Any good conservative books? I’ve read a decent chunk and it’s either 600 pages of boring as fuck 18th century talk about France, schizo /pol/ tier magic books, writer who does nothing but talk about God or Free Market libertarian walmart freedom type books.

File: 398 KB, 1500x984, magic.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 19:41:37 2021 No.17884854 [DELETED]

Any good conservative books? I’ve read a decent chunk and it’s either 600 pages of boring as fuck 18th century talk about France, schizo /pol/ tier magic books, writer who does nothing but talk about God or Free Market libertarian walmart freedom type books.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 19:48:29 2021 No.17884901 >>17884854 Conservative =/= reactionary

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 19:50:17 2021 No.17884914 >>17884854 on what subject?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 19:50:41 2021 No.17884917 >>17884901 People use the term interchangeably. You have people who are in the middle of both

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 19:52:03 2021 No.17884927 >>17884914 Anything really. I'm having a hard time finding books that I can enjoy. I've looked into all the popular guys

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 19:55:03 2021 No.17884946

>>17884854
>600 pages of boring as fuck 18th century talk about France,
These are the real conservative/right wing books though. It's all political and legal theory based on particular historical circumstances

For example Restoration of the Science of the State by Karl Ludwig von Haller. Look at what Wikipedia tells us about him and this book:
> a book which Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel strongly criticized in Elements of the Philosophy of Right. This work, which was burnt during the Wartburg festival, opposed nationalism and the bureaucracy of extensive government (including democratic governments).
>In this he uncompromisingly rejects the revolutionary conception of the State, and constructs a natural and juridical system of government, arguing at the same time that a commonwealth can endure and prosper without being founded on the omnipotence of the state and official bureaucracy.
> It was written primarily to counteract Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract. Moreover, Haller's "Digression on Slavery" in the third volume made a deep impact on the Scottish historian Thomas Carlyle and surfaced again in his polemical "Occasional Discourse on the Nigger Question"

or this Brittanica entry in which he is mentioned:
>The concept of patrimonialism was applied to the study of politics at the beginning of the 19th century by the Swiss legal scholar Karl Ludwig von Haller, who was an opponent of the French Revolution. Like the British political thinker Edmund Burke, Haller attacked the ancien régime but also opposed Romanticism and violent revolutionary change. Haller argued that the state can and should be viewed as the patrimonium (the patrimonial possession) of the ruler. According to Haller’s theory of the Patrimonialstaat, the prince is responsible only to God and natural law. In the 20th century the German sociologist Max Weber adopted the term Patrimonialstaat as a label for his ideal-type model of traditional authority (Herrschaft).

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 19:57:13 2021 No.17884957

>>17884927
pitirim sorokin, etienne gilson, christopher dawson, romano guardini, huizinga, chesterton, the greeks, shakespeare, any medieval author (lots of epic poems) or medievalist. all good works are essentially conservative. read greek and medieval authors

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 19:59:37 2021 No.17884978 Conservatism = traditionalism = back to 'the way it was' = European pre-early medieval paganism = prehistoric = by definition no written sources = archeaology & history

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 19:59:39 2021 No.17884979 >>17884946 Why would I want to read this

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:04:34 2021 No.17885017 >>17884854 Sounds like you got filtered desu. If you want more “”interesting”” stuff check out NRX and their influences like Jouvenel Hoppe and Burnham.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:04:57 2021 No.17885024 >>17884979 If you want to actually know what the term Right Wing was created for

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:05:37 2021 No.17885029
File: 29 KB, 657x527, 1588957945449.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

literally why limit yourself to political writers from the past century like scruton etc? literally anyone before the 1500s was conservative. read the greeks. who else is gonna claim them? do you think the progressists read the greeks and medieval authors? they read modern philosophy. you simply have to read anything but modern philosophy. do you think there was conservative and a liberal author in the middle ages? it's all conservative. you can read anything before the 1500s like any conservative does.

tldr read the canon

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:08:46 2021 No.17885056 >>17884854 I'm an anarchist but I just read George Wills "Conservative Sensibility". Great book imo. He talks about confederalism, atheism, and trotsky. Dudes based if I do say so myself

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:12:30 2021 No.17885093 File: 36 KB, 333x499, 515ayjP11PL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>17884978 traditionalism = anti nominalist and anti modernity

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:14:58 2021 No.17885115 >>17885029 It's not easy to read 600 pages about something that is not relevant to our times especially when you don't have the historical background.

