Which books make the best critique of liberalism?

[Anonymous No.20331288]

I liked Deneen, but I don't think he goes deep enough. Can anybody recommend similar works?

[Anonymous No.20331293]

>>20331288
>I don't think he goes deep enough
Care to explain?

[Anonymous No.20331302]

>>20331288

We need a “Beyond Good and Evil” sequel, except actually pertinent.

[Anonymous No.20331322]

>>20331288
Progress and its critics and Culture of narcissism by Lasch. Propaganda by Ellul.

[Anonymous No.20331337]

>>20331293

The book could be a quarter as long considering how often he repeats himself. He’d need a better editor before producing a longer work.

[Anonymous No.20331340]

>>20331293
He ends the book with the sentence "The greatest proof of human freedom today lies in our ability to imagine, and build, liberty after liberalism." Also note that he praises democracy throughout the book. Deneen's solution to the problems liberalism causes seem to be a return to old fashioned catholic bourgeois values. That'd be preferable to liberalism but didn't this old school christian bourgeois conservatism ultimately give birth to liberalism?

It is also noteworthy that Cornel West and Barack Obama praised the book. Imagine jews praising "Mein Kampf" or the Russian Czar praising "Das Kapital". If Deneen was truly a threat to the liberal world order I doubt that one of the world's most powerful liberals like Obama would recommend reading him.

[Anonymous No.20331356]

>>20331288
Unironically, my grill Alisa Rosenbaum.

[Anonymous No.20331362]

>>20331356
That's Otto weinenger in drag.

[Anonymous No.20331376]

>>20331288
>he doesn't know

[Anonymous No.20331377]

>>20331288
Beyond Human Rights - Alain de Benoist

[Anonymous No.20331380]

>>20331293
You can tell that he's not a virulent opponent of liberal democracy and he's more or less criticizing it from within. He has clear sympathies to the modern liberal tradition. It's a very good book but we need actual hardline opponents of liberalism to emerge

As a side note, Deneen had a panel with Francis Fukuyama last week and there's some interesting bits in this. Unfortunately the audio is horrendous and it was sloppily recorded
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwGEcizduAw&t=2655s&ab_channel=TheLeFrakForumatMichiganStateUniversity

[Anonymous No.20331384]

>>20331362
Whatever you get off on...

[Anonymous No.20331413]

critiquing ideologies does not kill them
everything is power and the dressing up of power

[Anonymous No.20331432]

>>20331356
>hebckin’ rosenbaum

[Anonymous No.20331463]

>>20331413
>critiquing ideologies does not kill them
We don’t have to, reality is killing it.

[Anonymous No.20331590]

>>20331376
>Revolt against the modern world
>Wears jeans
>Wears sport shoes

Ehhhhh

[Anonymous No.20331659]

>>20331288
As the other anon mentioned, Lasch's The True and Only Heaven: Progress and It's Critics is great. Lasch is probably the most persuasive and appropriate social critic of the twentieth century and the work is his magnum opus. To Lasch it is the progressive tradition and perspective that was never as persuasive to the greater citizenry as it was to many of the liberal thinkers in the past few hundred years that has resulted in the consequences Deneen explores.

To quickly sum up Lasch, the progressive tradition can be summed up as the religious extreme or logical conclusion of liberalism that believes in no limits on the ability of mankind to conquer nature and improve his condition. Any and all traditional social institutions or values are questioned and eroded away; important to Lasch is the family, the community, and religious belief.

This is all done in the name of progress, both economically (expansion of capitalism displacing artisans and small capitalists for non-producing speculators and global corporations) and socially ("scientific" or "expert" skepticism or outright hostility towards traditions of all sort, culminating in the post WW1 consensus that the masses are hopelessly stupid and need to be ruled and in the post WW2 consensus that nonbelievers can be explained in terms of medicine and pathology). The progressives have insulated themselves from outside criticism which leads to their complete inability to comprehend opposition as anything other than unenlightened or racist or sexist (e.g., opposition to abortion or desegregation or busing or affirmative action or anti-family feminism). This stokes the flames of racism, sexism, etc.

