/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21842219]

Are there any conservative theorists of the same calibre of the conservatives of old? (Hobbes, Burke etc).
To clarify, I'm looking for contemporary thinkers who have a rather cynical view of human nature, value tradition, view society as an organic entity, value hierarchy, value private property and view mobs and revolutions with complete disdain.

Please don't recommend polemicists, podcasters, yootubers or American, "conservative" "culture wars" pundits, neo-libs, neocons, libertarians etc......also by "contemporary" I mean post 1970's.

I know I'm being pedantic but the meaning of "conservative" has become kind of wooly in recent years and I'd like to stress that I'm interested in actual conservative theorists and not

[Anonymous No.21842232]

>>21842219
Your definition of conservative would include such figures as Biden, Karen the 40 year old cat mommy Academic, and George Soros.
>Cynical libertarian paternalist view of human nature
>Love the porgressive liberal tradition
>View society as an organic entity (especially the open society)
>values hierarchy of liberal privilege, whites and non-progressives on the bottom, academics and "experts" on the top.
>value the private property of the bourgeois experts, redistribute the property of privileged proles to less privileged proles
>view mobs and revolutions with disdain (revolutions come from le heckin' fascists, because we are le all tolerant open society!)

[Anonymous No.21842239]

>>21842232
>Your definition of conservative would include such figures as Biden, Karen the 40 year old cat mommy Academic, and George Soros
Well. That's a topic for another thread in itself for another board.

[Anonymous No.21842245]

>>21842219
There's literally nothing of the same calibre as of old. In terms of world-history this might as well be the Apocalypse, but quotidian sureness stops anyone from thinking like that.

[Anonymous No.21842247]

>>21842239
I could simplify it for you if this is going over your head:
Recommend contemporary conservative thinkers in the mould of Edmund Burke and Hobbes pl0x

[Anonymous No.21842258]

>>21842247
Meant for
>>21842232

[Anonymous No.21842260]

>>21842239
You just aren't going to get anything like that. Contemporary "conservatives" like that are going to be outsiders because they are "cancelled" or otherwise stripped of all academic credentials if they espouse "conservative" views. JBP is essentially the closest you're going to get, but he was driven outside the inner establishment and partakes in every disqualifier you listed.

I should repeat, what you're looking for is literally Soros, Žižek, and other leftists. They are the new "conservatives" that control the establishment, academic consensus, and have every reason to fight and prevent any sory of major change in power dynamic from occuring.
A starter might be to read Soros's Open Society. (Or Popper's first)

[Anonymous No.21842264]

>>21842260
I'm sorry but I don't think you have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.21842275]

>>21842219
>polemicists
There are no polemicists left. Most people are midwits that try to appeal to people by laying out convoluted "well you see, actually, but ya know". Polemicists simply lay out their argument vehemently. Seems like you have an automatic reddit aversion to the word.

[Anonymous No.21842277]

>>21842219
No, they would just get shut down by the academic establishment. The best you'll find is someone like Feser.

[Anonymous No.21842281]

>>21842275

Weird take. Pretend I didn't use that word in my post it helps

[Anonymous No.21842285]

>>21842277
They don't have to be in academia.

GUYS GUYS. If you don't know just don't answer.

[Anonymous No.21842287]

>>21842285
If they're not in academia, then they're not being published. So they effectively don't exist.
:>If you don't know just don't answer.
If they existed, I would know about them.

[Anonymous No.21842288]

>>21842264
You numbskull. There are NONE that fulfill both of these:
>Please don't recommend polemicists, podcasters, yootubers or American, "conservative" "culture wars" pundits, neo-libs, neocons, libertarians etc......also by "contemporary" I mean post 1970's.
and
>To clarify, I'm looking for contemporary thinkers who have a rather cynical view of human nature, value tradition, view society as an organic entity, value hierarchy, value private property and view mobs and revolutions with complete disdain.
There are none whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.21842297]

>>21842219
No, everything in general is worse, the only thing anyone cares about is making sure that other side is hurt and angry, forget helping anyone or anything.

[Anonymous No.21842301]

ChatGPT has spat out roger scrutton and Leo Strauss and various hobbesian proponents of Realism and Neorealism in international relations.