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:21:56 2021 No.17885177

>>17885115
>relevant
eh? relevant in what way? what is true is true for the eternity. do you want practical advice to live in the current modernity crisis?

it is hard to find anything pre-modern (conservative) that could be 'relevant to our times' since we live in a society with the opposite worldview. what you can do is feed your soul on an individual level and forget the imminent end of times.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:23:19 2021 No.17885193 >evola in political section disgusting

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:35:03 2021 No.17885280 >>17885177 >do you want practical advice to live in the current modernity crisis? Sure

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:37:47 2021 No.17885301 what have you actually read of this

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:39:03 2021 No.17885312 >>17885093 Why is Nietzsche included in your list when he was a nominalist?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:39:16 2021 No.17885313 File: 41 KB, 205x300, starship troopers.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Read Starship Troopers

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:39:51 2021 No.17885320 >>17884917 no they don't

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:41:12 2021 No.17885331 >>17885280 im afraid there is none. what one can do is try to save his soul

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:41:42 2021 No.17885336 File: 40 KB, 327x499, abolition of britain.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Peter Hitchens is good, even if he mostly writes about Britain

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:42:21 2021 No.17885341 >>17885312 >Why is Nietzsche included in your list Huh?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:43:23 2021 No.17885347 >>17885341 Oh I see what you mean now. I'm not OP

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:43:29 2021 No.17885349

>>17884854
"American Extremist" by Josh Neal, One premis of the book, is a lot of mental illness is the result of an incohesive society, and modern neoliberlism has created a structure that selects for a mentally ill elite. Many aspect of political factions are reflections of personality types rather than the actual stated beliefs of the ideology or faction.

"Nemesis" by C.A Bond, theory about political power dyanmics.

You should also read some of the literature of IQ and G-factor. Here blogs can get you quite far though, for example thelaternativehypothesus by Ryan Faulk or Ideasanddata by Sean Last. Locklinonscience has some good articles about the direction of science and the limits of robotics and AI

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:47:28 2021 No.17885370 >>17884854 Maybe you should try and get laid. Oh wait.

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:15:51 2021 No.17885524
File: 148 KB, 638x900, C5ZL_rBVAAAbCHK.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>17884917
Those people are mistaken. They do not mean the same thing.
>>17884854
Read Davila. Self confessed reactionary. Sad that its taken this long to mention him.
>>17885093
Traditionalism should not be anti nominal. Traditions only maintain themselves with rules and structure.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:17:52 2021 No.17885538 >>17885349 Someone was watching Keith Woods?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:18:43 2021 No.17885544 >>17884946 no english translation?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:50:06 2021 No.17885721 >>17884901 Reactionary is a slur used by the left to refer to anyone who doesn't go along with the progressive agenda. Might as well use it because they're going to apply it to you anyway if you're not on board with globohomo

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:51:40 2021 No.17885728 >>17885721 cope

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 22:08:05 2021 No.17885813 >>17885721 >why, yes, i take my political opinion from youtube spoonfeed

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 22:11:51 2021 No.17885833

>>17885813
>Youtube
Evola says it in the very first chapter of Men Among the Ruins, retard

>To adopt it and call oneself "reactionary" is a true test of courage. For quite some time, left-wing movements have made the term "re-action" synonymous with all kinds of iniquity and shame; they never miss an opportunity to thereby stigmatize all those who are not helpful to their cause and who do not go with the flow, or do not follow what, according to them, is the "course of History." While it is very natural for the Left to employ this tactic, I find unnatural the sense of anguish that the term often induces in people, due to their lack of political, intellectual, and even physical courage; this lack of courage plagues even the representatives of the so-called Right or "national conservatives," who, as soon as they are labeled "reactionaries," pro-test, exculpate themselves, and try to show that they do not deserve that label

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 22:12:11 2021 No.17885835 Depends what kind of conservatism you want. I recommend reading Gasset's Revolt of the Masses as a soft introduction, also Tuttle's The Crowd is Untruth. Francis' Beautiful Losers is a good book.

