/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17139865]

Thoughts on this man? I want to learn about conservatism.

[Anonymous No.17139874]

>>17139865
>I want to learn about conservatism.
What is there to learn?

[Anonymous No.17139890]

>>17139874
Things.

[Anonymous No.17139893]

Offers a better analysis of power dynamics than marxist or American liberal schools. But why pick him to learn about conservatism of all people when he's really far away from contemporary conservatism?

[Anonymous No.17139908]

>>17139893
Because I heard he's good and I don't like contemporary anything.

[Anonymous No.17139947]

>>17139908
Good, I don't either. Be sure to also read Hobbes, he builds up heavily on him.

[Anonymous No.17139959]

>>17139947
I read Hobbes. I think I'll read Burke and then Schmitt.

[Anonymous No.17140038]

>>17139865
First thing to learn is that he wasn't a conservative.

[Anonymous No.17140060]

>>17140038
Explain how he wasn't

[Anonymous No.17140177]

>>17139959
Read de Maistre and then Schmitt.

[Anonymous No.17140214]

>>17139865

[Anonymous No.17140235]

>>17140060
He was associated with more revolutionary currents.

[Anonymous No.17140264]

>>17140235
Imagine getting filtered by the mere blanket term of a completely heterogenous pseudomovement

[Anonymous No.17140266]

>>17139865
he looks like the guy from Twin Peaks

[Anonymous No.17140269]

Is schmitt only conservative cause he is not a marxist?
What kind of retarded dichotomy is this shit?

[Anonymous No.17140302]

>>17139865
Read political romanticism, explains very well how different nations form on the examples of france and germany

[Anonymous No.17140321]

>>17140264
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.17140337]

>>17140264
I didn't say it was bad, you stupid fucking retard. "Conservatism" is bad, because it is a decrepit, impotent, embarrassing bourgeois leech movement. The "heterogeneous pseudo-movement" you just mentioned, on the other hand, for all its flaws had many redeeming features.

[Anonymous No.17140369]

>>17140337
>"Conservatism" is bad, because it is a decrepit, impotent, embarrassing bourgeois leech movement.
Grow up and get over your hate of Trump.

[Anonymous No.17140393]

>>17140337
Well, I agree completely. But just because the non-conserving conservatives occupy the term today, other types of conservatism don't stop being conservative.

[Anonymous No.17140442]

>>17140369
I don't care about orange man, he's really gay and he's still somehow less gay than most conservatives.
>>17140393
Sure but who cares? Let's move on anyway. Conservatives won't get a grip any time soon.

[Anonymous No.17140459]

How are the new C.V. Miller Trannys? Better than the old translations?

[Anonymous No.17141159]

>>17140442
What conservatives are you talking about? Surely you don't think American republicans are actually conservatives?

[Anonymous No.17141302]

>>17141159
Of course I don't, but I don't think there are any actually conservative conservatives left anywhere. Even the "far right" parties are really gay in most countries. Check the AfD for example - muh gays, muh liberalism, muh Enlightenment civilisation. Trash a dime a dozen.

[Anonymous No.17141378]

>>17141302
I heard good things about FdI in Italy, Greek Solution, and AUR in Romania, but I think a contemporary conservatism is still developing and finding itself in the aftermath of Trump shockwaves + COVID.

[Anonymous No.17141463]

>>17139865
Was he a Muslim? Why do you mentioned him here?

[Anonymous No.17141477]

>>17141378
Brothers of Italy is an interesting party, but ultimately its platform is still the most conservative that a liberal state can offer. Maybe it's a covert wignat party but I wouldn't know - all I can see is what is in the open.
>I think a contemporary conservatism is still developing and finding itself in the aftermath of Trump shockwaves + COVID.
It's developing into more neocon bullshit, but brazen.

[Anonymous No.17141487]

>>17141302
I almost feel sorry for the good guys in the AfD, mostly the eastern folk. They just have to watch as their opus is taken away by boomers

[Anonymous No.17141517]

>>17141487
Honestly, the reunification of Germany was a mistake. Ostkrauts should have been allowed to be angry, bigoted barbarians in peace. The destruction of Prussia was also an objective tragedy, since that's where the most based of Krauts lived. Very sad.

[Anonymous No.17141548]

>>17141477
For now I find AUR the most promising because Romania has a myriad of right-wing intellectuals due to their Iron Guard legacy. Everything is still very new though, and conservatism needs to reinvent itself this decade.