This can today be seen as a sort of class issue, with the progressive professional-managerial-technical class opposed to the working class. The contemporary right has capitalized on the vulnerabilities of the white working class, paying lip service to family issues and other traditional values while continuing to endorse capitalism, a major source of their erosion. Note both sides are absolutely committed to the uninhibited explosion of capitalism and the markets, and when they talk about the American Dream talk about social mobility (e.g., displacement into the professional-managerial-technical class) and not about being able to work hard to one day own a house, etc etc.

>>20331340
>The greatest proof of human freedom today lies in our ability to imagine, and build, liberty after liberalism.
If that's the case I'm not liking our chances.

Deneen's problem is he's a partisan hack. He spends only two or three lines mentioning capitalism as far as I remember, and I think it is only to lament the inclusion of women in the workplace or something.

Aside from Lasch, there's Carlyle, Durkheim, Marcel Mauss, Ellul, pre-schizo Baudrillard, and unironically Marx and the Marxists for all their faults.

[Anonymous No.20331858]

>>20331288
Socialist ones.
Going backwards into monarchism is a ridiculous cope.

[Anonymous No.20331891]

>>20331288
I am a eugenicist. I am a racist. I am a nationalist. I am against democracy.

I am a liberal.

[Anonymous No.20331900]

>>20331590
it's also clearly a woman

[Anonymous No.20331902]

>>20331891
^DNC everybody

[Anonymous No.20331906]

>>20331659
>>Aside from Lasch, there's Carlyle, Durkheim, Marcel Mauss, Ellul, pre-schizo Baudrillard, and unironically Marx and the Marxists for all their faults.

Don't forget McLuhan!!!!!

[Anonymous No.20331918]

>>20331891
holy based

[Anonymous No.20331921]

>>20331356
>Alisa Rosenbaum.
she looks like she gives good head....for a price determined by the invisible hand of the free market

[Anonymous No.20331929]

>>20331288
Stop asking for advice on r/lit.

[Anonymous No.20331978]

>>20331891
t. Spencer

[Anonymous No.20332056]

>>20331340
>Also note that he praises democracy throughout the book.
>Appeal to the masses
Midwit confirmed. I'd rather have rigorous and objective analysis.
Not gonna even read this book at all now.

[Anonymous No.20332067]

what these books dont understand is that its not liberalism that is the problem, its democracy. in fact democracy is a fundamentally illiberal idea.

[Anonymous No.20332111]

>>20332067
How's that

[Anonymous No.20332334]

>>20332056
It's worth reading anon. The basic premise of the book, that liberalism is contradictory and self-defeating since it was founded upon incorrect assumptions about human nature, is correct. And if you want to understand our situation today of how liberalism could simultaneously be the strongest system in the world with the most passionate adherents yet liberal democracy is declining in power at the same time, this book helps you grasp that paradox

[Anonymous No.20332338]

>>20331356
this is not the place for fanfiction

[Anonymous No.20332423]

>>20332056
The major thrust of post-WW2 American Liberalism has been using the Supreme Court to advance moral values and protect minority groups from democracy and/or majority persecution

[Anonymous No.20332440]

>>20331380
the fact that protestors didn't shut down that discussion shows you he's not saying anything illiberal

[Anonymous No.20332457]

>>20332440
He's arguing in terms of political theory. Normies know nothing about this shit. They think "liberalism" just means Democrats. If he was at a panel repeating talking points you'd hear from a liberal like Jordan Peterson then people would've protested, but because his work is clearly directed towards elite segments of the world (Obama read his book) no one cares

[Anonymous No.20332483]

>>20332423
Certainly not the moral values of the working class, to this day. Neither negroes nor Hispanics care much for trannys or gays.

[Anonymous No.20332490]

>>20332483
Why should we believe the moral values of Pablo the construction worker are correct?

[Anonymous No.20332559]

>>20331288
Liberalism didn't fail.

