/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19927886]

Books that critique capitalism from the right?

[Anonymous No.19927889]

>>19927886
there's one I know about but the asking price of it is astronomical, which is ironic in and of itself.

[Anonymous No.19927920]

Is THAT seriously what his home looks like?

[Anonymous No.19927929]

>>19927886
Mein Kampf

[Anonymous No.19928026]

>>19927886
If conservatism at root is the preference of the natural to the unnatural, then the logical conclusion to and expression of conservatism is found in the sum of natural law.
The perception of reality and truth in context is the extent to which humans can perceive natural law.
If conservatism is the preference, then anything that disrupts the process of accurately perceiving reality and truth in context is inferior to that which heightens the perception of truth and reality in context.
Capitalism is, if nothing else, the promotion of abstraction over natural providence (i.e. the sum of all facts, known or unknown to humans, concerning the world).
In capitalism, terroir, landraces, and ecological fit are secondary to the object produced.
For example, gold is valued as gold primarily and necessarily, with where and how that gold is produced or acquired as secondary to that which it can be exchanged as value.
Natural law implies an a priori valuation of all factors, known and unknown, not simply the exchange value of the object (viz. what it is or how it is used).
Placing abstraction as primary over natural consequences in toto necessarily creates a disjunct between human cognitive models and what actually is, therefore reducing human capacity to perceive reality and truth in context, which is equivalent to diminishing the possible knowledge of natural law.
This is contrary to conservatism.
The end.

[Anonymous No.19928113]

>>19927920
It's a set. It's what they think his audience's ideal home looks like

[Anonymous No.19928121]

>>19928113
it does look pretty comfy

[Anonymous No.19928133]

>>19927886
Read Christopher Lasch's Revolt of the Elites. It's clear Carlson and his writers are taking lots from Lasch.

[Anonymous No.19928134]

>>19927886
I'm sure you could find some pro-feudalist literature.

[Anonymous No.19928161]

Covid politics is creating a massive shift against left-liberalism as more from the left drift to the right because of insane mandates and lockdowns. The mainstream left has completely abandoned the working classes, for whom not only the pandemic was the hardest on financially, but to whom the zoom managerial elites outsourced their covid risk to during the lockdowns as the working classes were much more likely to not be able to work from home. The left has decided its an acceptable precendent to allow your employer to make you choice between bodily autonomy and your job. The left's position now is for employees to have LESS rights.

This is liberalism's Chernobyl and the we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg in terms of societal damages. These will linger for years to come and more and more will see how destructive liberal state of emergencies are for society and make a permanent political break from them.

[Anonymous No.19928258]

>>19928026
>Capitalism is, if nothing else, the promotion of abstraction over natural providence (i.e. the sum of all facts, known or unknown to humans, concerning the world).
Ah that's where you went retarded.

[Anonymous No.19928340]

>>19928258
Since you're clearly more knowledgeable, please tell us what is retarded about it.

[Anonymous No.19928373]

>>19927886
Lasche is the most based a reasonable social critique I’ve read and gets into capitalism quite often in his books.

[Anonymous No.19928394]

>>19928340
It's the whole thing. The whole thing is retarded. You can use a dictionary to find out why it's retarded.

[Anonymous No.19928433]

There are none.
The right are the attack dogs for capitalism.

[Anonymous No.19928457]

>>19928340
>>19928026
Not him, but at least capitalism is a relatively unbiased and reliable mechanism for determining value. You speak of the natural value of goods/services, but how would you determine that? The objective moral value of these, if it exists, is far beyond the comprehension of most people.

[Anonymous No.19928480]

>>19928026
Don't quit your day job bud

[Anonymous No.19928496]

>>19927886
The Latter-Day Pamphlets by Thomas Carlyle

[Anonymous No.19928569]

>>19928161
There are too few people on the left smart enough to rationalize events that way. All they care about are trannys and superhero movies.

[Anonymous No.19928571]

No such thing except reactionary dreams of the good old days. The right doesn't actually stand for anything.

[Anonymous No.19928576]

>>19928394
>i-it just IS, okay?
>>19928457
I never mentioned *moral* value of anything, nor *using* the natural value of things. If anything the argument implies the opposite; that human attempts to determine value will always be inferior to that of nature as nature does perfect valuation by default.
If the goal is ultimately preservation of what is (i.e. conservatism), ideology naturally travels to the memetic region of daoism/panglossianism, by which is meant the desire to alter what is as little as meaningfully possible, because it's already in an optimal or near-optimal state.
The argument is not advocating for an anticapitalist position, per se, but one than transcends capitalism as the arbiter of reality in favor of natural law, which is inherently the conservative position and also happens to encompass capitalism within its domain (viz. groups that practice capitalism in *this* context naturally outcompete those that do, but this isn't inherent to *capitalism* but the *context*, where natural law is still supreme).