[Anonymous No.17141587]

>>17141548
It's my first time hearing about AUR. I don't know much about Romanian politics, nor do I know how impactful a Romanian regime change would be to the world, but I hope for the best for them.

[Anonymous No.17141592]

>>17141517
I get where you are coming from, Ossis just seem to be made of flesh and blood compared to too many Wessies. In that regard they are very similar to the Austrians here.

[Anonymous No.17141686]

He was interesting enough that a lot of lefty tards have tried to appropriate him, same with Nietzsche and Heidegger

[Anonymous No.17141727]

>>17141592
Funnily enough, Austrians are the other supremely based type of Germans I acknowledge. There's this book - Shortest History of Germany by James Hawes. It's written by this seething misanthropic libtard who basically claims that Austrians and Prussians were Eastern European barbarians usurping the Roman-like resources of West Germany. I ended up agreeing with some of his premises, but drew the opposite conclusion - namely that West Germans are gay and East Germans are fucking based. Glory to Prussia and Austria, the finest people of Central Europe. Wish Niekisch was still alive.

[Anonymous No.17141871]

>>17141727
Your words humble me. God bless you.

[Anonymous No.17141938]

>>17141871
You too anon. Wish things had gone differently for us all. In my heart I will always hope for a peaceful and lovely Pan-Europa (but based). May we be blessed with a bright future, despite all.

[Anonymous No.17141981]

>According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Schmitt was an acute observer and analyst of the weaknesses of liberal constitutionalism and liberal cosmopolitanism. But there can be little doubt that his preferred cure turned out to be infinitely worse than the disease."
So he was a loser.

[Anonymous No.17141994]

>>17141981
>there can be little doubt that his preferred cure turned out to be infinitely worse than the disease.
There's plenty of doubt about that and is growing daily.

[Anonymous No.17142003]

>>17141981
that quote reeks of bias.

[Anonymous No.17142005]

>>17141994
uhhh based?

[Anonymous No.17142154]

>>17141378
AUR's victory was a surprise from what i heard, the globohomo party was shocked that it got 10% or so. an anon on /int/ said that the implications are larger because romanians are slow to change politically, so they don't usually have upstart parties coming and going, they vote for the existing 2 parties for 50 years just because they are the ones that exist. so a new party not only means something big has happened in the population it also means that it is now part of the 'set' of parties people feel comfortable voting for, and many people who were already tired of the old parties but previously stuck with them will now pour over to AUR

>>17141302
AfD came too early to be radical, they served their purpose and will give way to something better. you can't read the surface of politics, just use it as a sign of what the real main currents are underneath.

same with trump. trumpism is so much bigger than trump, it is the masses demanding economic populism and strong leadership by instinct. trumpism created trump not the other way around, but trump became the conduit through which trumpism went from the merely unconscious longing of the people to something conscious and adaptable. there is a risk that it will subside into neocon bullshit but that's why you have to fight. make trumpism absorb the GOP, not the other way around.

parties like the AfD and even alt lite redditors are seeds that have to be cultivated properly. even the most shallow teenage libertarian might be expressing beliefs that, although he doesn't know it yet obviously, will later be the grounds of his nationalism

[Anonymous No.17142168]

>>17141994
how is it possible that boomers and millennials are so blind to the state of decay they created? they still think it's 1995 and the world is going to go through mild but tolerable neoliberal economic contraction and dilation forever, they have no sense of the financial bubble, no sense that geopolitics could ever make war necessary or inevitable, and they definitely can't see things like the fentanyl crisis, general cultural decay (look at trannies for god's sake), or unresolvable ethnic tensions getting worse by the day thanks to immigration

i can understand being blind but they are willfully blind to the mess they created

[Anonymous No.17142224]

>>17142168
I don't think most people are "blind" to these situations, per se, but if you want to up-end the Neoliberal/technological system in place, people don't like the solution -- which invariably means being big ol' meanyheads to some people.

>Can't we just have endless immigration/population-growth and not have any sordid effects from it?

Is essentially their thinking, because saying, "No, we can't. Maybe we should... not do that," is blasphemy. As Moldbug and others point out: a lot of current people entrenched in Neoliberalism are essentially religious. Excoriation of their system condemns you.