[Anonymous No.20332572]

>>20332559
>“They” get to define poverty
You will own nothing and you will be happy

[Anonymous No.20332618]

Here's my personal, topwit-tier list of the kinoest anti-Liberal cririques:
>1) Mitchell Heisman's (literal) Suicide Note
https://legacy.gscdn.nl/archives/images/suicide_note.pdf

>2) Joseph de Maistre's Major Works, Vol. I
https://files.catbox.moe/bxpoe6.epub

The rest can be found on 3lib.net:

>3) The Concept of the Political by Carl Schmitt
Here's a good overview of Schmitt by Momcilo Nevesky: https://youtu.be/ECz7Q4zNH-Y

>4) Which Way Western Man? By William G. Simpson

>5) Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics by Francis Parker Yockey

>6) American Extremist: The Psychology of Political Extremism by Josh Neal,

[Anonymous No.20332658]

>>20332559
And yet the vast majority of the population of 1820 was much more self-actualized and happy in poverty than when multinational corporations or liberal governments bought their land from corrupt governments, destroyed their way of life, prevented their own independence and self-sustenance, and built factories to change self-sustaining communities into market-dependent lowest-of-the-low wage laborers, despite their now earning more than $1 / day.

[Anonymous No.20332669]

>>20332658
>>20332559
$1.90/day, sorry. They are much happier, as can be gleaned from their income, you're right

[Anonymous No.20332676]

>>20332618
Expounding on #4 (Which Way Western Man?), here is a copy-pasta of Chapter X, "On the Fallacy and Failure of Popular Government":
https://han.gl/uDKOv

[Anonymous No.20332688]

>>20331288
Kalbs the Tyranny of Liberalism

[Anonymous No.20332697]

>>20332658
i love how every believe everyone was so happy in the 1820s. do you really think the french revolution and napoleon would have popped off if everybody was so satisfied with their lives?

[Anonymous No.20332717]

>>20332658
Populations in poverty are always happier, this is a statistical fact. You can move to a subsistence village in central America if you really think that life would be better, it's still open to you.

[Anonymous No.20332840]

>>20332717
What keeps the Amish population not just stable but growing? Why did captured Americans in wars with the natives very often stay with the natives, and why did the natives leave the early modern world to return to theirs? It is exactly the point that the "utility" provided by modern inventions fades as fast as they are obtained. It's a matter of psychology, not a matter of "quality of life" or "poverty" viewed as a one-dimensional number crunched together by economists. Do you think the aristocrat of early modern Europe, or even fuedal Europe or ancient Rome or Greece, could not have comprehended the happiness or quality of life that the lower middle class Western wagie enjoys today? Do you think the feudal farmer peasants that effectively never had to worry about purchasing a house or feeding a family, and who had religion to make sense of their world and their place in it, is any worse off than the ghetto negro with his lack of religion, shattered if existent family, and rented apartment? Something tells me his iPhone, car, and toilet don't make up much of the difference.

[Anonymous No.20332869]

define "failed". these always seem to boil down to the birth rate is shit cuz middle class people don't want to blow all their money on a ton of kids. so just make a tax break for having more kids and every rich guy's accountant will tell him to have another kid to reduce his rate.

[Anonymous No.20332883]

now do why the middle ages failed

[Anonymous No.20332900]

>>20332869
Russia tried that and it doesn't work. Even outright cash payments don't work. It's not about money. Fertility drops off as female education increases. This is entirely because as a woman's own perceived worth increases, she refuses to consider men she views as beneath her to be a potential mate. She'll use contraception and abortion to avoid the shackles of motherhood before she can land "a good man".

An alternative explanation is that, once a woman is exposed to the global population of the best men, either by education or exposure to broadcast media (television), she can't bring herself to settle for her local supply of average men. She feels she must hold out for one of the good men from college, or the television.

Women have never had it more easy and safe to have as many children as they want and never be worried about wanting for material goods (the state provides it all). It's not about money.

[Anonymous No.20332908]

>>20332658
huh, maybe material wealth is not the way to go
maybe we should look back and seek traditional values
I wonder... how far from 1820s Christianity have we strafed from?

[Anonymous No.20333033]

>>20332676
>Which Way Western Man?
Absolutely love this book. An humble man looks over his life and the state of the world and gives a well reasoned and well sourced take on what future generations should focus on and be wary of.
Is there any other book like it? I would be fascinated if there was a similar book where the author in all seriousness didn't come to similar conclusions.

[Anonymous No.20333046]

When you are aware that your life has no eternal meaning or significance but you have enough money to save up to retire at 65...actually 75 if you're not a boomer. This is Progress.