[Anonymous No.19928580]

>>19928433
This.
You wake up one day hating capitalism and you’re not in the club anymore. There’s a lot of Republican voters who want medicare for all etc. and they’re not aware of how left leaning that makes them.

Similar dynamic going on with boot kissing “progressives”. They’re heading rightwing. Shits bonkers, but it always has been.

[Anonymous No.19928585]

>>19928394
You're retarded

[Anonymous No.19928630]

>>19928433
At best you refer to the right as 'conservative' Republicans, who are liberals that kick and stamp their feet, despite almost entirely abandoning all moral issues in favour of muh guns and muh taxes. The true right, or the illiberal right, have long critiqued capitalism, which paired with rapid technological growth that we witness daily how destructive is to society as a whole, and to each individual. As a reactionary, I can appreciate certain Marxist critiques, and later writers from the tradition have provide excellent insight on power. I can't stand bugman leftists, human trash that hate the beautiful and the strong, justifying their laziness and neuroticism, but an intelligent leftist? I'd love to work with you against capitalism. And after it all, you can have your area and I'll have mine.

[Anonymous No.19928646]

>>19927886
And did those feet in ancient time,
Walk upon Englands mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On Englands pleasant pastures seen!

>And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark Satanic Mills?

Bring me my Bow of burning gold:
Bring me my Arrows of desire:
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold:
Bring me my Chariot of fire!

I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand:
Till we have built Jerusalem,
In Englands green & pleasant Land.

[Anonymous No.19928711]

>>19928340
The exact opposite of your statement is true. Things cannot have any humanly conceivable inherent value apart from human interaction. It is entirely natural for humans to have hierarchies of need and thus attach values to objects as they see fit for their ends (which can be both material and immaterial). What is quite unnatural is abstracting "value" to some literally unknowable abstraction.

[Anonymous No.19928752]

>>19928026
Holy shit you're such a adolescent theory nerd pseud who can't fucking write anything in reference to how the world actually works. Get a job

[Anonymous No.19928763]

>>19928133
Seconding Lasch's Revolt of the Elites. Also pic related. Some other books/essays you might find helpful:

>Robert Nisbet - The Quest for Community
>Roger Scruton - The Meaning of Conservatism
>Richard Weaver - Up From Liberalism

>>19928433
>>19928571
>>19928580
These. I agree with conservatives on a lot of first principle type stuff, but it's frustrating that most are incapable of seeing the antagonism between capitalist ideology and their values. The vision of society promoted by Randheads and the Chicago/Austrian schools is inimical to things like Tocquevillian self-government, statesmanship, and civic virtue. Even among boomercons who seem to understand that these things are being degraded, they have absolutely no clue what to do about it because they're wedded to an ideology that has been actively destroyed them and is continuing to do so.

[Anonymous No.19928769]

>>19928026
What is it with "effort posters" here thinking that just namedropping a bunch of philosophical concepts makes them smart? Please learn to actually structure an argument.

[Anonymous No.19928772]

>>19928433
t. Hasn't read any third position or Traditionalist literature

"the right" is not exlusive to neoconservative libtards

[Anonymous No.19928780]

>>19928763
>but it's frustrating that most are incapable of seeing the antagonism between capitalist ideology and their values

Kaczynski: summed it up well:

>The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progressand economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can’t make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a societywithout causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.

[Anonymous No.19928784]

>>19928433
>"The right" exclusively means ziocon Reaganite boomers

[Anonymous No.19928797]

>>19928772
Neither are rightists.
Third positionists are not rightists, it’s in their name, third position.
Traditionalists are apolitical.

[Anonymous No.19928818]

>>19928780
based ted

[Anonymous No.19928819]

>>19928576
>I never mentioned *moral* value of anything
If natural value exists, then that has ethical implications.
>nor *using* the natural value of things.
Why would we care about the natural value of things if not to guide our actions?
And I still haven't seen you give a reliable, objective way to determine this natural value.

[Anonymous No.19928830]

>>19927886
capitalism leads to monopoly, just as marx said
>and thats a good thing

[Anonymous No.19928837]

>>19928630
what really distinguishes bug leftist from intelligent one

>later writers from the tradition have provide excellent insight on power
who

[Anonymous No.19928843]

>>19928711
>Things cannot have any humanly conceivable inherent value apart from human interaction.
Existence is inherently valuable, retard. Existence precedes human consciousness; it's literally the predicate of your ability to be this retarded.
>>19928752
>oh no must put original argument in my no-no box
>>19928769
Go back to your shit longform twitter on reddit with your cunty consensus building, you delusional midwit "rationalist."