[Anonymous No.17142226]

>>17142154
>AfD came too early to be radical, they served their purpose and will give way to something better. you can't read the surface of politics, just use it as a sign of what the real main currents are underneath.
It's all a bit too slow for me. It's frustrating.
>same with trump. trumpism is so much bigger than trump, it is the masses demanding economic populism and strong leadership by instinct. trumpism created trump not the other way around, but trump became the conduit through which trumpism went from the merely unconscious longing of the people to something conscious and adaptable. there is a risk that it will subside into neocon bullshit but that's why you have to fight. make trumpism absorb the GOP, not the other way around.
It's way too late for that, Trump went neocon shortly after his election. After Bannon - that milquetoast "economic nationalist" - got purged, there wasn't any point in supporting the movement. Trumpism has become a tool to rally votes for the GOP neocons.
>parties like the AfD and even alt lite redditors are seeds that have to be cultivated properly. even the most shallow teenage libertarian might be expressing beliefs that, although he doesn't know it yet obviously, will later be the grounds of his nationalism
I agree with this but I think a more confrontational, if welcoming approach is needed. There is nothing to be gained from signalboosting shit tier movements anymore.

[Anonymous No.17142260]

>>17139865
Here's a great place to start.

[Anonymous No.17142333]

>>17142154
Is int any good for European right wing politics?

[Anonymous No.17142343]

>>17142154
Trump created modern right wing, he wasn't too early.

[Anonymous No.17142597]

>>17139865
I'd probably start with Qanon: An Invitation to the Great Awakening

Maybe the Flat Earth Manual.

Little Debbie Cakes and Me.

[Anonymous No.17142627]

>>17142597
Go back

[Anonymous No.17142676]

>>17142627
He's right...we need to change our name.

[Anonymous No.17143043]

>>17142676
You're not a conservative and you don't understand what it means.

[Anonymous No.17143656]

>>17140235
Wasn't there a large group called "Revolutionary Conservatives" around that time? They had a lot of synergy with the NSDAP and had more brains but less vitality.

[Anonymous No.17144980]

Schmitt’s critiques were so devastating to Liberalism that he has spent the last 85 years living in their heads rent fucking free. Absolutely based and I still haven’t read a single Liberal refutation of his work that wasn’t full of cognitive dissonance and cope. Stop asking whether you should read him and just read Concept of the Political already.

[Anonymous No.17144989]

>>17140060
He was a fascist.

[Anonymous No.17145081]

>>17139865
All you need to learn about *real* conservatism i.e. localism can be learned through Nicholas Nassim Taleb pbuh

[Anonymous No.17145083]

>>17144989
This.
Honestly, you could same he was a combination of fascist and reactionary thinking, and not at all a conservative in the same way as Burke was in terms of 'conserving liberalism'.

[Anonymous No.17145115]

>>17141548
You're blowing a bit too much smoke up our asses. Our intellectuals died, there are no more real "right" intellectuals anymore of this generation. A majority of Romanians are generally pro-EU and tired of politics, so they'll cast their vote for the bureaucrat with the warmest smile. AUR won 9% in an election with only a 33% voter turnout.

>>17142154
Not exactly. AUR is just a reboot of PRM, PRM being an old Nationalist party who actually had a 2nd round presidential candidate (who lost in a landslide to the socialists lol), and around 20% of parliament at it's height, yet it still crumbled. You could watch AUR parliament videos on youtube and it's just the same grandstanding rhetoric that Vadim Tudor used 20 years ago, albeit Vadim spoke a bit more eloquently in between his obscenities.

>so a new party not only means something big has happened in the population it also means that it is now part of the 'set' of parties people feel comfortable voting for, and many people who were already tired of the old parties but previously stuck with them will now pour over to AUR

And the issue with that is that USR was supposed to be the new upstart "third choice" party that would have consisted of tired voters, but they ended up being the same shit.

And I'm not even against these guys 100% in the end, they have a bit of charm but in the end I am deeply cynical of it all. Using the same techniques and strategies over and over again and expecting a different turnout is complete waste of time. We're in the 21st century and we still use 20th century wastebin rubbish techniques to siphon some votes out of a parliamentary election. AUR can run their course, but when they hit their first election disappointment, it will be the end for them too.

[Anonymous No.17145121]

>>17139865
Don’t bother. Kantbot refuted him

[Anonymous No.17145144]

I'm completely ignorant on his philosophy, but I think the main problem is that plebs aren't seeing real wage growth and gains in wealth. If we fixed that then all this philosophizing would not need to occur.