[Anonymous No.21842305]

>>21842288
You recommended meemees (peterson zizek).
This clearly isn't your thing

[Anonymous No.21842311]

>>21842288
>I'm looking for contemporary thinkers who have a rather cynical view of human nature, value tradition, view society as an organic entity, value hierarchy, value private property and view mobs and revolutions with complete disdain.
Thats a rather formal definition of conservatism. You're out of your depth

[Anonymous No.21842333]

>>21842219
Read Islamic writers from the Middle East

[Anonymous No.21842338]

>>21842311
>Please don't recommend polemicists, podcasters, yootubers or American, "conservative" "culture wars" pundits, neo-libs, neocons, libertarians etc......also by "contemporary" I mean post 1970's.
You are out of your mind.

[Anonymous No.21842371]

>>21842288
>>21842338
Not the Op, but he's given what is literally the most basic bitch, textbook definition of conservatism and you're getting your panties in a twist about it. Why get upset about something you don't understand?

[Anonymous No.21842537]

>>21842219
>Burke
lmao
Hobbes is kino though

[Anonymous No.21842541]

>>21842219
There is no such thing as conservative ideology. Congratulations you figured it out. There are fascistic and there are libertarian ideologies. Conservatism is some unholy cognitively dissonant hodgepodge between the two.

[Anonymous No.21842553]

>>21842219
Joseph De Mastre and Belloc

[Anonymous No.21842559]

>>21842371
>tradition
which one? and how far back?
>human imperfection
so are we sticking to tradition and looking back as though it were perfect or are we trying to improve ourselves? can we pick one?
>organic society
as opposed to socially engineered and enforced by the state? i mean as far back as the exodus tradition or hammurabi we haven't been doing this in civilization
>hierarchy and authority
so are we talking state, clergy, celebrity, financial, sports, science, literary, what? who is defining these, which orders decide who are the elites?
>property
ok so no taxation then and no state fiat currency and no authority over my property

[Anonymous No.21842657]

>>21842559


Are you really getting upset about the brevity of an abbreviated definition? Would taking a picture of several hundred pages of the history of conservative political ideology, then posting them over the length of several threads make you feel better?

I asked for post70's conservative theorists. You clearly have no clue on this matter. You don't even have the most rudimentary understanding of conservative thought at even the most basic level!. I'm assuming you're entirely informed by American style "culture wars" rhetoric and when faced with something more substantial you react by behaving like a bitch.

I have no idea why you're so aggravated, but you have nothing of value to add to this thread and you're clearly a contrarian midwit, (and possibly the middle aged tranny jannie who seems to habitually shit up the board)
Just move on with your life.
(and now I've hurt your feelings so you'll feel obligated to pull another caustic, ill-informed, hot take out of your ass)

[Anonymous No.21842665]

[Anonymous No.21842674]

>>21842541
Conservative political parties host a contrary mixture of conservative ideology and classical liberal/neo-lib ideologies. You're conflating conservative political ideology with conservative political parties.

[Anonymous No.21842682]

>>21842657
>he can't defend even a single definition
See >>21842541. Conservatism has no real ideology and it is completely meaningless at best and utterly contradictory at worst. Either pick nationalism and fascism, anarchocapitalism/libertarianism, or anarchoprimitivism/theocratic tribalism like a luddite or amish. There is no throughline in conservatism, absolutely no thesis. It is nonsense.

[Anonymous No.21842710]

>>21842682
See
>>21842674

I have no interest or knowledge of football. I would not go to /sp/ and shit up football threads by pretending to be a knowledgeable of football.

[Anonymous No.21842721]

>>21842710
>whole thread about defining conservatism and great conservative philosophers
>nobody can define it or outline a remotely coherent ideology

[Anonymous No.21842724]

[Anonymous No.21842734]

The modern American conservative movement, and in turn the global right due to the influence of American imperialism in the post war era, has reduced politics to merely a show of personalities and slogans. It's devolved from focusing on policy to pure spectacle, rendering the ideological and policy differences superficial. The American right has abandoned any pretense of intellectualism and critical thought, and has embraced a populist bull-headed sensationalism that serves the interests of the ruling class.