[Anonymous No.19928862]

>third positinalists are not rightists
You don't know what you're talking about.
>The Third Position is a set of neo-fascist political ideologies that were first described in Western Europe following the Second World War.

>>19928797
>traditionalists are apolitical therfore they don't care about capitalism
Wrong. Traditionalists are mainly critics of modernity and all its implications, especially political and economic matters. They constantly critique capitalism. Read a book before talking out of your ass. Here's one of many of Evola's critiques:
>Nothing is more evident than that modern capitalism is just as subversive as Marxism. The materialistic view of life on which both systems are based is identical; both of their ideals are qualitatively identical, including the premises connected to a world the centre of which is constituted of technology, science, production, "productivity," and "consumption." And as long as we only talk about economic classes, profit, salaries, and production, and as long as we believe that real human progress is determined by a particular system of distribution of wealth and goods, and that, generally speaking, human progress is measured by the degree of wealth or indigence—then we are not even close to what is essential.

[Anonymous No.19928883]

>>19928780
Based. I read Ben Sasse's book and he, like many other boomercons, spends most of it complaining about how the real problem in America is that we've "lost that Friday night in a high school gymnasium feeling". Like hello you crackhead, why do you think that is? It never even occurs to these people to connect the dots between capitalism, individualism, and the disintegration of the American community or the atomization of the American individual. Boggles my mind that people can recognize these things as problems and decide to do nothing about them other than impotently whine while continuing to work as a useful idiot for McWorld. It should be self-evident that the premises of small-c conservatism or especially traditionalism are incompatible with the radical and unhinged worldview emanating from the University of Chicago or the Hoover Institute, but for some reason this is impossible for these people to grasp.

[Anonymous No.19928888]

>>19928843
You're a seething pseud. Utterly dispicable elitism and lack of self awareness

[Anonymous No.19928922]

>>19928819
>Why would we care about the natural value of things if not to guide our actions?
The point is *halting* action, not *promoting* action. Consider the Lindy effect: why do you think that innovation is will be an improvement on what already is? Whatever that innovation supposedly is, even if it somehow gains adoption, is almost certainly going to create downstream externalities that outweigh the nominal benefits provided in the short term.
>And I still haven't seen you give a reliable, objective way to determine this natural value.
That you're requesting this shows that you don't get the point. Nature isn't reducible to a universal objective value; the sum of facts that humans can know is not exhaustive of reality.
I can state, without doubt, that everything is meaningfully caused, but it's delusional to think that humans have the capacity to model that web of causality in any meaningful sense. The failure to accept this fact about human existence is the root of the "problem" of evil.

[Anonymous No.19928930]

>>19928888
>I use the no-no words
seethe more, tool

[Anonymous No.19928973]

>>19927886
>itt: leftists pretend neoliberal boomer Reaganites are right-wing
It's all so tiresome.
Here's some actual right-wing lit.

[Anonymous No.19929017]

>>19928973
go back to /pol/ LARPer

[Anonymous No.19929030]

>>19928922
>The point is *halting* action, not *promoting* action.
Fine then, guiding our *choices*. That better?
>Whatever that innovation supposedly is, even if it somehow gains adoption, is almost certainly going to create downstream externalities that outweigh the nominal benefits provided in the short term.
Do you think any innovation at all is positive on the long term? It sounds like you don't.
>Nature isn't reducible to a universal objective value
Earlier you stated this:
"Natural law implies an a priori valuation of all factors, known and unknown, not simply the exchange value of the object"
That sounds like a universal objective value to me.

[Anonymous No.19929041]

>>19929017
Why, so I can look at jew shill posts all day?
I'd rather proselytize. It's more productive and it's not like any of you faggots can refute what I'm saying anyway.

[Anonymous No.19929110]

Read these
https://counter-currents.com/tag/breaking-the-bondage-of-interest/

[Anonymous No.19929157]

>>19929041
Burger neo-Nazis look at German and Italian fascism and think "wow we should do that", not understanding that the premise for both was a sense of national identity forged over hundreds if not thousands of years. There's no equivalent in America. Instead, American fascists advocate for a radical transformation of society totally unrelated to the country's actual traditions and sociocultural realities. There's nothing right wing about that. It's a totally alien ideology and as such doomed to a well deserved failure.

[Anonymous No.19929181]

>>19928843
>Existence is inherently valuable.
To whom? It is tautological that humans can only place a posteriori value on existence.

[Anonymous No.19929198]

>>19928113
They’re basically right.