[Anonymous No.20333067]

>>20333033
There's nothing quite like it but there are a few books that contain a similar Faustin, weltanschauung spirit. Some that spring to mind are:
>Mitchell ~(~(~(Heisman's~)~)~ Suicide Note (2011)

>America's Decline: The Education of an American Conservative by Revilo P. Oliver (1981)

>American Extremist: The Psychology of Political Extremism by Josh Neal (2021)

>Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics by "Ulick Varange" [Francis Parker Yockey] (1948)

>The Enemy of our Enemies (1981): A Critique of Francis Parker Yockey’s The Enemy of Europe (1948)

>The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century by Houston Stewart Chamberlain (1899)
(I created a better-formatted ePub from the 2 vols of PDFs if you'd like a copy)

>Myth of the 20th Century by Alfred )))Rosenberg((( (1930)

>Nature's Eternal Religion (1973) / White Man's Bible (1981) by Ben Klassen

>Neuadel aus Blut und Boden [New Nobility from Blood and Soil] by Richard Walther Darré (1930)

>Adolf Hitler, el último avatãra (Adolf Hitler: The Ultimate Avatar) by Miguel Serrano (1984)

>Germany's Third Empire by Arthur Moeller van den Bruck (1922)

>The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Underman by T. Lothrop Stoddard, A.M., PhD (1922)

[Anonymous No.20333069]

>>20332618
>>20333067
Natsoc twitter garbage

[Anonymous No.20333082]

Deneen and other pseudo-radicals that are enfranchised never go very far in the prescriptive aspect. He basically said to make decentralized Catholic communities and hope that libzog doesn't come after you with force. The Yank already showed in 1861 and many times since that there can be no peaceful exit from the liberal order. I figure that the acknowledgment of this fact would lead to physical/financial harassment though so no conservative professor would ever go there

[Anonymous No.20333084]

>>20333069
Seethe, shitwit.
>picrel, it's (You)

[Anonymous No.20333089]

>>20333084

[Anonymous No.20333093]

>>20333067
Thanks. I read an excerpt by Yockey on the US (https://chechar.wordpress.com/2022/04/13/yockey-on-the-united-states/)) recently which I found enlightening and spot-on. I'll have to check out his Imperium.
>>20333069
Got anything better to recommend?

[Anonymous No.20333115]

>>20333082
> The Yank already showed in 1861 and many times since that there can be no peaceful exit from the liberal order.
From the Yankee perspective why should the Confederacy be allowed to exist? It has no purpose other than preserving slavery. The same is true of Deneen or MacIntyre's wholesome small Catholic communities in practice (but replace slavery with hatred of gays). Why should these communities be allowed to exist? How can they justify their existence rooted in hatred, in light of the Holocaust?

[Anonymous No.20333126]

>>20332900
Women in control of their reproduction is wise. We certainly don’t need more people. Stupid of the western colonialists not to have raised everyone out of poverty, now we’ve got a hell of a lot more non-whites, and white-fright running rampant. Disgusting.

[Anonymous No.20333141]

>>20333115
I've no idea. Apparently, even being multicultural and LARPing as jews isn't justification based on the Waco siege. I think you're right that you have to be a non-threat to the system like most communes to get a chance to exist.

[Anonymous No.20333148]

>>20333115
Why should it not be? Should we go invading other countries that don't fit our standards of liberal democracies? Why should they be allowed to exist?

It's wrong to say their existence is "rooted" in hatred. What does that mean? They ostracize the out-group. Just like liberal democracy. Just a different out-group.

[Anonymous No.20333181]

>>20333141
I'm being a bit adversarial here but also trying to make an important point - the central question for right-wing thought post WW2 is "How can so-called traditional views (nativism or ethnocentrism, traditional views on sexuality, etc.) possibly be morally acceptable in light of the Holocaust and after the Civil Rights Movement?" No one has managed to answer this yet within the framework of Christian Conservatism.

>>20333148
>Why should it not be? Should we go invading other countries that don't fit our standards of liberal democracies? Why should they be allowed to exist?
Well, liberals would say "yes we should", much like Crusaders might say regarding polytheists at the time, for example.