[Anonymous No.17145285]

>>17145081
this but unironically

[Anonymous No.17145595]

>>17143656
Yeah with Spengler, Heidegger, Evola, Klages, Junger, Mann, and others.

[Anonymous No.17145610]

>>17142597
Kek

[Anonymous No.17145618]

>>17139865
Read Buckley instead.

[Anonymous No.17145626]

>>17144989
>>17145083
>>17145144
>>17145618
Retards.

[Anonymous No.17145631]

>>17139959
Read de Maistre, Carlyle then Schmitt.

[Anonymous No.17145654]

>>17145631
>Carlyle
I love to read about social injustice!!

[Anonymous No.17145676]

>>17145626
it's true though. Unless you consider fascists conservatives which I don't.

[Anonymous No.17145680]

>In his 2008 book, Gross National Happiness, Arthur C. Brooks presents the finding that conservatives are roughly twice as happy as liberals.
This is why conservatives don't care about leftist criticism.

[Anonymous No.17145704]

>>17145676
Conservatives can be fascists if that's what it takes to achieve their goals and maintain their values. Schmitt wasn't a fascist--if he were, he'd have been a leading thinker in bringing fascism about, but he merely joined it when it became a dominant philosophy and later he was accused of pretense and not being an actual nazi so he had to resign. Heidegger wasn't a nazi either.

[Anonymous No.17145719]

>>17145704
Schmitt saw the NatSocs as an expedient way of fulfilling his own personal philosophy of the state, if that were not the case, then he would have fled along with the other academics who saw themselves as incompatible with Nazism.

[Anonymous No.17145726]

>>17145121
>Kantbot
>>>/wsg/3735482

>>17145626
>>17145719
Based

[Anonymous No.17145733]

>>17145704
>>17145676
>>17145083
>>17144989
He asked Hindenberg to use his executive powers to ban the Nazi Party. His "support" was on the level of low-grade opportunism. I've read some of his work, and I see none of the typical marks of fascism, e.g. ultra-nationalism, corporatism, irredentism, a Manichean view of the world involving a titanic struggle between the state-nation and enemies internal and external. He

[Anonymous No.17145805]

>>17141981

pseud shit at the end of that qoute

[Anonymous No.17145813]

>>17145115
>Our intellectuals died
You probably don't know them cause you won't see them on TV in a EU state.

[Anonymous No.17146006]

>>17145726
>whole vid is just calling him fat
wow btfo

[Anonymous No.17146013]

>>17146006
Making a video about that guy was already a self-btfo for whoever made it, whoever posted it, and the anon who quoted it ITT assuming they're not all the same person and I sure hope they are.

[Anonymous No.17146852]

>>17145680
>That curve

kek

I'd say the opposite would be true for Europe, or maybe the graph would be mirrored about the centre.

[Anonymous No.17146883]

>>17145726
kek
Kantbot is the most insufferable faggot on the internet

[Anonymous No.17146887]

>>17145115
>You're blowing a bit too much smoke up our asses. Our intellectuals died, there are no more real "right" intellectuals anymore of this generation.

True of most European countries desu. It is most true for the UK, however. The two party back-and-forth dance continues, apart from the occasional pressure party like BXP that causes the Tory party to get off their arses.

[Anonymous No.17146891]

>>17145733
>a Manichean view of the world involving a titanic struggle between the state-nation and enemies internal and external
Are you retarded? This is literally Schmitt's friend-enemy distinction. The man formalised the entire philosophy of this very notion.

[Anonymous No.17146901]

>>17139865
He is a hobbesian liberal though

>>17139908
he is a jurist, not a /pol/ type. You are believing liberal media

[Anonymous No.17146937]

>>17145733
Also
>ultra-nationalism
Not really a part of fascism, but Schmitt was a German nationalist certainly
>corporatism
Still not really sure what this means, apparently its "an economy collectively managed by employers, workers and state officials by formal mechanisms at the national level", so if that just means that the economy is subordinated to the state then yes Schmitt definitely believed that.
>irredentism
Nothing to do with fascism at all
>a Manichean view
Again, the friend-enemy distinction

[Anonymous No.17146961]

>>17139865
>>I want to learn about conservatism.
He's not a conservative

[Anonymous No.17146964]

>>17146887
What killed Western intellectuals? It's a sad state.

[Anonymous No.17146973]

>>17146901
Who says "hobbesian liberalism" must be incompatible with conservatism?