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 22:17:15 2021 No.17885869

>>17885524
>Traditions only maintain themselves with rules and structure.
Rule and structure is diametrically opposed to nominalism. If you deny that ideas have an independent nature of the mind and humans there will be no objective standard for society.

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 22:24:08 2021 No.17885901

>>17884978
>Conservatism = traditionalism = back to 'the way it was'
Leftist caricature of conservatism. Conservatives believe in a transcendent moral order that informs how society should be, but that doesn't mean conservatives want to go back to any given period in time. Conservatism is not a desire to go back to "the way it was" but rather to utilize the resources that have been handed down to use from previous generations to solve our current issues.

For example when dealing with any given social issue a leftist is more likely to want a radical new solution based on modern sociological understandings and claim that past prejudices were the cause of said social issue arising. A conservative is more likely to say that the solution to given social issue can be found in the vast breadth of knowledge passed down to us about the human condition since social issues stem from individual human frailty, not how society is structured. Listening to Plato doesn't mean going back and living in an Acropolis and wearing a toga. It means understanding that human nature doesn't change and the same insights into how humans behave back then can still be applied now. The left believes human nature can be altered by social engineering.

Conservatism doesn't mean no change. It means change should be responsibly moderated by a high respect for cultural traditions and long ingrained wisdom based on centuries of social development. Leftists want to completely upend traditions and often see them as stumbling blocks to a specific social agenda they want to enact.

>>	࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDYqWRDiE Sat Mar 27 22:38:53 2021 No.17885980 >>17884854 WHAT ARE YOU CONSERVING? TO WHAT ARE YOU REACTING?

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 22:39:14 2021 No.17885981

>>17885901
God I wish this was true and maybe it is in academic theory but from my experience in the real world conservative just means conserving the current liberal status quo. For example most “conservatives” in the US today are more socially leftwing than 2008 Obama and would try to cancel him for being homophobic. I would call what you describe something like a traditionalism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 22:40:23 2021 No.17885989 >>17885721 >Reactionary is a slur Cry about it, fag

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 22:52:01 2021 No.17886044 >>17885980 >WHAT ARE YOU CONSERVING? WESTERN CIVILIZATION >TO WHAT ARE YOU REACTING? POSTMODERNISM

>>	࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDYqWRDiE Sat Mar 27 22:54:02 2021 No.17886055 >>17886044 DEFINE: «WESTERN CIVILIZATION», AND: «POSTMODERNISM».

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 22:56:06 2021 No.17886062 >>17886055 IM NOT SPOONFEEDING YOU READ THE WIKIPEDIA

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 22:56:09 2021 No.17886063 >>17885980 >WHAT ARE YOU CONSERVING? The Christian way of life and the traditions of my ancestors >TO WHAT ARE YOU REACTING? Modernism and all mistakes that derive from the 20th Century anthropology derived from Freud and John Money.

࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDYqWRDiE Sat Mar 27 23:04:20 2021 No.17886095

>>17886063
>The Christian way of life and the traditions of my ancestors

1. CHRISTIANITY IS UNIVERSAL; HOW IS CHRISTENDOM LIMITED TO SOME «WESTERN ZONE» OF EARTH, ACCORDING TO YOU?

2. WHAT ARE THE TRADITIONS OF YOUR ANCESTORS?

3. WHO ARE YOUR ANCESTORS?

>Modernism and all mistakes that derive from the 20th Century anthropology derived from Freud and John Money.

1. ARE YOU REACTING AGAINST MODERNISM, OR AGAINST POSTMODERNISM? THERE SEEMS TO BE A CONTRADICTION HERE.

2. IN WHAT CONSISTS YOUR REACTION?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 23:05:56 2021 No.17886103 >>17886095 NOT HIM BUT STOP ACTING TO BE SPOONFEED YOU ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS YOU ARE ASKING WHY WASTE TIME BEING INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST AND GET TO THE CORE OF OUR ARGUMENTS

>>	࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDYqWRDiE Sat Mar 27 23:07:54 2021 No.17886116 >>17886103 I DOUBT THAT YOU KNOW THE MEANING OF THE TERM: «SPOONFEEDING».