[Anonymous No.19929214]

>>19929157
>Burger neo-Nazis look at German and Italian fascism and think "wow we should do that"
We should do something,*like* that, move in that direction, etc. It's better than what we have.
>American fascists advocate for a radical transformation of society totally unrelated to the country's actual traditions and sociocultural realities.
Really? Because the left seems to think America was incredibly racist/sexist/homophobic until about 10 years ago (or even still is). And by today's standards, they are partly correct.
There's a reason everyone implicitly knows what MAGA means. We do have a tradition, and the left doesn't like it.

[Anonymous No.19929254]

>>19929157
>There's no equivalent in America
American fascists like Yockey and even Rockwell knew perfectly well that "fascism" could not be transplanted to America, just like Codreanu's Legion and Primo de Rivera's national syndicalist Falange knew that they had to reflect autochthonous Romanian and Spanish realities, not be carbon copies of either Italian Fascism or the NSDAP.

Evola writes about this in his very useful essay on the Synthesis of the Doctrine of Race. He says that the German racial doctrine is only the particular national manifestation of German fascism, lowercase fascism meaning the essential political form and not the Italian Fascist party, fascism meaning illiberal third positionist democracy. Even then the German racial doctrine is not supreme in Germany since the real essence of German fascism was volkisch thinking and the deep roots of German mystical idealism.

In America the form of fascism is simply the classical republicanism of the Founding Fathers. The Revolution against Britain was exactly analogous to the 20th century fascist revolutions against British-American and Jewish financial tyranny and Bolshevist terror. Jeffersonian and to an extent Jacksonian democracy are both illiberal (in an extended sense, i.e. against modern degenerate liberalism but classically liberal), classical republican forms of democracy. There's a reason Machiavelli's republican thinking stands both behind the American revolution and the Italian Risorgimento. Fascism is related to nationalism, it's simply the entelechy of nationalism, or the fever pitch of nationalism in times of crisis and war (like the current war against international finance capitalism).

Modern paleoconservative thinkers do a lot to unearth the classical republican legacy of America, and its non-rationalist, non-"propositional" foundation on ethnic European and culturally Christian grounds. Like Ezra Pound says:
>How does the Jeffersonian answer the fascist in a.d. 1933, 157 of American independence, 144 of the republic, XI of the era fascista?
>This is not to say I “advocate” fascism in and for America, or that I think fascism is possible in America without Mussolini
>I think the American system de jure is probably quite good enough, if there were only 500 men with guts and the sense to USE it, or even with the capacity for answering letters, or printing a paper.
>And ANY means are the right means which will remagnetize the will and the knowledge.

Americans can learn from the third positionist theory of other fascist projects too, just like French syndicalism learned from German Marxism and then spread to Spain and Italy. Mussolini was one of the greatest Marxists (German) and syndicalists (French), but he was the founder of Italian fascism. He also learned a lot from corporatist thinkers. None of this means you are importing a single fascist economic "framework."

[Anonymous No.19929284]

>>19927886
Most conservative thinkers pre-1980 were skeptical of Capitalism. Only when the movement was taken over by Judeophilic neocons like Reagan did it became the party of usury.

[Anonymous No.19929336]

>>19928433
Try again.

[Anonymous No.19929341]

>>19928026

Psycho conservative anon is actually closer to any of you as to what is going on. He is completely wrong about there being a "right way." but at least he sees the lack of a conservation law in the story of capitalism that all of you miss.

At least he sees that the magician's shell game is not using just one pea.

[Anonymous No.19929344]

>>19929336
What book is that from?

[Anonymous No.19929348]

Capitalism is predicated on the assumption that rational consumers are the actors who will most efficiently allocate resources. This is directly at odds with Christianity which holds that self interest is corrupted by impure motives.

[Anonymous No.19929367]

I've read of of José Antonio Primo de Rivera's speeches and he does take a strong stance against capitalism from a conservative point of view. His views are of course much closer to fascism, but it had an interesting approach. He detested capitalism and liberalism, but considered Marxism as an undesirable solution. He's not a profoundly deep thinker, at least, from what I've read so far, be he might be what you're looking for.

[Anonymous No.19929376]

>>19929348
There isn't even a single coherent ideology of capitalism, there was never a "capitalist" thinker. There were classical economists in the 18th century who thought that man's natural vices either balanced out to create civil society (extreme anti-moralists like Mandeville, who is most similar to today's neoclassical economists) or, much more common, mixed economists who thought that capital tended to concentrate exponentially and that the state was necessary as a check on runaway oligarchs. If you're interested in the 18th century ideology of capitalism in its cradle, read Hirschman's Passions and Interests. It's short and easy.