>It's wrong to say their existence is "rooted" in hatred. What does that mean? They ostracize the out-group. Just like liberal democracy. Just a different out-group.
As an exercise, ask yourself why people would want to get together to form a wholesome post-liberal Catholic small community a la MacIntyre, Deneen, or whoever your favorite author of this sort is. Their motivations almost always amount to a negative view regarding the trajectory of contemporary sexual morality, as in, acceptance of LGBTQ groups.

The problem is, after the Holocaust, it's considered morally unacceptable to ostracize outgroups if said outgroup constitutes an ascriptive category. This imperative has basically rekt traditional social-conservative morality, because LGBTQ+ can just claim to be the new Jews/Blacks and conservatives have no idea how to morally respond in a compelling way. Only a sort of Nietzsche-inspired immoralism is somewhat compelling here, but the problem is that getting onboard this train means rejecting Christianity.

[Anonymous No.20333207]

>>20333141
Interesting point. The only reason why the U.S. government allows an exclusively white group like the Amish to live in their own communities is because they are hardcore pacifists.

[Anonymous No.20333220]

>>20333181
>and conservatives have no idea how to morally respond in a compelling way.
Please tell me how

[Anonymous No.20333231]

>>20331288
Idk if it is legit but I have this saved as a bookmark to look into John Gray in the future.
>>/lit/thread/S19774826#p19775407

[Anonymous No.20333234]

>>20333181
How are any values grounded? I think violence ultimately grounds any political system, but I do not condone violence.
>within the framework of Christian Conservatism.
I think we have to abandon this. It seems like a jewish psyop, or at least has been made into one. It would take a lot of work and luck to mold christianity and the christian moral framework into something fit for purpose, and every attempt to make a based christianity, or a based post-christainity with secular christain ethics, has ultimately failed.
>>20333181
>Only a sort of Nietzsche-inspired immoralism is somewhat compelling here, but the problem is that getting onboard this train means rejecting Christianity.
well shit, that;s what I get for only responding to the first half of your post without reading it all

[Anonymous No.20333240]

>>20333220
I can't really tell you because if someone had solved this issue we wouldn't have NA and most of the EU slouching towards being <50% white, the US banning standardized testing because "it's racist", Pride Month etc. But I do know that people like Lasch >>20331659 are totally wrong and we are not engaging with a belief in "no limits on the ability of mankind to conquer nature and improve his condition." If this were so, why is there a taboo on Eugenics? Why the bans on nuclear energy? This totally misses the actual trajectory of post-WW2 "liberalism". I think we need to start by viewing it as a reaction to National Socialism that calls for a renewed commitment to protecting members of ascriptive categories that are not white men from the bigoted individual, hopelessly reactionary majority, etc. Everything seems to make a lot more sense when we look at things this way.

[Anonymous No.20333252]

>>20333231
John Gray is one of the only intellectuals in the world who actually understands liberalilsm and our current predicament. All of his articles are excellent and Straw Dogs is a great book

[Anonymous No.20333273]

>>20333240
You're right it's not really liberalism. Pre-WW2 liberalism would lead to eugenic transhumanism, global empirical conquest, space exploration, and upholding moral norms of personal conduct.
What we have in practice now is jewish empire and anti-whitism. Nothing else more clearly explains the seeming contradictions in the way modern "liberal" states behave.

[Anonymous No.20333276]

>>20333240
>why is there a taboo on Eugenics?
Because eugenics presupposes that people are not equal, which is tremendously offensive to liberals despite being obviously true (even ignoring the race thing). And you overstate the stigma on it. It will be researched and when it is ready for implementation it will be publicized and readily accepted, as a way that we can finally all be equal.

>Why the bans on nuclear energy?
What bans on nuclear energy? Any hesitance at the moment is a result of confusion relating to the environmental impact of it.

>his totally misses the actual trajectory of post-WW2 "liberalism".
Elaborate.

>I think we need to start by viewing it as a reaction to National Socialism that calls for a renewed commitment to protecting members of ascriptive categories that are not white men from the bigoted individual, hopelessly reactionary majority, etc.
That's basically exactly how Lasch sees it. He has a section specifically on psychology of the day with a in-depth analysis of the Frankfurt School's Authoritarian Personality. This is how it continues to be viewed; bigotry represents a pathology rather than an opposing political opinion or moral belief system. It is something to be cured.