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 23:08:20 2021 No.17886122

>>17886095
1. Christianity is not universal.
2. The traditions of my ancestors are the traditions that my direct biological ancestors adhered to.
3. My ancestors are those who I am biologically descended from.
4. I'm reacting to Modernism I believe I made that quite clear.
5. My reaction is a rejection of the false presuppositions of all modern thought that rejects the objective existence of a transcendental reality that underpins our own.

࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDYqWRDiE Sat Mar 27 23:13:34 2021 No.17886157

>>17886122
>1. Christianity is not universal.

YOU IGNORE WHAT CHRISTIANITY IS.

>2. The traditions of my ancestors are the traditions that my direct biological ancestors adhered to.

WHICH ARE...

>3. My ancestors are those who I am biologically descended from.

WHO ARE THEY?

>4. I'm reacting to Modernism I believe I made that quite clear.

IT IS OBSCURE, NOT CLEAR; QVOD VIDE:

>>17886044
>POSTMODERNISM

>5. My reaction is a rejection of the false presuppositions of all modern thought that rejects the objective existence of a transcendental reality that underpins our own.

HOW IS YOUR REACTION REALIZED —ID EST: WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE IN ANTITHESIS TO WHAT YOU REACT?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 23:29:16 2021 No.17886248 >>17886116 I KNOW THE MEANING OF THE TERM. CAN YOU JUST TRY AND ARGUE AGAINST MY POINT? I KNOW IT'S HARD BUT TRY

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 23:30:18 2021 No.17886255 >>17886157 >HOW IS YOUR REACTION REALIZED RETURN TO TRADITION

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 23:34:35 2021 No.17886281
File: 17 KB, 474x291, daddy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>17886122
>he doesn't realize hes actually a post-modernist

to arbitrarily pick and choose ideology and tradition that digital technology gives us access to because of your alienation from society is text book post-modernism.

You have nostalgia for a past you haven't experienced and a past that can never exist for all of the conditions of being have perished.

You're only hope is stop eating the trash of ideology

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 23:38:13 2021 No.17886297

>>17886255
I agree, we should return spain to its rightful Moorish rulers and give all the Jews their ancestral land and towns in Poland and Germany and give back Eastern Europe to the Turks. We must stop the italians from eating the pasta, a nontraditional chinese import.

You see how r*tarded "tradition" is?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 23:42:04 2021 No.17886329 >>17886281 You misunderstand Zizek. He would agree with me. I took much from his book Against the Double Blackmail: Refugees, Terror and Other Troubles with the Neighbours where he said Islam was incompatible with western culture lol

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 23:43:14 2021 No.17886335 >>17886297 Yes people get things from other cultures mean there is no such thing as tradition or culture. Genius take

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 23:44:44 2021 No.17886343 >>17884917 T. Midwit

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 23:45:46 2021 No.17886352 File: 20 KB, 300x294, 1604613489015.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>17885301 My diary

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 23:47:19 2021 No.17886356

>>17886281
>to arbitrarily pick and choose ideology
Maintaining the culture and traditions you inherited by birth is the exact opposite of arbitrarily picking and choosing ideology. You're criticizing modernism and globalism. Traditionalism is understanding that core parts of your identity are unchosen and based on the circumstances of lineage and where you live.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 23:48:36 2021 No.17886368 >>17886297 >Cultures shared things over time so you should stop caring about your way of life and eat the bugs and live in the pod Fuck off s-oyfaggot

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 00:39:36 2021 No.17886638 >>17885313 Based

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 01:01:07 2021 No.17886751 >>17885981 in what fucking world do you retards live in holy shit neoconservatards are so embarrassingly stupid they make underage commie retards look like geniuses. What a garbage thread

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 03:22:28 2021 No.17887478 >>17884917 Retards use them interchangeably. Conservatives want to preserve the current order or stop some change, while reactionaries want to return to some order that existed previously.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 03:23:22 2021 No.17887486 >>17884917 retard

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 03:24:30 2021 No.17887490 >some Lovecraft horror tale >an Eliot poem >reactionary ???

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 03:48:46 2021 No.17887613 >>17885115 >relevant Relevant just means its for the plebs.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 03:51:42 2021 No.17887623 >>17886297 >culture is food and cuckolding Found the sociopathic leftist.