As soon as the 19th century dawned, people like Sismondi and Friedrich List already knew that shit didn't work. Only a few hardcore holdouts like Say tried to save "pure" Ricardian classical economics, which was by then clearly a creature of a different time. Speculation about mixed economies and the role of the state and society in regulating "pure" economics became the norm, not the exception, for the entire 19th century.

It's only in the 20th century that a propaganda form of neoclassical economics emerges that goes out of its way to ignore what everybody has been saying, thinking, and doing for more than a century and to read the history of capitalism as "SUPPLY AND DEMAND SUPPLY AND DEMAND DON'T ASK QUESTIONS IT JUST WORKS," a fantasy version of a capitalism that never existed to begin with, so autistic that even Mandeville wouldn't endorse it. This is pushed by states via public institutions so they can train professional "economists" who are really office boy lever-pullers and button-pushers for carrying out the political economy of the neoliberal state, which is itself a mixed and controlled economy, but mixed and controlled in favour of the oligarchy.

We're already living in "socialism," it's just socialism for the upper class. We have the most upward wealth concentration of any society in history, more than slave societies even because at least they had natural safety valves. Property ownership by the middle and lower class disappeared in the 20th century and now they are literally making propaganda about how you'll "own nothing" and patenting e-cars that you have to pay $15 extra a month to use the air conditioning in.

[Anonymous No.19929401]

>>19929214
>It's better than what we have.

This implies you have some kind of positive vision for how American society ought to be structured. I don't think this is true seeing as you're also insinuating a new national identity should be constructed around racism, sexism, and homophobia. It wasn't without reason that Lionel Trilling described the political right as dealing in "the sort of irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas".

>>19929254
>fascism is classical republicanism
>fascism is also a deranged manifestation of nationalism that emerges during times of crisis

See Trilling quote above and read Burke. It should be self-evident why the arrangement you're advocating for is undesirable and has historically culminated in state terror and mass murder.

The classical republican tradition in America was rooted in the self-governing townships etc. that de Tocqueville documented during his time in America. These have been destroyed or transformed beyond recognition, and replacing the local community with an imagined national one isn't an answer.

[Anonymous No.19929403]

>>19927886
MEIN KAMPF

[Anonymous No.19929409]

>>19928161
This. I was a normie conservative for 2016 until I decided that it was retarded, then was able to stay a centrist until 2020 with the covid and blm stuff. Both parties are fucked, but I'd rather hang out with the average right winger any day over the average lefty

[Anonymous No.19929435]

>>19929401
>replacing the local community with an imagined national one isn't an answer.
Starting with a dream is precisely the answer, when you're living in a waking nightmare where nothing is solid anymore. Why do you think they took away all those norms and forms of self-governance? So that people would be able to think of nothing outside their control mechanisms, because it's all they experience.

Fascism is simply the dream of the res publica reconstituted, palingenetic ultranationalism. You should read Pocock's Machiavellian Moment and Maurice Bardeche:
>What, then is fascism, which we understand completely differently from the press, radio, and teachers of our time?

>If I were the last of my kind, such an explanation would not be worth a try. But something wondrous is happening: On the one hand, the fascist writer, the fascist intellectual, is a rare beast, and no regime outside of the antipodes allows itself to be classified as fascist, which is as archaic as a Negro king. But, on the other hand, there are fascist groups, and they do not hide the fact. There are young fascists, and they proclaim themselves. There are fascist officers, and people tremble at the fact. Finally, there is a fascist spirit. And, above all, there are thousands of men who are fascists without knowing it, who wear other hats rather uncomfortably, and for whom fascism—as we see it, not as it has been described—would be their aspiration if we explained it to them.

>Here is a mirror that reflects our hearts: I want them to recognize themselves. Or at least to know that they are not our brothers. Even our enemies must know that they are enemies. Time has filled our sails and allowed us to round the cape of lies. The land of lies vanishes into the mist. Twenty years later, we no longer see it. And now, in the rising wind, we must not fear words.

[Anonymous No.19929441]

>>19929435
>Dictatorship is perennial. The Romans suspended the freedoms of the republic when the fatherland was in danger. The Convention did the same. The regime of the “fatherland in danger” is an authoritarian regime imposed in serious cases to ensure the independence and the salvation of the country. Warring nations, cities under siege, a country divided by civil war are necessarily governed according authoritarian methods regardless of the political personnel in place at the time.

>These methods are characterized by limitations on traditional freedoms and in particular a certain discipline on freedom of discussion. This discipline, according to each case, can be voluntary or imposed. The purpose of these interim authoritarian regimes is, for the duration of the crisis, to unite as a bundle all the forces of the country and not to allow private interests or foreign influences to divert for private benefit the forces necessary for the common defense.