Read Lasch before you criticize with such half-baked notions

[Anonymous No.20333283]

>>20333273
god this is such a lame fucking analysis, is this really how you people view the world? the bad guys hate one particular ethnic group and that determines everything? liberals are the ones who create all the conditions for the decline of the west. this is still liberalism, there's no contradiction to be seen.

[Anonymous No.20333294]

>>20333240
So basically we are living in a pseudo religious society where antihitlerism is the established orthodoxy, and Hitler is a malevolent deity like Huitzilopochtl that needs sacrifice after sacrifice. How do we exit this? I see teo ways: either we see liberals bite their own tail by killing 6+ million conservatives in concentration camps, or anti hitlerism gets destroyed from outside forces, much like mexican religion did. Btw I don't know if I wrote that mexican god name right. And the rest of the post actually. I'm an ESL poster.

[Anonymous No.20333297]

>>20333283
>is this really how you people view the world?
yeah, basically. Why not? It would be the white man conquering the world and dominating the darwinian game without the jews' parasitism. There would be wars between factions after that, as always, but I doubt modern "liberalism" would exist. It never did until the modern late and post-christian era (christianity being a jewish subversion).

[Anonymous No.20333299]

>>20333273
God this is such a lame fucking analysis, is this really how you people view the world? The bad guys hate one particular group and that determines everything? This is the same kind of black and white moralizing that most leftists and liberals do.

Liberals are the ones who create all the conditions for the decline of the West and it's very intentional. The entire trajectory of Liberalism today is to atone for the past sins of modernity and maintain its hegemony by granting more civil rights to other groups of people. This is why progressivism has dominated so much. Everything you see with the decline of white demographics, intersectionality, efforts for inclusivity, etc are all done so that more people can recapitulate their own cultures into a liberal ethos of equality, something that critics of Liberalism have long suggested is impossible since Liberalism is a uniquely Western ideology that doesn't adapt in non-white foreign cultures. Deneen argues that this process of granting rights and creating new definitions of freedom will actually cause Liberalism to destroy itself since all cultures, religions, ethnic groups and morals will be eradicated in the pursuit of progress. It's not unlike what Marx claims will happen because of capitalism's contradictions, and evidently we are living through this meltdown right now.

[Anonymous No.20333311]

>>20333294
We are exactly one Great Depression away from a fascist takeover

[Anonymous No.20333314]

>>20333311
My entire life has been a Great Depression

[Anonymous No.20333317]

>>20333276
>Elaborate.
To me post-WW2 "liberalism", as I said, is defined by the imperative to protect members of ascriptive groups (women then ethnic minorities then sexual minorities) that are not white males and to atone for past sins toward said groups. The cause of this is a wave of collective guilt spurred by the Allies, winning WW2 especially the US, enshrining "We defeated the Nazis" into their national mythology. Russia did this too, but in a very different way, obviously. But doing so revealed the extent to which even the "good guys" have failed to live up to the values that their national myths espouse. Also there were more practical concerns such as advocating for national self-determination worldwide while having colonies or practicing segregation (in the US) being a bit of a bad look.

Therefore, I think it's a mistake to over-emphasize "individualism" here. I think analysis of post-WW2 "liberalism" needs to start with collective guilt growing out of a reaction to Nazism. Are there some individualist currents here, sure. But I think they're increasingly falling by the wayside.

>>20333294
Nah, the most likely resolution is that by 2045 or so WW2 will fade enough from the collective memory that some of the more insane elements of collective guilt will be abandoned.

[Anonymous No.20333323]

>>20331302
Faye is a liberal in wolf's clothing.

[Anonymous No.20333328]

>>20333311
We’ve been in the second Great Depression since 2008. It’s a long fall, but Biden and the DC crew have been cooking up troops.

[Anonymous No.20333352]

>>20333317
It's been 167 years since the American Civil War ended, and many people still bitch and moan about slavery. Tge only way they will get over it is preventing educators from teaching it and burn the books.