Anonymous Sun Mar 28 03:53:53 2021 No.17887632

>>17884946
This seems to be a theme with some reactionaries I argue with on here.
They want a return to some form of a patrimonial system.
This is not the future. This was the phase of early agrarian civilization, right after pre-agrarian patriarchal tribalism.
This is barely civilization.
>>17885024
You can be rightwing without going this far.
This is pretty much as reactionary as you can be without going full anarcho-primitvist.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 03:55:07 2021 No.17887636 >>17887478 >while reactionaries want to return to some order that existed previously. How far back?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 03:55:36 2021 No.17887639 >>17887632 >You can be rightwing without going this far. No you can't. Cuckservatives are leftists.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:01:46 2021 No.17887663 File: 86 KB, 638x479, 04F70E1C-81B9-4A07-AA38-96BE41ED4535.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>17887639 This is bound for failure in the modern world. NOW I understand where these people are coming from.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:06:02 2021 No.17887680 >>17887663 They’re tradcaths who want the world run like the Catholic Church (without the Jesuit Pope): https://www.britannica.com/topic/patrimonialism

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:07:07 2021 No.17887684 >>17887478 What conservatives want to preserve the current order? Can you name some? I genuinely cant think of any.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:07:27 2021 No.17887686 >>17887639 They're liberals but not leftists

Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:09:07 2021 No.17887694

>>17884917
You could have a Conservative over for dinner, a Reactionary is your typical pol drone, he wouldn't know a fork from a spoon, and would be too busy reeeeing about Kaczynski and crywanking his tiny peener to fantasies of his trad waifu being gangraped by niggers

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:10:19 2021 No.17887699 >>17887684 Sure, neocons. You can say they’re “liberal” all you want, but they’re Burkean conservatives too.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:12:36 2021 No.17887705 >>17887663 >>17887680 So this is the commonality between Trump, China, and the Catholic Church. It’s all coming together.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:12:52 2021 No.17887709 racist and antisemite here, i genuinely can't think of a work that'd be considered conservative or reactionary that i rate as good literature, give me the works of a jew, woman or homosexual over these ponderous bores any day.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:20:16 2021 No.17887731 >>17887636 Trads usually the order that existed before the french revolution. Some want it just to be 50's, or 20's. Depends on the person really.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:22:24 2021 No.17887743 >>17887478 They get used interchangeably because any conservative position that isn't David French style cuckservatism gets labelled "reactionary".

Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:25:17 2021 No.17887749

>>17887731
What if you think giving women the vote was a mistake? Is this "reactionary" just because the person rejects a specific change. I'm confused over where you draw the line over whether a person wants to return to a period in time or just thinks specific policies of modernity were a mistake and should be rolled back while still moving forward in other areas. To me it seems like this definition is just designed to label anyone not on board the progressive agenda of continual radical societal change a "reactionary"

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:26:46 2021 No.17887755 >>17884917 Retards might, but they're very different. Conservatism is borderline not even a real ideology: >circa 2030 GOP debate: are pedosexuals the REAL necrophobes?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:28:31 2021 No.17887759 >>17887749 You would be a neoreactionary. You want futuristic Nazi space tech but with a daddy figure calling all the shots for you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:28:44 2021 No.17887762 File: 378 KB, 1080x642, 1589771691312.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>17887755 These are the "good" conservatives liberals like to talk about.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:29:54 2021 No.17887767 >>17887699 liberals

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:30:30 2021 No.17887769 >>17887755 But that’s what Burkean conservatism is. It progresses forward, just slower. You want traditionalism.

Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:30:33 2021 No.17887770

>>17887759
One way or another western society is going to collapse under the weight of progressive policies that don't work in the long term. Whether or not you like "reactionary" policy in the end they're forced on you by the pure fact that they're the only policies that work in reality.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:32:01 2021 No.17887774 >>17887767 They’re classically liberal, but they’re still tilt rightwing within the space of liberalism.

Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:32:28 2021 No.17887776

>>17887769
Burke believed in unchanging transcendent moral order. Progress at a slow speed yes, but it's highly unlikely that Burke would think that trannies are a good idea no matter how slowly the idea was phased in. The point of Burkean conservatism is to be able to weigh the pros and cons of radical policy change before they actually have a chance to kill off society like what is occurring now.

Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:36:13 2021 No.17887795

>>17887770
Why do they work, because they worked once before? Yet they were discarded.
Couldn’t you say the same about pre-agrarian patriarchal tribalism?
We know that works too.

You act like we’re going full speed towards a cliff and there’s no possible way to alter course.
These things are new and have never been tried before. But maybe they’re not as cataclysmic as you think they are just because they don’t conform to what you know has worked in the past.

Maybe you need a little imagination.
A little bit of an experimental mindset.

Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:39:28 2021 No.17887810

>>17887795
>Why do they work, because they worked once before?
If you mean "once before" you mean for thousands of years across several different advanced cultures across the entire world, yes.

>Couldn’t you say the same about pre-agrarian patriarchal tribalism?
No because they got BTFO as soon as Europe found them

>You act like we’re going full speed towards a cliff and there’s no possible way to alter course.
That's because we are. The secular west is dying at an increasingly rapid pace.

Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:39:29 2021 No.17887812

>>17887795
Just to chime in, new retard here. The problem is what's possible keeps getting narrowed by the progressive lens. Meaning reaction swallows a greater part of the set of all possible action. Where as a progressive frame can never take on those qualities.

Meaning any real radical change starts to seem more and more like it's from the outside and reactionary because it is reactionary. Even if it is not heavily antiprogressive, but just in opposition to the metaphysical frame work rather than the practical execution

Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:39:51 2021 No.17887814

the progressive/reactionary dialectic is so detached from reality it's unreal. real talk: dems r the real reactionaries. true progressive policy would be eugenics, IQmaxxing, nuking China. reactionary politics is clinging to moralistic spooks like "egalitarianism" and "society", the kinda shit that'll drag us back into the middle ages or worse.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:42:54 2021 No.17887823 >>17887814 Is Pain a spook?

Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:43:05 2021 No.17887824

>>17887776
Burke would have balked at women voting too. Just because the current crop of conservatives rejects trannies, doesn’t mean that some of them down the road might not.
And some of them may never come around to that because of some traditionalist streak. The point is that conservatives want to be careful and sure and phase in changes like this slowly over generations rather than through revolution.

But wanting to ROLL BACK rights that are a century old now such as women’s suffrage would be reactionary.
You don’t have to support progressive policies. Many of them may never become established... but once they are established, wanting to roll them back a century later would be reactionary.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:43:26 2021 No.17887830 >>17887823 no

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:44:39 2021 No.17887836 >>17887824 >but once they are established, wanting to roll them back a century later would be reactionary. Even if after the course of time they've been demonstrably proven to have been a mistake that has greatly damaged society?

Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:44:45 2021 No.17887837

>>17887810
>advanced cultures
But they weren’t advanced, that’s the point.
You could say the same thing about tribalism.
>No because they got BTFO as soon as Europe found them
Europe was tribalistic at one time too. Every civilization was.
>That's because we are. The secular west is dying at an increasingly rapid pace.
It is? Based on what?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:45:19 2021 No.17887841 >>17887830 Seems like regardless of the time these spooks seem to look the same. It seems that while humanities genes produces spooks. Any sort of liberation is impossible without genetic alteration to the possibility of true freedom.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:46:28 2021 No.17887846 >>17887837 >But they weren’t advanced Rome wasn't advanced? What?

Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:49:02 2021 No.17887859

>>17887812
Progressivism is supposed to be the forefront of revolution.
It is a demand for radical change NOW. It is not the established order.

Being anti-progressivist is not reactionary in itself. Wanting to preserve the established order of white male patriarchy and its attendant traditions is conservative.

Wanting to roll back modern policy and return to pre-modern political organization would be what’s reactionary.

Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:51:55 2021 No.17887870

>>17887859
Should I even care about being called a "reactionary"? Seems like it's just an attempt to shame people for calling out obviously bad changes that were imposed by progressives trying to ram through social change against the will of the people (see legalizing gay marriage through the Supreme Court and dodging the need to have elected representatives vote)

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:52:44 2021 No.17887873 >>17887846 It depends what era you’re referring to. Rome had a republic, which was advanced in its time.

Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:53:11 2021 No.17887875

>>17887859
This implies you are locked in a fundamental binary and you could roll back anything. Or that you have an accurate depiction of the premodern or that you can 'return' anywhere. This is a plain absurdity. Reactionary outlook has to be able to carve out a new path. Because it can't use the fantasy of the past as a model for the present. Primarily because without going anprim or rejecting technology you'll be left at the mercy of capitalism and consequential progress.

You need to control technology, theology, and be able to roll back as far as you need to or accelerate it to your purposes. That would be the true reactionary position as imaginary 'returns' are practically impossible.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:53:30 2021 No.17887878 File: 2.71 MB, 2195x2071, 1599473103174.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>17884854 Here are some good conservative books

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:55:14 2021 No.17887882 >>17887870 It’s an accurate label for certain strains of rightwing thought. Commies use it as a label for counterrevolutionaries, but that’s something different.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:56:42 2021 No.17887887 >>17887875 That’s why you would be a neoreactionary, Nazi space tech but with the daddy figure.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:57:03 2021 No.17887890 >>17887873 The Roman Empire was the most advanced civilization on Earth for its entire existence. Then the Byzantines took the title for the next 1000 years.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:57:13 2021 No.17887891 >>17887887 exactly

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:57:47 2021 No.17887893 >>17887870 "Reactionary" is a term made by communists lol are you asking if you should be baited by communist propaganda?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:58:20 2021 No.17887895 >>17887890 I think that’s a rather silly thing to say considering it existed before modern science.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 04:59:45 2021 No.17887897 >>17887893 It's pretty much the "chud" of the 1800s kek I'm surprised that faggots describe themselves as such.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 05:00:07 2021 No.17887900 >>17887895 By that logic current society isn't advanced since it will be primitive when compared to future societies you fucking mongloid.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 05:00:48 2021 No.17887904 >>17887895 So?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 05:01:23 2021 No.17887907 File: 50 KB, 645x973, 1596874337826.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>17887893 >Rome wasn't an advanced civilization because they didn't have iPhones!

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 05:02:22 2021 No.17887914 >>17887907 >wojack >can't quote Also that guy probably misunderstood that anon said Rome was the most advanced civilisation ever

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 05:02:50 2021 No.17887915 >>17884854 From the sounds of it you don't actually want to read conservative literature, you just want to watch anti sjw bullshit. Let me geuss you fell for the trad life meme from /pol/ and now you want to larp asa traditional man by reading.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 05:04:09 2021 No.17887922 >>17884854 Well modern conservatism was born out of the French Revolution so talking abouy 18th century France is normal

Anonymous Sun Mar 28 05:05:02 2021 No.17887932

>>17887891
The Nazis lost because of the instability of one individual.
Investing so much authority in one person is a mistake.

Look at any corporation. You have a CEO, but he’s got to be accountable to the board of directors and to the shareholders (public owners).

An authority which isn’t accountable for its actions is eventually going to end in disaster. You may not like democracy, but one of its strengths is its checks and balances.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 05:06:26 2021 No.17887935 >>17887932 >The Nazis lost because of the instability of one individual. That's not how history works

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 05:09:14 2021 No.17887954 >>17887914 >Brit >retarded opinion every time

Anonymous Sun Mar 28 05:11:32 2021 No.17887964

>>17887900
In a couple thousand years, assuming progress continues, it wouldn’t be advanced. You wouldn’t call a civilization in the future which was a carbon copy of the civilization now, complete with throwback technology, advanced.
Today’s civilization would be the seeds of whatever’s to come.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 05:12:09 2021 No.17887966 >>17887954 My bad for engaging with a wojackposter

Anonymous Sun Mar 28 05:16:12 2021 No.17887982

>>17887935
It’s how pathological organizations work, yes. That’s why you diffuse authority in organizations with a lot of in-fighting.

If it’s a corporation, you only have one goal: Profit. Less in-fighting because everyone is on the same page about this, so you can invest more administrative authority in a single individual.
But political organizations are different. Final goals are not as clear-cut or agreed upon.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 05:17:36 2021 No.17887984 >>17887964 Having said that, if a history professor told me “Rome was advanced,” I would know what he meant. It’s a different context.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 05:19:10 2021 No.17887989 >>17885721 No, the word was invented by its creator Joseph de Maistre.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 05:19:41 2021 No.17887996 >>17887982 Traditional monarchies do have checks and balances. Stalin and fuhrer both had more absolute powers. You mix and match these things.