The goal of Americanized political thought is to distract and pacify the masses rather than cultivate or inform them. This is not merely confined to America in the modern global paradigm, but all countries under the American sphere of influence.

[Anonymous No.21842778]

>>21842721
It was defined in the first post and in posts thereafter. An anon even posted a literal textbook definition. There's a point where being an arbitrary contrarian becomes just acting like a moron.
Move on with your life

[Anonymous No.21842784]

>>21842734
>>21842734
American ideological definitions are functionally wooly and vague. It allows them to unite or denigrate vast swathes of the population. For American pundits they'll often reduce conservatism to "conserve" and so they can unite a huge amount of people with vague ideas of "conserving". Also for American pundits, Marxism basically means "equality" and so you can functionally group a large amount of people into the a vaguely defined category of "Marxists"

They apply this approach to every ideology.

And you're very right. This approach is spreading like cancer.

[Anonymous No.21842799]

>>21842219
There isn't anyone of the same calibre of men of old.

[Anonymous No.21842916]

>>21842778
But anon that didn't define anything. It said tradition, human imperfection, organic society, hierarchy and authority, property. None of these are defined and most of them are contradictory. It's not my fault you are so inarticulate that you cannot even define what you supposedly believe with any semblance of eloquence.

[Anonymous No.21842935]

>>21842916
You can use a dictionary if you like

[Anonymous No.21842955]

>>21842935
This is why you guys always lose. You don't even know what it is you believe or have any coherence in conviction.

[Anonymous No.21842959]

>>21842955
Projection at its finest

[Anonymous No.21842968]

Roger Scruton - A British philosopher and writer, Scruton was heavily influenced by Burke's views on tradition and the importance of preserving social institutions. Scruton's work often emphasizes the role of culture and tradition in shaping our understanding of the world.

Michael Oakeshott - A British political theorist, Oakeshott drew heavily on Burke's ideas about the importance of tradition and the dangers of radical change. Oakeshott argued that political change should be incremental and guided by a deep appreciation for the wisdom of past traditions.

Russell Kirk - An American political theorist and writer, Kirk was an important figure in the post-World War II conservative movement in the United States. Like Burke, Kirk emphasized the importance of tradition, community, and moral order in preserving a stable society.

Yuval Levin - An American political theorist and writer, Levin has drawn on Burke's ideas about the importance of mediating institutions (such as families, churches, and local communities) in fostering social stability and preserving individual liberty. Levin has written extensively on issues related to health care, social welfare, and the role of government in society.
Thomas Sowell - An American economist and social theorist, Sowell has written extensively on issues related to race, culture, and politics. Sowell has been influenced by Hobbes's ideas about the importance of a strong state in maintaining order and stability, and has argued that government intervention in the economy should be limited in order to preserve individual liberty.

Harvey Mansfield - An American political scientist and writer, Mansfield has drawn on Hobbes's ideas about the need for a strong, centralized state to maintain order and stability in society. Mansfield has written extensively on issues related to political theory and constitutionalism, and has argued that the American political system is based on Hobbesian principles of limited government and individual rights.

Leo Strauss - A German-American political philosopher, Strauss was heavily influenced by Hobbes's ideas about the nature of power and the importance of a strong, centralized state. Strauss believed that political philosophy should focus on the relationship between power and morality, and that political institutions should be designed to promote social stability and preserve individual rights

[Anonymous No.21842976]

>>21842959
So this is the power of public education. It cannot even explain what it believes.

[Anonymous No.21842987]

>>21842219

I'm not a "conservative" anymore, but this is what you're looking for. Included are formulations on the failure of the diversity project, the eroding of public mores, and the end of a truly American society. Knock yourself out.

[Anonymous No.21842996]

In regards to conservative international relations theory :
Kenneth Waltz: Waltz's neorealism is heavily influenced by Hobbesian ideas, particularly his belief that the international system is characterized by a state of anarchy in which states must compete for power and security.

Martin Wight: Wight's "power politics" theory draws heavily on Hobbes' conception of the state of nature and the need for a Leviathan to impose order and prevent conflict.