[Anonymous No.20333354]

>>20333317
The collective guilt could also be viewed as a secularisation of original sin in the post-christian west

[Anonymous No.20333366]

>>20333352
I think slavery is a bit different because the US has obviously not been able to make black equality happen, and not even a black president could do so. This is imo a big cause of the current social justice wave, that and smartphones. Since equality has not been realized, atonement must not have taken place, therefore, real repentance must not have taken place and more work must be done. On the other hand, the Holocaust is something that happened halfway across the ocean and there's no permanent reminder of failure to live up to one's values associated with it like there is in the US with black (in)equality.

[Anonymous No.20333368]

>>20333366
>halfway across the world
Fixed

[Anonymous No.20333454]

>>20333317
This is the most singled-minded watery surface level retarded analysis I've ever heard.

[Anonymous No.20333456]

>>20333115
I'm not appealing to rights with that, actually the opposite. I'm saying that a theoretically rigorous illiberalism must acknowledge that fact that it has to mobilize fighting men. The usual suspects; alt-right, self-defined fascists and religious "fanatics" have no illusions about this. That's why they're viciously suppressed by the liberal order (as they should be, according to the liberals, rooted in hatred, in light of the Holocaust, and so on and so forth as you so perfectly describe the liberal perspective). I was just remarking that enfranchised Right-radical voices such as Deneen can't bring their own ideas to their logical conclusion because the logical conclusion is violence.

The extreme dehumanization of traditionalists i.e. The Haters, The Pathological, The Insane, The Stupid, The Misinformed comes out very well in the constant invocation of that greatest idol: The Holocaust. There can be no appeal from that. Hence there can be no solution within liberalism. I'm just wondering which high profile conservative will do that, as they have to if they want to be theoretically consistent. A (partial?) rehabilitation of the values of 1933! Oh boy! It's easy to do on the underwater basketweaving forums...not so much as a tenured professor. Lol.

[Anonymous No.20333492]

>>20333456
>I was just remarking that enfranchised Right-radical voices such as Deneen can't bring their own ideas to their logical conclusion because the logical conclusion is violence.
Even worse, they're uncomfortable with the conclusions of their own train of thought. Deneen himself engages in DR^3 signaling, you have the postliberal Empire of Guadalupe memes, MacIntyre is not so far from still being a Communist, etc. Actually MacIntyre is a particularly interesting one to me because of his emphasis on philosophical positions being bound up in a tradition. The problem for Christian social conservatives is that the Western Christian tradition has evolved in such a way that at least some Christian moral claims are now evil (internal to the tradition that they served as the foundation of) and WW2 is the big catalyst.

>Hence there can be no solution within liberalism. I'm just wondering which high profile conservative will do that, as they have to if they want to be theoretically consistent. A (partial?) rehabilitation of the values of 1933! Oh boy! It's easy to do on the underwater basketweaving forums...not so much as a tenured professor. Lol.
You could try to rehabilitate pre-WW2 values, but again, how can this be justified in light of the Holocaust? No matter what theoretical constructs you invoke, at the end of the day, you're evil internal to your tradition while claiming to be a traditionalist.

[Anonymous No.20333534]

>>20333273
This is retarded. Any eugenics system, which was already out of vogue by WWII, became irredeemable after. It's not really liberal either way considering the necessity of subordination populations, hence it's falling out of vogue.

Global imperial (which I assume you meant) conquest in the Willsonian tradition absolutely occurred post WWII. Hence the entirety of Europe are now liberal democracies as well as large parts of Asia.

Space exploration did occur and is totally outside of reach for the time being. It's completely impractical.

Upholding moral norms of personal conduct has never been a tenet of the liberal tradition. It is uniformly tacked on as an afterthought by the liberal thinkers that know the logical conclusions of their thinking but still hold onto some dumb hope that the obviously important traditions will survive, as in Smith, Mill, Rousseau, etc, etc.

Nothing that you stated is a contradiction of the liberal tradition. You would have done better to note affirmative action.

You'd probably understand that if you didn't have kikes living rent free in your head.

[Anonymous No.20333605]

>>20333534
I really don't think we are all too far from a leftist eugenics (won't be called that of course)
>we need to talk about white babies: why I chose a black embryo for IVF
>the white birth rate rose last year: here's why that's a problem
>as a white male, a vasectomy is the right thing to do