/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17313311]

Are there any reputable modern conservative writers?

[Anonymous No.17313338]

>>17313311
No, you can only write "I hate freedom, non-white people, homosexuals and women and I think capitalism is the best system there is" so many times. When you've read one conservative you've read them all.

[Anonymous No.17313342]

Not really, nor liberal ones in general. Just old crusty leftists holding on for dear life or hipper younger ones basically just padding books based on some hot take

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.17313585]

No.
The idea is pretty bankrupt. Part of why some people are flocking to fascism, or the meme eco fascism. They can’t admit they’re wrong and become a socialist radical democrat

[Anonymous No.17313680]

>>17313311
There are no reputable modern writers if you mean contemporary.

[Anonymous No.17314391]

If by conservative you mean restoring the aristocracy, then no.

[Anonymous No.17314417]

>>17313311
Generally speaking there is no need for modern conservative writers, because conservatism, being obviously correct, does not require novel formulations. Only chaotic, destructive movements require constant novel formulations until they extinguish themselves in self-contradiction.

[Anonymous No.17314521]

>>17314417
To add. The question isn't what can conservatism do for you, it is what can you do for conservatism? This has always been the orientation of movements concerned with truths as such. Philosophy, before it became bastardized with Descartes, always had a tradition of starting with reflecting on first principles and transcendentals. Ever since Descartes, philosophy starts with "I" and is not at all concerned with a real inquiry into truth. It is a degeneration of the form from philosophy to philosophy as art, which is constantly multiplying and fragmenting and dissolving itself as it is ultimately utterly personalistic and subjectivist. Indeed, this movement of dissolution is inherent in entire modernity. It is, nowadays, beside the point to be a conservative or a philosopher (in the real sense of the word), since there exists an insurmountable gap between the modern mind (which is wholly incapable of even thinking in the philosophical mode) and the mind as concerned with truth. There is no going back, it is a fruitless pursuit (in the modern sense, since one will be simply socially ostracized for being a philosophical mind in the purest sense. On the other hand this is only problematic if you care about your societal well-being or recognition) that will only end when our present age is extinguished. This extinguishing will be very violent, there are a lot of resources, wealth, egos and careers invested into propping up this scheme and we all see even now that it is already dissolving. Not surprisingly, this dissolution will be very turbulent as people start losing their privileges which are built squarely on association to this age rather than a predilection for any kind of truth.

[Anonymous No.17314546]

>>17313311
gene wolfe?

[Anonymous No.17314723]

>>17314417
yikes. name one thing you've conserved.

[Anonymous No.17314916]

>>17313311
Anyone who has traditional morals and isn’t a brainlet is a conservative.

[Anonymous No.17315303]

Imagine thinking the political organization of a society determines the distribution of power, and not the distribution of power that determines the political organization

[Anonymous No.17316051]

Read Shapiro, honey

[Anonymous No.17316117]

A.Daniels is my favourite living essayist, he's very fun and has about as much "lived experience" as you could ever possibly have
Singlehandedly btfod criminology and "povertynomics" but those aren't serious achievements
You'll learn all kinds of fun trivia too, did you know the Canadian state has funded necrophiliac porn?

[Anonymous No.17316132]

>>17313585
>democrat
>radical

[Anonymous No.17316143]

>>17313311
reputable, no, because there is an active cleansing of conservative reputations. But they are out there, you just have to look

[Anonymous No.17316161]

Yes

[Anonymous No.17316174]

>>17315303
Wtf is a mason?

[Anonymous No.17316178]

>>17314723
You know what

[Anonymous No.17316181]

>>17316174
Ascended goyim

[Anonymous No.17316310]

>>17316174
our presidents are a small subset

[Anonymous No.17316485]

>>17313338
The conservatives I read are anti-capitalist

[Anonymous No.17316870]

>>17313311
Hans Hermann Hoppe, paleolibertarian or conservative libertarian