>This authoritarian conduct of the nation that the people accept, and sometimes even call for, in times of crisis, can it become a standard method of government, once the danger has passed? Fascism is an affirmative answer to this question. Fascist parties claim that the habitual abuse of freedom is what leads to periods of danger when the independence and life of the nation is at risk. They feel the need to prevent the return of these crisis periods and accept some national discipline as normal. They also believe that the current conditions of political life put all countries in a constant state of danger and that the measures necessary to insure their independence and salvation must be taken now, if they do not want to be disarmed when dangers arise.

>Fascism is, first of all, a pragmatic treatment suggested the crisis itself, or the threat of a crisis. Thus it arose in all countries of the world, and that is why it has so many different faces.

>This defensive reaction takes its form and inspiration from the image that the most aware and vigorous men of each country have of their past and the genius of their race. All fascism is a reaction to the present, and all fascist reaction is a resurrection of the past. Fascism is, in its essence, nationalist, thus its aspirations are often untranslatable for foreigners, and sometimes unexportable.

>This new image of man is what is essential. The characteristics of fascism, we have seen, are disputable, and only a small number of those we have examined have been retained in a logical definition of fascism.

[Anonymous No.19929443]

>>19929441
>>A firm and stable direction of the nation, the primacy of the national interest over private interests, the necessity of a discipline loyally accepted by the country, are the true political foundations of fascism, those that emerge from its very definition. Power may be exercised in a fascist state by a central committee, a council, or a junta as well as by a designated leader; such rule need not be brutal and abusive. It can also be tolerant and supple. The essential political instrument of fascism is the role that it grants to a minority of disinterested and committed militants capable of leading by the example of their own lives and to bear the message of a just, loyal, and honesty polity. The famous fascist methods are thus constantly and ceaselessly reevaluated. What is more important than mechanisms is the idea that fascism has of man and freedom.

https://counter-currents.com/2013/10/the-fascist-dream-part-1/

[Anonymous No.19929448]

>>19929376

American is not an oligarchy, it's a mass tribe of niggers and retards governed by a nerd slave caste of professionals and bureaucrats

[Anonymous No.19929532]

>>19928113
t. Exposed brick urbanite

[Anonymous No.19929556]

>>19929448
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managerial_state

Variations on the concept include the therapeutic managerial state, welfare–warfare state,[2] administrative state,[3] and polite or soft totalitarianism.[4] There is significant overlap between the concepts of the managerial state and the deep state,

“law is replaced by administrative decree, federalism is replaced by executive autocracy, and a limited government replaced by an unlimited state.”[9] It acts in the name of abstract goals, such as freedom, equality or positive rights, and uses its claim of moral superiority, power of taxation and wealth redistribution to keep itself in power.

Francis argued that this situation extends across the U.S. and Europe but especially the UK. While the government functions normally, violent crime remains a constant, creating a climate of fear (anarchy) and the UK has a history of this and it continues to this day. He says that “laws that are supposed to protect ordinary citizens against ordinary criminals” routinely go unenforced, even though the state is “perfectly capable” of doing so. While this problem rages on, government elites concentrate their interests on law-abiding citizens. In fact, Middle America winds up on the receiving end of both anarchy and tyranny.

"And, it is characteristic of anarcho-tyranny that it not only fails to punish criminals and enforce legitimate order but also criminalizes the innocent."

Francis argues that anarcho-tyranny is built into the managerial system and cannot be solved simply by fighting corruption or voting out incumbents. In fact, he says that the system generates a false “conservatism” that encourages people to act passively in the face of perpetual revolution. He concludes that only by devolving power back toward law-abiding citizens can sanity be restored.

[Anonymous No.19929559]

>>19927920
mad jelly bro huh, yeah its okay, you'll get there someday if you stop being a libtard

[Anonymous No.19929678]

>>19929401
>I don't think this is true seeing as you're also insinuating a new national identity should be constructed around racism, sexism, and homophobia.
A racially stratified society can be "positive" in both meanings of the word. Racial discrimination is a "positive" action (as opposed to race-blindness, which necessitates inaction and ignorance of racial differences), and a properly stratified society can produce more positive/effective/ethical results than a society insistent on race-blindness.

[Anonymous No.19929755]

>>19927886
>critique capitalism
>from the right

[Anonymous No.19929767]

>>19927886
Most bastardized Americana core I've ever seen

[Anonymous No.19929794]

>>19929755
Stalin was right wing.

[Anonymous No.19929802]

>>19929794
uh no

[Anonymous No.19929815]

>>19928862
which book is that evola quote from?