Hedley Bull: Bull's theory of international society is based on the idea that states must cooperate to create a stable and peaceful international order, which he argues is a response to Hobbes' state of nature.

Robert Keohane: Keohane's theory of complex interdependence is influenced by Hobbes' belief that states must cooperate to achieve mutual security, even in an anarchic system.

David Hume: While not strictly an international relations theorist, Hume's ideas about the role of self-interest in human behavior and his critique of the social contract have influenced many international relations scholars who draw on Hobbesian ideas.

[Anonymous No.21843002]

>>21842955
Easily the dumbest motherfucker to post on the internet today
"I can't understand something therefore nobody can"
Get a real job

[Anonymous No.21843053]

What is left to conserve? It's all been debased

[Anonymous No.21843084]

>>21842232
>>21842260
>>21842275
>>21842277
>>21842288
>>21842338
>>21842541
>>21842559
>>21842682
>>21842721
>>21842916
>>21842955
Try reading Try reading "A History of Western Political Thought" by J.S. McClelland and/or "The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot" by Russell Kirk

You might learn something.

And have the common decency to tap out when you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just shitting up the board and making it worse.

Go to reddit, Twitter or Facebook if you want to troll libs. Its what I do. There's no sport I'm making /lit/ worse. Is just cancerous and self-defeating.

Also, if one of you is that fat Fucking middle-aged transsexual janny you need to sort your life out. Embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.21843149]

>>21843053
Man... Life was so much better yesterday.... We need to go back to 20 years ago. And then tomorrow we will need to go back to 19 years 364 days before today.

[Anonymous No.21843253]

>>21843149
Kek

[Anonymous No.21843299]

There's honestly none, but this is true for the left as well. Compared to men of hundreds of years ago, our "intellectuals" are fucking embarrassing

But it must be emphasized 99% of humans are too stupid for politics. It genuinely takes a certain degree of genius to engage with politics on the level of Plato or Hobbes or Rousseau, similar to how Maths/Sciences require a kind of genius to engage with their deepest problems as well. And while the Sciences have an empirically verifiable way to promote talent (i.e. man solves problem/discovers proof, gains reputation), the fact that most people are too dumb to understand politics on a deeper level means even when a political genius comes along, they won't recognize him. In this respect it's like philosophy.

"One must be a sage to recognize a sage" - Xenophanes

[Anonymous No.21843365]

>>21842219
>Hobbes
>Conservative
Sure

[Anonymous No.21843441]

>>21842657
>>21842371
>>21843084
Sorry, but your dictionary definition applies to more than you would like. It's okay to be upset.

[Anonymous No.21843443]

>>21842260
>have every reason to fight
Says who?

[Anonymous No.21843828]

>>21843443
Say they, because they are currently doing just that. OP's definition of conservative exactly matches the leftists in power now. That's what he's not getting.
Whose tradition does he want them to preserve? On which mob does he want them to look down upon? He wants something specific- but he isn't willing to say what it is, and he also disqualified anyone that does match his criteria. He wants someone that disagrees with the establishment from an establishment that cancels and exocummincates anyone that disagrees with the establishment. By definition he's going to get outsiders.

[Anonymous No.21843832]

>>21843828
excommunicates* by golly

[Anonymous No.21843933]

>>21842219

[Anonymous No.21844055]

[Anonymous No.21844063]

>>21843365
His position on human nature is the foundation of conservative ideology. People are individualistic, security seeking, driven by their needs and desires , but have a poor sense of reason to keep these desires in check.

[Anonymous No.21844121]

>>21843299
I wonder if people have much awareness of contemporary political theorists and thinkers at all, be it within academia or not. See>>21842260 first thing that pops into his head is fucking zizek and peterson. Two muppets who's position in the public eye is based on their personality and other such nonsense. The idea that you could study their work in academia beyond undergrad-tier literature reviews is ridiculous (for example, outside of the university of essex in the UK, a couple of places in France, lubjana university and a handful of departments in Argentina Zizek is completely irrelevant.).
Interest in actual contemporary political theory beyond dumbshit polemacists and podcasters trying to nurture outrage to sell their shoddy books is entirely fringe.
On top of this, conservative ideology was largely been supplanted by "new right" type thought that prioritises rehashed classical liberalism stripped of its nuance and ethics.