[Anonymous No.17147018]

Conservatism in reality is just a reaction to enlightenment. This was started by Hobbes who already denounced the improper use of rationality by unqualified people who use words to refer and create concepts that do not mean anything. Unfortunately, the beast was already unleashed and no one wanted to listen to Hobbes. When Burke denounced the French Revolution it was obviously way too late: the French Revolution was just a political manifestation of the evils unleashed by the misapplication of the Enlightenment ideas. Naturally, Burke was "cancelled" for his views and thereon, the New Jewry celebrated the "revolutionary" mindset, history was rewritten, extremist "intellectual" movements like communism and fascism fought each other, intellectuals were marginalised, and the mentally ill continue to run the hospital today.
Hope the world heals one day.

[Anonymous No.17148386]

>>17146964
Concerned with the lowest, both in form and principle. Democratization of ideas essentially.

[Anonymous No.17148438]

>>17145654
Go back to /pol/, reddit or /v/. Dumb fuck.

[Anonymous No.17148801]

>>17148386
>both in form and principle.
What?

[Anonymous No.17150126]

>>17148801
The concern of thought is not only for the lowest values, for example economy and neutralization of the classes to material concerns, the levelling also takes place in the very form of communication to the extent that discussion of higher values becomes impossible.

[Anonymous No.17150145]

>>17148801
>>17150126
In another sense, Schmitt mentions how one is expected to be his own apprentice, priest, educator, master, or even parent. For most this will be an impossible task, and the drawing out of each will only ensure the impoverishment of all.

[Anonymous No.17150289]

>>17146901
How is he liberal. I've read the Concept of the Political and he is very critical of tolerance as a value.

[Anonymous No.17150297]

>>17146961
He was in his daily life, just not politically.

[Anonymous No.17150311]

>I want to learn about conservatism.
Violent pathology spread by cynics and rubes, absolute concentrated cancer. There’s nothing to learn, it’s incoherent.

[Anonymous No.17150332]

>>17150311
You described leftism.

[Anonymous No.17150387]

>>17150332
But replace cynics with mentally ill midwits

[Anonymous No.17150404]

>>17150387
Virtually all great writers have been transgressive rather than reactionary. By contrast, conservative “philosophy” is joke.

[Anonymous No.17150464]

>>17150404
A peson can't be reactionary without being transgressive, because to call for the status quo ante is to rebel against the status quo.

[Anonymous No.17150480]

>>17150404
Conservatives were transgressive. You have no idea what you're talking about, and you're a midwith to top it off.

[Anonymous No.17150663]

>>17146891
>Are you retarded? This is literally Schmitt's friend-enemy distinction. The man formalised the entire philosophy of this very notion.
No. The friend-enemy distinction is meant as a response to liberal theories of politics as a form of rational debate between equals who are equally interested in discovering the truth and implementing sound policy. It is not meant to justify portraying the Jews and the Communists as the root of all of Germany's problems. Read The Concept of the Political and then read Mein Kampf and see how similar they are.
>>17146937
>Not really a part of fascism, but Schmitt was a German nationalist certainly
It is, and I am not sure about that.
>Still not really sure what this means, apparently its "an economy collectively managed by employers, workers and state officials by formal mechanisms at the national level", so if that just means that the economy is subordinated to the state then yes Schmitt definitely believed that.
No, it does not mean that. Corporatism is the basic belief that the state is the people and the people are the state, that the will of the people is expressed through the party-state, and that this synthesis between people and state is the apotheosis of the development of the nation. This is the most fundamental element of fascism, and Schmitt did not believe in it.
>Nothing to do with fascism at all
I don't think you've read anything about fascism if that's what you think, my friend.
>Again, the friend-enemy distinction
I explained that earlier. Blaming the Jews for everything is not the same as saying that American politics is a contest between enemies.

[Anonymous No.17150683]

>>17150480
>Conservatives were transgressive
Reactionary harkening for a bygone age has been around since the dawn of civilization. On your bike now.

[Anonymous No.17150693]

>>17150683
Sorry for your low IQ.

[Anonymous No.17150704]

>>17150693
Does it bother you that conservatism is not taken seriously at any academic institution? Sorry, most educated people lean left.

[Anonymous No.17150744]

>>17150704
If the majority were correct, conservatives wouldn't need to exist. Low IQ monkeys like yourself spawned by a misapprehension of rationality and the Ancients is exactly why conservatives exist and your very nature is at the same time why you will never understand what you're reading.