[Anonymous No.19929822]

>>19929802
>stalinist is kawaii animu girl poster (tranny)
Every fucking time.

[Anonymous No.19929871]

>>19928026
>Natural law implies an a priori valuation of all factors, known and unknown, not simply the exchange value of the object
Capitalism, and specifically gold prices, convey this. The problem is that the usefulness and desirability of gold are also meaningful, much more meaningful than how it is procured, produced, shipped, etc.
Labor is the fundamental input to the profit function, but it is not the only input nor is it the most influential input. If you'd ever taken even a basic business math class, you'd know this. What people want does not follow some asinine "natural law" in all necessity, because what is natural is never guaranteed to be necessarily or sufficiently known by every individual.

Also
>espousing radical leftism
>says is conservatism

[Anonymous No.19929888]

>>19929448
Black disorder is the battering ram of the elite. If a billionaire wants to decrease the value of an area he creates an NGO that pushes for lax bail laws, "low income" (single mother) housing, and laws that encourage banks to give mortgages to low level criminals. Once the middle classes flee and sell their land at discount, the billionaires can move in, gentrify the area, and then rent it back to the middle class. This scheme is why the middle class is quickly becoming the renter class.

[Anonymous No.19929897]

>>19927886
>right wing
>disliking capitalism
Private property is an essential element of any right wing doctrine

[Anonymous No.19929914]

>>19929888
It's not only black, but blacks are the easiest to degrade and manipulate into a criminal underclass. The ultra wealthy are shifting to the drug addicted and mentally ill homeless population as their weapon of choice. This is why cities do absolutely nothing about drugs, and even encourage it.

The end game is for urban areas to be completely owned by oligarchs, the property being sucked up at discount.

[Anonymous No.19929926]

>>19929897
Yeah or it’s not. Right and left don’t really mean anything outside of references to current party politics

[Anonymous No.19929947]

Orthodox Jews will buy one building in a neighborhood, rent it out at an extremely low price to criminals. When the neighborhood goes to shit, they buy up all the real estate and *poof* the rents go up and the crime goes away. This is how they've been able to colonize large parts of Brooklyn.

[Anonymous No.19930447]

>>19929435
See my earlier post about this being an alien ideology completely untethered from the country's actual traditions and sociocultural realities. You're pushing a mythology here, where the premise is this manufactured, imagined crisis ("living in a waking nightmare where nothing is solid anymore") used to justify a war against our national gangstalkers ("they took away all those norms and forms of self-governance").

The blackpill is hard to swallow. Fascism is a giant cope for the reality we now face. Rather than being the preferred destination of liberalism throughout its entire existence, the fascist sees the present moment as the deliberate construction of some evil cabal. He uses this to hold onto the fantasy that it's possible to restore some mythologized golden age in the face of the reality that nothing can be done. Fascism is the death throe of a civilization, and a really ugly and violent one in practice.

People like Deneen and MacIntyre are correct. We are waiting for a very different Saint Benedict. You should find God, anon.

[Anonymous No.19930452]

>>19929926
Wrong

[Anonymous No.19930463]

Chesterton has a book on usury so theres that

[Anonymous No.19930471]

>>19927889
https://z-lib.org/

[Anonymous No.19930511]

Like other anons said, Lasch does a good job. Not necessarily conservative, but pic related is a Catholic critique.

>>19928780
Uncle Ted is based

[Anonymous No.19931233]

>>19930447
Two more weeks trust the plan. Christian right is a complete joke and has capitulated on every question. Wouldn’t want anyone that might endanger our Judeo-Christian values or (classical, that’s the red-pilled kind as the kids say) liberal traditions.

[Anonymous No.19931589]

>>19927886
Anything by Evola and the Perennialists.

[Anonymous No.19931600]

>>19927886
pretty much every single social right economic "___" book ever

[Anonymous No.19932395]

>>19927889
Barren Metal?

[Anonymous No.19933238]

>>19929559
Conservatives are libtards.

[Anonymous No.19933368]

>>19929897
There's more to capitalism than private property, no?

[Anonymous No.19933479]

>>19927929
National Socialism is not right wing.

[Anonymous No.19933778]

>>19928797
>Traditionalists are apolitical.
Conservatism is synonymous is traditionalism. You are synonymous with retard.

[Anonymous No.19933789]

I've got to say the amount of seething in this thread is hilarious, so many asshurt libtards just shrieking into the void like animals.
>>19927886
>Books that critique capitalism from the right?

[Anonymous No.19933827]

>>19933479
Then why is every Republican from Nixon to Reagan to Trump literally Hitler?

[Anonymous No.19933916]

>>19933479
It's ambiant.