I've gone off on a tangent but you're probably largely right.

[Anonymous No.21844132]

>>21843441
You're like a needy toddler demanding to be the centre of attention and refusing to shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.21844577]

>>21842232
>how could 12yo OP recover from this?

[Anonymous No.21844590]

>>21844121
Because there are no contemporary "conservative" political theorists- and those that are bear no resemblance to what OP is searching for. You have brain damage.
>>21844132
Keep coming back to demonstrate how buck broken you are.

[Anonymous No.21844603]

>>21842219
>Are there any conservative theorists of the same calibre of the conservatives of old? (Hobbes, Burke etc).
>To clarify, I'm looking for contemporary thinkers who have a rather cynical view of human nature, value tradition, view society as an organic entity, value hierarchy, value private property and view mobs and revolutions with complete disdain.
>Please don't recommend polemicists, podcasters, yootubers or American, "conservative" "culture wars" pundits, neo-libs, neocons, libertarians etc......also by "contemporary" I mean post 1970's.
>I know I'm being pedantic but the meaning of "conservative" has become kind of wooly in recent years and I'd like to stress that I'm interested in actual conservative theorists and not

[Anonymous No.21844629]

>>21842338
It's a perfectly logical ask minus the polemicist part (which isn't a problem because that stopped being a thing especially in the Anglo world).

[Anonymous No.21844871]

>>21844590
>Keep coming back to demonstrate how buck broken you are.
again with the projection

[Anonymous No.21844899]

>>21844590
>Because there are no contemporary "conservative" political theorists- and those that are bear no resemblance to what OP is searching for. You have brain damage.

A big list was already been posted.
You're quite a fragile, needy person who's not very bright. You've become quite warped by American political discourse which has degraded significantly in quality over the past decade or so.

Would you have found it easier if I stipulated "no American culture wars "conservatives" or associated nonsense" in the original post?

Also samefagging is lame

[Anonymous No.21844911]

[Anonymous No.21844992]

> jannies don't get paid?

[Anonymous No.21844996]

>4chan is unbiased

[Anonymous No.21845004]

> imagine the smell

[Anonymous No.21846400]

Bamp

[Anonymous No.21847011]

If there was you wouldn't hear about it in this shithole.

[Anonymous No.21847116]

>>21842219
Peter Hitchens

[Anonymous No.21847211]

for me, it really is just roger scruton
i haven't really read them, but you might look at alain de benoist and the 'nouvelle droite' in french; apparently 'new culture, new right' is a good overview but again i haven't read it
>>21842968 sounds like he knows what he's talking about but I don't really know any of the names he posted other than scruton (and leo strauss, who is by all accounts a great conservative thinker but no longer exactly contemporary)

>>21842721
>>21842916
wtf is wrong with you, all your posts in this thread are a complete fucking embarrassment, do you have any idea how stupid this makes you look

picrel is burke statue in my city, after they tore down the edward colston statue just a few yards away i was scared they were gonna come for burke next lads, but so far he's been safe and we seem to have passed the peak of statue-tearing-down mania

[Anonymous No.21848420]

Bump.

[Anonymous No.21850225]

>>21847116
kek

[Anonymous No.21850352]

>>21842219
Thomas Molnar.

[Anonymous No.21850498]

>>21842219
He is recent and a certain sphere on twitter is making him popular - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panagiotis_Kondylis

Lots of his stuff is free translated online. Basically the only actual conservatives are found in East Europe. On how people should live their private life Zizek is basically more of a conservative than regular american podcasters. There is also Peter Sloterdijk who is considered a very anti-left and is conservative on social issues, but a libertarian(FDP) on economic ones.

[Anonymous No.21850535]

>>21844603
Moot is American. You are a guest here.

[Anonymous No.21850539]

>>21843828
Fair enough, no one conservative is establishment anyways

[Anonymous No.21850542]

>>21850498
Should I read Sloterdijk?