doesn't mean their labor doesn't have serious value.

[Anonymous No.11067045]

>>11067005
>if women were not competing with men for jobs.
Oy vey, how do we fix the modern world?
*removes half of the working force*
Yes this will do!
*crashes the economy*
Nice!

[Anonymous No.11067053]

>>11066508
>be conservative
>see conservative thread
>"Hopefully this isn't as retarded as they usually are"
>every post is retarded

But I suppose I shouldn't expect authentic non-contrarian conservatives on 4chan

[Anonymous No.11067060]

>>11067045
you got to study some economnic history, from about 1970-80 the workforce doubled in the opposite direction. the only effect was to halve mens wages and turn kids into medicated turnips. youve been too cucked by this new media shit

[Anonymous No.11067067]

>>11067053
It genuinely is Trumps fault.

[Anonymous No.11067119]

>>11067053
You might not actually be a conservative so much if you think homosexuality and both parents working outside the home is a good thing. Even John Milbank says they're bad, and he's a leftist. You can't claim to be a conservative because you like Burke or Schmitt while rejecting social conservativism as "contrarian"

[Anonymous No.11067122]

>>11067060
Your understanding of (socio-)
economic history it's pants on head retarded and probably comes from stuff you read from /pol/, as the usage of
>cucked
and
>you've been brainwashed by the new media shit
shows
thinking that with technological advancements women in the workplace could have been nothing more than an historical necessity is embarrassing, and thinking that the only effect of entrance of women in the workplace has been the halving of men's wages is dumb as fuck and denotes a total ignorance of basic economic principles, not the mention you haven't mention where this halving supposedly happened because I'm pretty sure the Gini index went all the way down from the 50s up until 2008 in more than half of the western nations.

[Anonymous No.11067134]

>>11067045
>*crashes the economy*
Nope. Nominal wages will double so that one member of the household can support his entire family instead of two. Feminism is part of the reason why the rate of increase in nominal wages is so low. Also, expanding the supply of labor also increases the amount of skilled workers in the labor market and competition in the job market. The wider labor supply is, the more skilled workers there are who are willing to be paid you have to choose from. This is why capitalists loves feminism, multiculturalism, and immigration. Capitalists are indifferent to everything except for policies that effect their bottom line, and will support any and every subversive policy that will give them profits and cheap labor, especially subverting traditional values.
>>11067053
Well, are you going to share what your idea of conservatism is, or are you just going to sit there and shitpost?

[Anonymous No.11067135]

>>11067060
>>11067122
I forgot to mention how using a scenario when women entered the workplace to predict what would happen if women got back in the kitchen (and arguing in favor of such thing) is utterly retarded because how different the socioeconomic and technological conditions are. It's like arguing that feudalism worked in the middle ages and therefore it would work now.

[Anonymous No.11067162]

>>11067134
>Nominal wages will double so that one member of the household can support his entire family instead of two
That's not how it works you utter mongoloid. If you got women back in the kitchen it would mean that half of the working positions would remain vacant. Even if you replaced a (small) part of them with now unemployed men, which is an unlikely as fuck scenario since unemployed men are usually dumb, lazy and unskilled, that would still leave a fuckton of work positions vacant.
And guess what half of the working positions becoming suddenly vacant means? Complete and total economic chaos and disaster.
You're right about capitalism being incompatible with traditional values though, which makes me think you have some sort of cognitive dissonance, unless your end goal is to regress the west back to middle East tier levels

[Anonymous No.11067166]

>>11067162
he’s probably a fascist

[Anonymous No.11067168]

>Sweetgrass
is this a novel, or what? no author is given, and i cannot find it by the title alone.

[Anonymous No.11067183]

>>11067168
Film. Films have blue writing for the titles, there are five

[Anonymous No.11067206]

>>11067162
So much bullshit on the market and so much waste, a reduction of the junk is well worth it. No more fast food, etc

[Anonymous No.11067219]

>>11067162
>which makes me think you have some sort of cognitive dissonance
I'm not a neocon, if that's what you're thinking.
>unless your end goal is to regress the west back to middle East tier levels
idk, I do think the current trend technology is detrimental to the human race as a whole. Systemized automation is on the horizon, and as soon as that is in place, everyone who is not a product or artistic content creator, or already rich, is fucked. Republicans are schizophrenic. Who in their right minds can still support Capitalism?

[Anonymous No.11067239]

>>11067219
Have you read Heidegger's "The Question Concerning Technology"? Or the Abolition of Man, by C.S. Lewis? Or Ideas have Consequences, by Richard Weaver?

[Anonymous No.11067244]

>>11067219
Also have you read any of Christopher Lasch?

[Anonymous No.11067250]

>>11067239
>>11067244
No, but I have read a little bit of Ellul, and Lasch is on my reading list. Why do you ask?

[Anonymous No.11067322]

>>11067250
Because technology is a major topic in the first three works, and Lasch gives a good critique of progressive capitalism

[Anonymous No.11067350]

>>11067322
I see. I will have to check them out. I would like to thank you with a recommendation of my own. Pic related is a critic on modernity which was written by a Traditionalist, but what drew me to him was, he synthesizes the Traditonalists: Guenon, Coomaraswamy, Schuon, and Eliade, with Marx, Baudrillard, and Ellul, among others, in his critic. I have also discovered many new authors through Marty Glass that I probably wouldn't otherwise. He does go on a polemic at times, but the man does know how to write, unlike Guenon.