[Anonymous No.19933941]

>>19927886
I know he's a bit of a meme writer at this point, but I always liked Evola's explanation of capitalism from a reactionary right perspective:

“Nothing is more evident than that modern capitalism is just as subversive as Marxism. The materialistic view of life on which both systems are based is identical; both of their ideals are qualitatively identical, including the premises connected to a world the centre of which is constituted of technology, science, production, "productivity," and "consumption." And as long as we only talk about economic classes, profit, salaries, and production, and as long as we believe that real human progress is determined by a particular system of distribution of wealth and goods, and that, generally speaking, human progress is measured by the degree of wealth or indigence—then we are not even close to what is essential...”

This is taken from Men Among the Ruins.

[Anonymous No.19934082]

>>19927886
Sismondi.

[Anonymous No.19934379]

>>19933941
None of what he is talking about is inherent to a system of private property rights and free exchange.

[Anonymous No.19934388]

>>19933789
holy based

[Anonymous No.19934441]

>>19928026
>conservatism at root is the preference of the natural to the unnatural
>seeks to preserve stasis when the natural order is change

[Anonymous No.19934633]

>>19931233
>tfw the imagined national community lives rent free in your head

Time to accelerate the construction of a social credit system because of muh degeneracy among people on the other side of the continent.

[Anonymous No.19934655]

>>19931233
A revolution within Christianity in favour of nationalism would be enough to tip the scales in ideological war for the 21st century. Lots of confused and lapsed Christians currently clinging to churches that tell them to destroy their own communities and way of life would be reinvigorated. It would be like a dam breaking and unleashing energy pent up for two centuries of enslavement to liberal and modern values.

Christian universalism has not historically blocked powerful nationalism. It only does now because of this internal rot. You can both be a philosophical universalist and believe that each nation has its own historical destiny, just like each individual soul does. That used to be the Christian view. Just like you can be a cosmopolitan in terms of thinking mystical enlightenment is universal, while also respecting that this doesn't abrogate ethnic and political divisions.

But where can a revolution from inside Christianity come from? I'm amazed Catholics like Vigano aren't a hundred times more common and outspoken. Protestant churches seem to have a bunker mentality, no conception of going on the offensive. Anglicans are fully globohomo.

[Anonymous No.19934826]

>>19934655
>Protestant churches seem to have a bunker mentality, no conception of going on the offensive.

I'm Catholic, but this is the option actually supported by scripture and the examples of the Saints. When I interact with trad LARPers, it often seems like it hasn't occurred to them that Christianity is actually a religion, one with a deep spiritual/mystical component. Many seem to view it as a vehicle for le culture war or for "going back to tradition" so to fill a gaping void in their dead, soulless existence.

We are warned of clown world in the Bible, and imo should look to the example set by Christians in the twilight of the Roman Empire (e.g., the desert fathers). They opted out of the Roman imperium, went to search for God, and built a community that has endured two thousand years.

[Anonymous No.19934847]

>>19934441
Spot on, it's all been one big cope ever since Heraclitus.

[Anonymous No.19934944]

>>19927886
My substack

[Anonymous No.19935688]

>>19928580
>There’s a lot of Republican voters who want medicare for all etc
Perhaps but more believe government getting out of the way altogether and allowing people to practice medicine after watching youtube videos is a better idea lol

>>19928763
>I agree with conservatives on a lot of first principle type stuff, but it's frustrating that most are incapable of seeing the antagonism between capitalist ideology and their values
If by "capitalist ideology" you mean utility maximization, self-interest or whatever most conservatives don't actually really believe in that in the first place and their whole interpretation of "natural law" gets goofy and answers everything else. Try to talk to a conservative about something like fractional reserve banking and you'll find them claiming standard banking practices violate natural law and can just be done away with with no trade offs

>>19929888
>Once the middle classes flee and sell their land at discount, the billionaires can move in, gentrify the area, and then rent it back to the middle class.
You're just describing white flight and the people who flee never move back. Real-estate hotshots like Trump played that game decades ago.

>>19929914
>The end game is for urban areas to be completely owned by oligarchs, the property being sucked up at discount.
Most Americans don't want to live in urbans areas and prefer the suburbs. Most conservatives are ideologically against cities to begin with and want to destroy them and promote rural ideologies.

>>19929897
You can have private property without capitalism, capitalism requires more than private property but a form of rational profit driven reinvestment that societies outside western europe never indigenously developed. Most societies never developed anything close to total free markets in land, labour or money.

[Anonymous No.19936580]

Capitalist Realism is one of the most redpilled books I've ever read. It's so far left that it swings back to bing right wing.