[Anonymous No.17150760]

>>17150663
You are wrong. Third positionism does in fact believe in the identity of a people and their State, but this is only seen as a potential state of things. Through the strugle of the great leader one becomes all and all becomes one in him, through him. This is the usurpation of centrality by a single man. Corporatism requires not only this dissolution of individuality (under modernity) but the dissolution(sparagmos) of the leader. He is consumed and subsumed by the community and embodies a community created in his image. We are talking about a simultaneous mutual (re)creation. Corporatism is christian theology applied to the political in its fullest. Complete adoption in this case creates absolute subversion. If the great leader isn't Christ the process of corporification is literally luciferian.
This is just an introduction to third positionist political theory. You can't understand fascism(part) without understanding the whole(third position).

[Anonymous No.17150782]

>>17150760
Perhaps your vision of fascism is based on the movements in Romania, Spain, and Portugal, but it has nothing to do with Germany and Italy and even less to do with Carl Schmitt.

[Anonymous No.17150953]

>>17150782
You are wrong my friend. This isn't fascism, national socialism, falangism or any other variation of third positionism. This is the basis of corporatism. Every movement in the third positionist umbrella has this as a central tenet.
Think for a second. What does the phrase "all within the state" truly means? If all(people) is one (state/leader) then the means of production are socialized without central planification and state coersion. Private property becomes public property. This is why fascism and nazism are socialistic even in the marxian sense. Third positionism socializes the human soul through spagarmos. Christ shares his blood and flesh simbolically and through this equaly avaible feast all men are made equal in Him.
In europe the old ways still existed abd there was a people. The leader created a synthesis of his vision and the existing people. In Brazil there is only multiplicity/fragmentation. The leader has to create one people from many. There is no body to be embodied and transformed by the great leader. This is the problem of integralism, another third positionist current.

[Anonymous No.17151079]

>>17150760
>>17150953
Not only does none of this have anything to do with Carl Schmitt, but it is also disconnected from the reality of Nazism and Italian Fascism. The latter was at best neutral to Christianity, while the former was hostile to it. The ideas you're repeating sound like a postwar invention, to be honest.

[Anonymous No.17151115]

>>17150953
>Think for a second. What does the phrase "all within the state" truly means? If all(people) is one (state/leader) then the means of production are socialized without central planification and state coersion. Private property becomes public property.
That makes literally zero sense

[Anonymous No.17151255]

>>17151079
You are missing the point. Their opinions towards christianity are irrelevant. Corporatism is achieved through the corporification of the state and i've described it in general terms relating it to christian theology. To Savitri Devi Hitler was a messianic figure, krishna personified. The same could be said about Rosenberg. Both are anti-christian thinkers.

You dont understand corporatism or the process by which it comes into being. You dont understand fascism, nazism and all the other isms in the umbrella because of it. My comments were never about Schmitt.

[Anonymous No.17151268]

>>17151255
Savitri Devi and Alfred Rosenberg were both fringe figures. No one listened to or cared about them. Your Esoteric Hitlerism is pure autism and has no place in this thread.

[Anonymous No.17151305]

>>17151268
You are obstuse and ignorant. It is like talking to someone disabled.
1)Corporatism is a central tenet of third positinism
2)Fascism and nazism are third positionist.
3)Corporatism requires a body/corpus.
4)This body can exist or be made.
I've described the process by which it comes into being using christian theology.

[Anonymous No.17151318]

>>17150704
>Oh wow this is all down to chance
Nice bait faggot

[Anonymous No.17151477]

>>17151305
My friend, the very idea of Third Positionism is a postwar invention. In any case, however you define corporatism, Schmitt did not believe in it.

[Anonymous No.17151758]

>>17151477
Again, wrong. Third positionism is mentioned by fascistic figureheads. Oswald Mosley, Mussolini and others made explicit references to it. Hitler implied it in his Mein Kempf, even though he never used the term. Mosley's "Tomorrow we live" is an example. Most people on this board are ocasionally conpletely or partially wrong about the subjects being discussed. You are consistent in your error.

[Saint Seiso !Mahdi26/jg No.17151784]

From what I know I'd say that Conservatism is governance by laws conforming to nature and Liberalism is governance by laws that cause us to rise above nature. There, I no longer need to read anyone else's thoughts on Conservatism nor Liberalism.

[Anonymous No.17151805]

Can someone explain what reactionary means? leftoids screech it endlessly.

[Anonymous No.17151822]

>>17151784
those with the least real differences between them fight like dogs.

[Anonymous No.17151868]

>>17151805
the wikipedia article describes it pretty well

In political science, a reactionary or reactionist is a person or entity holding political views that favour a return to a previous political state of society that they believe possessed positive characteristics that are absent in contemporary society. As an adjective, the word reactionary describes points of view and policies meant to restore a past status quo.

[Anonymous No.17151956]

>>17151805
There are two main definitions of the word reactionary.
The first, which is always that deployed by the friends, fellow travelers, and relatives of progressivism, refers to any political tendency that seeks to or create any state of affairs that is not in line with the progressive view of history. For instance, any attempt to turn America into a universal marriage society would be called reactionary, regardless of the intellectual underpinnings of or mode of execution of that attempt.
The second, which is that favored by those who call themselves reactionaries and those who have read their work, refers to political tendencies that seek to eliminate ideas of progress and popular sovereignty and revive something approximating the Western political order either prior to the French Revolution (or the Glorious Revolution, or the English Civil Wars), or, what is more accurate, seek to revive the pre-Enlightenment view of man and his place in the world. In this sense are Curtis Yarvin, Alasdair MacIntyre, and Joseph de Maistre reactionaries.
It goes without saying that Carl Schmitt was not a reactionary, and that fascism is in fact an ultra-modern form of politics.

[Anonymous No.17153081]

bump

[Anonymous No.17153418]

>>17145115
>Our intellectuals died, there are no more real "right" intellectuals anymore of this generation
there never were

[Anonymous No.17153780]

>>17151784
retard

[Anonymous No.17153789]

>>17153418
Aside from all good philosophers in history.

[Anonymous No.17153826]

>>17141981
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s been written by tenth graders, good to know.

[Anonymous No.17153831]

>>17153418
cope

[Anonymous No.17153845]

>>17153826
SEP is worse than Wikipedia, and the latter is in the worst state it's ever been already.

[Anonymous No.17153871]

>>17139865
>MORE NAMES
MORE NAMES
>!!
check out Roger Scruton, Russell Kirk, Theodore Dalrymple

[Anonymous No.17153918]

>>17150145
>Schmitt mentions how one is expected to be his own apprentice, priest, educator, master, or even parent
Where does Schmitt talk more about this in particular?

[Anonymous No.17153954]

>>17140337
Conservatism isn't a movement you sperg

[Anonymous No.17154451]

>>17150704
>Sorry, most educated people lean left.
Most educated people are midwits, so that would follow.

[Anonymous No.17154469]

>>17151784
>tripfag thinks the thread is about political parties and GOP = conservatism

[Anonymous No.17154730]

>>17153845
>the latter is in the worst state it's ever been already.
I have heard about this. Could you explain more?

[Anonymous No.17155507]

>>17144989
based

[Anonymous No.17156304]

>>17153918
"It is only in an individualistically disintegrated society that the aesthetically productive subject could shift the intellectual center into itself, only in a bourgeois world that isolates the individual in the domain of the intellectual, makes the individual its own point of reference, and imposes upon it the entire burden that otherwise was hierarchically distributed among different functions in a social order. In this society, it is left to the private individual to be his own priest. But not only that. Because of the central significance and consistency of the religious, it is also left to him to be his own poet, his own philosopher, his own king, and his own master builder in the cathedral of his personality. The ultimate roots of romanticism and the romantic phenomenon lie in the private priesthood. If we consider the situation from aspects such as these, then we should not always focus only on the good-natured pastoralists. On the contrary, we must also see the despair that lies behind the romantic movement — regardless of whether this despair becomes lyrically enraptured with God and the world on a sweet, moonlit night, utters a lament as the world-weariness and the sickness of the century, pessimistically lacerates itself, or frenetically plunges into the abyss of instinct and life. We must see the three persons whose deformed visages penetrate the colorful romantic veil: Byron, Baudelaire, andNietzsche, the three high priests, and at the same time the three sacrificial victims, of this private priesthood."
Political Romanticism

[Anonymous No.17156736]

>>17151784
How do they both believe in marriage discrimination?

[Anonymous No.17156790]

>>17156736
Neither supports the traditional family.

[Anonymous No.17158066]

>>17140214
Stop posting this fucking retard. Read de Maistre instead