Anonymous Sun Mar 28 05:27:54 2021 No.17888027

>>17887996
Traditional monarchies have a caste system. This is their primary form of checks and balances.
There’s a lot of problems with that too.
>You mix and match these things.
Like a republic does, which also has a chief executive.

Republics are a more legalistic form of these rigid authoritarian systems.
A lot of these calls for authoritarianism seem to me to be a craving for something more simplistic.

But that’s not the world we live in. The modern world is complex. And a return to a more simplistic system would be a mistake.
I actually believe a system like America’s should be more complex and should be a multi-party system with ranked choice and proportional representation.
That would solve a lot of its political issues immediately.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 05:29:42 2021 No.17888035 >>17887966 or for being a bugman

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 05:29:56 2021 No.17888036 >>17888027 >That would solve a lot of its political issues immediately. like what?

Anonymous Sun Mar 28 05:38:32 2021 No.17888063

>>17888036
Like you wouldn’t have this contentious, winner-take-all approach to governing which creates these jolting scenarios like we had for the past four years.
It was like flipping off a light switch and then back on again... or winning a court case as a prosecutor/defender (which is really what the bipartisan system is based on).

If you force political parties to build coalitions, then you force compromises to be made, which mitigates extremist policies.
You also have better representation of minority communities, such as the white working class, and their opinions but without forcing the majority to be led around by them until the next contentious election after the arbitrary period of time has completed.

Things are smoother for everyone.

Anonymous Sun Mar 28 05:46:34 2021 No.17888083

>>17888063
idk man, compromises are already made, between the center left and center right, and since those would continue to be the largest parties due to funding and ruling class support, they'd continue doing so under a different system. the fringe would remain on the fringe, and be outlawed if they advocated anything remotely worthwhile.

though i agree that if people were made to realize that the two main parties were essentially indistinguishable, and that rule will continue forever more, then maybe the hysterical media-driven us and them thing the plebs are big into would abate somewhat... but still i think there's too much money in it and too much ego invested in those identities.

Anonymous Sun Mar 28 05:53:32 2021 No.17888097

>>17888083
I think a multi-party, proportional-representative, ranked-choice system comports the best with a polyarchy.
>the fringe would remain on the fringe, and be outlawed if they advocated anything remotely worthwhile.
Fringe ideas should remain on the fringe. But minority communities and their grievances should have representation too.

Again, the white working class would be a perfect example in the past four years.
The protectionist policies have been pretty fringe for a long time now and rightly so because they would be disastrous. But so would the Libertarian Party’s policies.

When I’m referring to “fringe,” I’m not talking about /x/-tier topics but serious policy disagreements.

Anonymous Sun Mar 28 06:01:23 2021 No.17888117

>>17888097
Fringe elements shouldn’t have to take over an entire party (when there’s only two parties) to feel like they have representation.

This is disastrous for everyone, as we’ve seen. Now one of the two major parties is held hostage by a minority fringe group, and we all have to worry about that resurfacing and gaining undue influence again if they win major elections.

Multi-party, proportional-representative systems have more balance to them.
It’s not that the fringe groups are snuffed out and feel resentful, but their influence is more spread out.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 06:20:13 2021 No.17888170 >>17884854 I'm happy to see no neo-nazi larping in this list. 10/10

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 06:34:19 2021 No.17888215 >>17884917 >>17885320 Totally, especially leftist, they will call anything a facist reactionary blar blar blar... But rightists need to know the different better too.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 06:37:05 2021 No.17888228 >>17884854 I tried reading that book on hero worship a while back but it was kind of lame

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 06:37:20 2021 No.17888230 >>17887709 lol

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 07:53:04 2021 No.17888500 >>17884854 Just take the rapture-pill, anon. He actually provides some solid theory: https://youtu.be/EvkhZYEWl5o I think the idea that conservatism needs a new intellectual foundation/center is really relevant at this point

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature