I've been reading up on different political theories and I realize that Paleoconservatism most aligns with my own personal views on things. Can /lit/ recommend me some books dealing with the topic?

File: 232 KB, 873x565, northeasttotoandrangeroad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:00:12 2010 No.484357 [Reply] [Original]

I've been reading up on different political theories and I realize that Paleoconservatism most aligns with my own personal views on things.

Can /lit/ recommend me some books dealing with the topic?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:03:12 2010 No.484366 It's not really a theory, is it. Read one of Pat Buchanan's books from the 90s I guess?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:04:12 2010 No.484370 >>484366 Well, I wasn't sure of the right word to use. Pat Buchanan you say? I'll have to look into it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:05:12 2010 No.484374 Like John Birch much?

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:05:12 2010 No.484377

>>484370
It's never really been developed and doesn't have any major works. It's more of a sense, really. A thread that runs through a lot of disparate conservatives. There's no PNAC with a manifesto or Bush security strategy document you can peruse like neo-conservatives have.

But yeah, Buchanan represents it in the political mainstream more than anyone else I can think. Apart from Ron Paul. Don't know if Paul's written anything.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:07:12 2010 No.484394 Ron Paul has written a few things. I've only read "End the Fed", I believe it came out pretty recently. It was basically an intro to his ideas and it gave a lot of suggestions for further readings on areas in the book he didn't fully elaborate on.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:10:12 2010 No.484402 >>484374 I'll look into him as well. >>484377 That's the problem I've been facing. All of the conservatives I have the displeasure to know are neocons, who I hate just as much as I hate extreme liberals.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:11:12 2010 No.484406 >>484357 One problem you'll face is that Paleoconservatism was the liberalism of past ages. It mainly emerges in the 1930s from a 1870-1920 ideological base. So my suggestion is to read the politics of the Reconstruction and the Gilded era.

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:12:12 2010 No.484410

>>484402
You may want to look into some of the pro-isolationism works that came out in America in the first few decades of the 20th century. Lots of opposition to getting involved in Europe's wars and just sticking to ourselves. Lots of anti-immigration stuff was written then, too, but it's usually ridiculously racist. Attempts at scientific explanations as to why everyone from the Irish to the Chinese are inferior to WASPs and shouldn't be let in.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:14:12 2010 No.484418 >>484406 Ah, thank you for the insight, I wasn't aware of that. I shall most certainly take your advice. >>484410 Are there any specific texts you would recommend?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:15:12 2010 No.484419 >>484357 My suggestion is that you shoot yourself. Your opinions proves you to be nothing more than a trained monkey.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:16:48 2010 No.484421 >>484419 My my my, such anger from someone who doesn't provides no reason why. This smacks of insecurity in your own view on things.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:17:12 2010 No.484423 >>484419 My my my, such anger from someone who provides no reason why. This smacks of insecurity in your own view on things.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:18:12 2010 No.484427 >>484418 The Isolationist Impulse by Selig Adler is a good overview. More of a history, but that's the best you'll get that I can think of. I don't agree with paleocon myself, but I'd prefer not to be a douche like >>484419

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:20:12 2010 No.484433

>>484427

Thank you very much. It is refreshing to know that there are still those who hold true to the saying, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." That is something sorely lacking in today's political climate.

For what it's worth, I don't agree with every aspect of Paleoconservatism either, the importance of the christian church springs immediately to mind, but to date it's the closest I've found to my own views, so I appreciate all of the advice given here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:22:12 2010 No.484436 >>484423 If you philosophize as freely as you psychologize I can see the reason to excuse your excesses.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:23:12 2010 No.484442 >>484433 Why the fuck would anyone want to defend your totalitarian urges? I would shoot you on the spot if I ever met you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:24:12 2010 No.484444 >>484433 You're welcome. Also, I'm an extreme liberal. Some of us are nice. :)

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:25:12 2010 No.484448 >>484442 Totalitarian? My friend, I can assure you that a totalitarian government would be quite antithetical to my views.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:26:12 2010 No.484452 >>484448 They all say that. Communist, nazi, libertarian, paleoconservative etc.

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:26:12 2010 No.484453

>>484433

I agree with you there. Obviously there's no one ideology someone can agree with 100%. People have to learn how to find out what they agree with and who most closely represents that. Until that happens we'll have "Democrats" and "Republicans" voting along party lines with nothing substantial ever getting done.

>>484419

Dick move, bro.
>Your opinions proves you

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:29:12 2010 No.484462 File: 9 KB, 246x242, hilarious.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>484453 Of course. The world will have to live with "Democrats" and "Republicans" because that is the only political parties in the world.

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:30:12 2010 No.484465

>>484444

By extreme liberals, I meant "the mouthy ones who protest everything and loudly denounce any conservative viewpoint without actually providing a counter-argument." You're cool. Believe as you will.

>>484453

That's why I so vehemently oppose the two-party system. As if there are only two viewpoints on any issue!

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:31:12 2010 No.484466 >>484462 You might want to reread that post you just laid into. I'm pretty sure that guy agrees with you...

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:31:12 2010 No.484467 >>484462 I was referring to the United States. Be honest with yourself, how many people do you know that actually vote for their representatives based on ideology instead of "Democrat or Republican"?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:32:12 2010 No.484472 >>484466 You will find that he claims the entire world will be stuck with "democrats" and "republicans" until a "visionary sees through it all" amerifag.

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:32:12 2010 No.484473

>>484467
A lot of that is a reaction to the Bush era, though. I voted Green before Bush, and voted Democrat during and immediately after just to make a more practical change because I live in a swing state. If I lived in Massachusetts or something, I'd vote whomever I pleased. But it's a practical thing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:33:12 2010 No.484476 File: 16 KB, 255x352, giggle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>484467 Amerifag.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:33:12 2010 No.484479 >>484472 This is a discussion about American politics. Get some perspective. Why the hell would we refer to Europolitics?

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:34:12 2010 No.484484

>>484472

The sad truth of the matter is that that is the way things go in America.

There will be no "one" visionary, Americans need to collectively open their eyes and pull their collective heads out of their collective asses, Democrats and Republicans alike.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:35:12 2010 No.484486 >>484479 >Implying it's either American or European politics.

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:36:12 2010 No.484489

>>484486
It's just American politics in this thread. That should have been obvious from the get go. Why lambast the mention of Democrats and Republicans? It's a two party system. If you've some insights into paleocon or something like it in your own country, feel free to share. Not sure what "LOL AMERIFAG" trolling is supposed to accomplish.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:37:12 2010 No.484491 >>484486 Regardless, this discussion is about America and American politics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:37:12 2010 No.484492 >>484479 >Get some perspective. And we all know the best way to get perspective on something is to ignore everything else, no matter how relevant. Tool.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:37:12 2010 No.484493 >>484472 What on earth are you on about? Quit trolling with your vague posts.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:38:12 2010 No.484498 >>484492 The surest way to lose perspective is to widen your view until the original focus is gone.

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:39:12 2010 No.484502

>>484492
Everything else as in what? Are you referring to the isolationist strand in paleocon or this thread? It's about American politics. Offer your own insights for your own country or stop complaining. Argue against paleocon with an actual argument instead of insults. I've already said I don't subscribe to it, but you're just bitching to bitch.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:40:12 2010 No.484506 >>484493 >vague Only quoting the the post I was responding to. Quit posting vague posts if you don't like vague answers.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:41:12 2010 No.484509 >>484472 Nevermind, I figured out what you were on about. You read into it wrong. I'm not talking about presidential elections alone here. You may be aware that we elect all sorts of officials in the US.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:42:12 2010 No.484514 >>484506 You're latching on to single words like "vague" and phrases like "get some perspective" because you don't have an actual argument regarding the topic.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:42:12 2010 No.484520 >>484498 No. That's "focus". Quite different from perspective. Perhaps I could direct you to /p/?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:43:12 2010 No.484525 ITT semantics

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:43:12 2010 No.484527 >>484520 Perhaps you should shut the fuck up with your posts that contribute nothing to this conversation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:45:12 2010 No.484532 File: 13 KB, 208x199, 1258658265645.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >This thread >Amerifags acting more mature than trolling aus/eurofags >My face

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:46:12 2010 No.484535 >>484532 Serious Americans? In MY /lit/? It's more common than you think!

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:46:12 2010 No.484537

>>484357
Best sources for philosophy are probably Burke(Edmund) and Oakeshott. As others are sort of pointing out in that special 4chan way, Paleoconservatism has had a historic problem with racists joining and infecting the ideology, although it's not an inherent flaw in the original theory. Sadly, it's a big enough problem that it's hard to find srs folks in paleoconservatism nowadays that aren't also massive racists, nationalists, bigots, etc. That said, again, the original idea was sound.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:46:12 2010 No.484539 >>484514 You haven't answered any of my posts except with nonsense, yet you still imply that it is me who poses "vague questions"?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:47:12 2010 No.484542 What board is this? /lit/ or /new/? It has all the petty fighting over semantics of /lit/ with all the trolling of /new/. Sorry OP.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:48:12 2010 No.484543 Ideas Have Consequences is a philosophical work by Richard M. Weaver, published in 1948. This Op. This is what you are looking for.

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:48:12 2010 No.484545

>>484514
You're talking to a couple of people actually. Also, it's weird that you put quotation marks around "visionary sees through it all" when no one said that. I'm going to go ahead and recommend one more read through of that guys post, because it's really just not sinking in, is it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:48:12 2010 No.484546 File: 114 KB, 491x398, no_u.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>484532 >Trolling amerifags implying they are acting mature.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:48:12 2010 No.484550 >>484542 Thanks, that was well on topic.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:49:12 2010 No.484551 >>484546 You're not getting anywhere with your greentext and reaction images. I suggest you seek better bait elsewhere.

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:49:12 2010 No.484552

>>484537

I thank you for your insight. Of course, it's obvious why Paleoconservatism would be seen as a good thing by racists, but I am not a racist in the sense you are speaking of.

I do believe that there are some cultural boundaries that are just too big to be crossed, but I don't condone violence or any such thing against those other races/cultures unless they are actively hostile toward us.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:51:12 2010 No.484562 File: 169 KB, 1173x1070, trollface.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ITT:Succesful.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:51:12 2010 No.484567 >>484562 Not particularly, no.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:52:12 2010 No.484572 >>484543 Thank you! I have my thread watcher going, so I will read every book (on topic!) posted here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:54:12 2010 No.484581 File: 32 KB, 918x538, cool story.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>484567 Cool story bro.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:55:12 2010 No.484590 How about fiction? Are there any fictional works that deal with this topic?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:56:12 2010 No.484591 >>484581 What a strange thread to failtroll.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:57:12 2010 No.484597 >>484591 It's obviously a liberal without any arguments to back himself up with, so he resorts to trolling others who don't share his view on the world.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:58:12 2010 No.484601 File: 205 KB, 450x571, Butthurt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>484591 Don't be so butthurt.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:58:12 2010 No.484602 >>484597 >The liberals did it!

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:59:12 2010 No.484608 File: 52 KB, 450x300, samefag.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>484591 >>484597 Samefag much?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 20:59:12 2010 No.484611 >>484602 Unless you have a better theory... Trolls tend to go for different types of threads.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:00:12 2010 No.484614 For the record, I haven't seen anyone in this thread get trolled. Only derailed.

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:01:12 2010 No.484617

Trolling means inspiring dozens of spiteful posts directed at the troller, right? How does posting entry-level /b/ images and greentext count for that? I'm reading for angry responses but missing them. Are there posts I'm note seeing here? Someone help me with this fucking thread. It's like two lines of dialogue that have nothing to do with each other.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:01:12 2010 No.484618 >>484597 So to your mind liberals must be trolling you (because no one could reasonably disagree with you, right?), so anonymous trolls can be assumed liberal. Thanks for that depressing glimpse into the Republican psyche...

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:03:12 2010 No.484623 File: 26 KB, 400x400, derp cat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>484617 Derp!

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:03:12 2010 No.484625 The truth is that the only trolling going on is this thread is the claim of trolling.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:03:12 2010 No.484628 >>484618 OP here. This is the type of crap that the two-party system lends itself well to, which is why I am so against it. Please, don't associate me with the modern Republican party, their worldview isn't my own.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:04:12 2010 No.484629 The very fact the word "troll" is being mentioned = troll unsuccessful. In my day, trolling meant something. Trolling is a art.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:04:12 2010 No.484631 >>484611 Well, I have this theory. You're completely clueless, but your pretty sure the problems here must be due to, what? Liberal agitators? As to who is ruining this thread.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:05:12 2010 No.484633 >>484631 Don't be foolish. It's obviously neocons who are opposed to differing views on what conservatism is!

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:05:12 2010 No.484635 I find the anti-imperialism element of Paleoconservatism to be most agreeable to liberals and leftists, generally. Not sure why they'd get mad about it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:06:12 2010 No.484637 File: 142 KB, 604x453, derp-face-blonde.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>484629

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:06:12 2010 No.484638 >>484637 I like how you meticulously name your jpegs.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:07:12 2010 No.484641 >>484637 Troll troll is not droll.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:08:12 2010 No.484646 >>484628 >Please, don't associate me with the modern Republican party, their worldview isn't my own. Wouldn't dream of it. And I agree, there's a lot to be said for some of the original Republican ideals.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:09:12 2010 No.484649 >>484635 I agree wholeheartedly. The "left/right" debate in America really seems to be more of an "authoritarian/anti-authoritarian" one. By world standards, Obama is very right-leaning.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:09:12 2010 No.484652 >>484633 >>484631 That god damn Tea Party, trolling our thread. : (

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:10:12 2010 No.484654

>>484433
Gilded age suggester here.

I don't agree with your politics, and I don't agree with your right to say it. But the way to stop you saying it is through a rational public discourse which exposes you as a buffoon. And I'd rather you be the best educated buffoon who knows the ins and outs of their thought before exposing you.

I like my opponents to be the best they can be, its the only way to thoroughly challenge the limitations of my own thought.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:11:12 2010 No.484656 >>484646 I thank you for not lumping me in with them. There are some liberal values I find admirable as well, such as the aforementioned anti-imperialism.

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:11:12 2010 No.484658

>>484649
Not necessarily. More of centrist-right type of administration, but that's because he's trapped in an American political framework. I get the sense he'd be quite the lefty if he was allowed to. But in America, you really can't. Just catching up with the rest of the developed world and implementing a weak for of universal health care has been met with violence and cries of Nazism.

America really is a bizarre political realm unto itself. Its isolation between two oceans has a lot to do with it, I think. Not sure if more isolationism is the answer.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:12:12 2010 No.484663 >>484654 You don't agree with free speech and think that someone should carefully approach arguing with you, as if you're worth it? Wow.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:12:12 2010 No.484664 >>484654 Well then, I'd love to debate you once I've done some more reading. I do, however, find the thought that you don't believe in my right to say whatever I wish a bit disturbing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:14:12 2010 No.484669 File: 57 KB, 350x466, SnøfteSchmidt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>484638 One has to start somewhere.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:16:12 2010 No.484674 >>484658 America would do just fine if we had three or four more political parties. The extremism engendered by cold war ideology and politics really seems to be what has us so fucked up right now.

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:16:12 2010 No.484675

>>484663
How can I believe in free speech as an abstract principle? Free speech is about a power discourse in human society. Free speech is never merely speech but the mobilisation of social movements to achieve power and create social change.

As such I can't believe in abstract free speech, and I feel an obligation to "bash the fash" as it were. Given that the OP's politics are not that far gone, the "bashing" would be rhetorical invective and social debate. But if I am debating someone with the sole intention of destroying their speech and dismantling their social power, I don't actually believe in their right to speak freely, do I?

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:19:12 2010 No.484691

>>484552
Burke person here again, OP. Totally understand you about the racism, not being aligned with the modern Republicans, etc. Another author you might find interesting is Richard Rorty. He's not paleoconservative, but he wrote on the irreconcilability of cultural differences, without the race stuff that you see in Clash of Civilizations.

My only purpose in mentioning the race stuff was to warn you about how much of it you'll keep running into-though it looks like you see it coming.

Best of luck!

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:19:12 2010 No.484694 >>484675 You don't agree with their ideals. That's not the same as speech. Attacking an ideal, a philosophy, an ideology, is not the same as attacking "speech" as such. You need to reassess your understanding of the abstract.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:21:12 2010 No.484701 >>484675 You do realize that free speech is the first amendment, right?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:21:12 2010 No.484703 >>484674 Hit the nail on the head there, couldn't agree more.

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:24:12 2010 No.484720

>>484691

Rorty sounds very interesting and I shall most certainly give him a read as well!

I thank you for giving me the warning, but the sad truth of the matter is that anything having to do with cultural identity is bound to be infested with racists of the worst kind. I went through the same thing when I rethought my religious views.

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:24:12 2010 No.484721

>>484703
The Federalists were explicitly worried about the rise of "factions"- not that this stopped them from breaking off into 2 camps almost before the ink on the Constitution was dry. Adams, or maybe Hamilton, I think, was especially worried about the idea that there would eventually be two huge political groups, defined only by mutual hostility.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:26:12 2010 No.484729 >>484721 Is that in The Federalist Papers? If so, I might bump that up quite a few places in my reading queue.

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:26:12 2010 No.484732

>>484701
You do realise that I'm not a seppo, and, that constitutional change is possible, and, that the courts have failed repeatedly to defend the first amendment and the political terrain in the US is not governed by freedom of speech.

>>484694
An ideology without expression is nothing. Similarly the old "material" freedom of free speech argument. But my argument is that speech itself is a political act, not a representation of a separate "non-acting" ideology. Speech is one of the actions of ideology, and if I wish to shut your ideology down, then I wish to shut your speech down.

It is in Gramsci's war of terrain people.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:28:12 2010 No.484746 >>484729 Federalist No. 10 by Madison

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:28:12 2010 No.484747

>>484732
You're wishing to shut down the speech you argue against, not the act of speech itself, broadly defined. The very fact that you recognize speech is necessary to itself be shut down by you is a recognition of its freedom. Were it not free, it could not be a vehicle to express the ideology you wish to combat. You combat nothing with limitations on it. You want it for the very reason you want to end it. You need it for that very same political act. You can't limit it without limiting yourself.

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:29:12 2010 No.484753

>>484732

Just because something that should be done is not being done, that does not mean that we should adopt the extreme opposite. Rather, we should seek to change the institutions that have failed us in preserving our liberty.

Also, you seek to change their opinions and the mindset which they use to choose what they speak of. Again, this is different than abolishing freedom of speech.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:32:12 2010 No.484767 >>484746 Thank you! I'm getting this at the library tomorrow.

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:32:12 2010 No.484769

>>484732
Defining all speech as political is very weak.

Some speech is, most speech isn't. To understand speech in itself is to understand linguistics, relationships, human communication. I truly doubt you've mastered the implications of all of these forms of study. I don't know of anyone who has.

Your reference to Gramsci leads me to believe you approach it from a purely political science stand point, which doesn't take into account the multi-various other uses of speech. Your view is too narrow.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:33:12 2010 No.484774 OP, what exactly draws you to paleoconservatism?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:35:12 2010 No.484779 >>484746 Augh, thanks, it's been years and my bookshelf is sooo farrr awayyy...

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:36:12 2010 No.484780

>>484774

In the most basic sense, the anti-imperialist stance, the belief in cultural identity, and the idea that government should be more localized than nationalized.

Also, to steal from Wikipedia, aleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleo or paleocon when the context is clear) is a term for an anti-communist and anti-imperialist right-wing political philosophy in the United States stressing tradition, civil society and along with religious, regional, national and Western identity.[1] Chilton Williamson, Jr. describes paleoconservatism as "the expression of rootedness: a sense of place and of history, a sense of self derived from forebears, kin, and culture—an identity that is both collective and personal."[

>>	WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot !!WgWcz5V3TdQ Sat Mar 27 21:36:12 2010 No.484782 So can you guys recommend any must-reads for an ordoliberal?

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:40:12 2010 No.484791

>>484780
I know what it is, I just wanted to know specifically why you were drawn to it than any number of other political philosophies.

Anti-imperialism and decentralization I have no problems with, but... what exactly does 'belief in cultural identity' mean? And why should that factor into politics at all? Frankly, I think there's a good reason paleos are equated with racists.

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:40:12 2010 No.484792

>>484780
The problem is there is no real sense of cultural identity as such in America. It's a mish mash. You exile some necessarily if you want to create a unified culture. That's the essence of America. There is no unified cultural identity beyond nationalism and our collective accomplishments.

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:41:12 2010 No.484795

>>484753
>Rather, we should seek to change the institutions that have failed us in preserving our liberty.
You might want this, American. My "liberty" has never yet been actualised historically for more than a three year period of violent struggle when people specifically seek to shut down my free expression by executing people of my ilk.

Look, for example, at the restriction of speech placed on the Bonus Marchers, a restriction placed by state violence.

>Also, you seek to change their opinions and the mindset which they use to choose what they speak of. Again, this is different than abolishing freedom of speech.

I seek to abolish their ideology by destroying its institutions, conceptions, preconditions and assumptions. This is a clear limit on their speech. I'm willing to accept that I am against universal free speech on this basis.

Another poster,
>You want it for the very reason you want to end it. You need it for that very same political act. You can't limit it without limiting yourself.
I'm okay with self-limitation in order to achieve concrete political outcomes. I'm okay with accepting that I desire limited free speech for certain classes of person or certain ideological segments. I am okay with this self-limitation because I'm pursuing power goals.

>>484769
Nice argument, but this was in the context of a clearly political domain. A universal free speech will include that domain. I don't have clearly formed opinions about microdiscourses and freedom of speech other than the obvious reaction to the feminist critique of small spaces as inherently politicised.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:42:12 2010 No.484799 >>484795 You're Jürgen Habermas, aren't you?

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:44:12 2010 No.484804

>>484791
>>484792

The belief in a cultural identity means a belief that America is descended culturally from Europe. There are, of course, numerous cultures that exist in America today, but the majority of them come from European values and ideals.

I see nothing wrong with excluding cultures which have sprang from other sources from my own cultural identity. I am not a racist so much as a culturalist. There is a very good reason why Europe and America have come to have such power and influence in the world, and it is not due to chance.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:45:12 2010 No.484806 >>484804 What about immigrant-brought microcultures, e.g. Chinatowns?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:45:12 2010 No.484808 >>484795 Well, while I disagree with what you say, I still believe you have the right to say it. Try taking mine away from me, however, and it will be bad for you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:46:12 2010 No.484815 >>484806 They are entitled to their own culture and even their own local government, but the United States itself is descended from Europeans, not the Chinese.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:47:12 2010 No.484819 >>484804 >I see nothing wrong with excluding cultures which have sprang from other sources from my own cultural identity. Seriously? You don't see how this is inherently racist?

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:47:12 2010 No.484822

>>484815
Eh. The political class and ownership came from Europeans, but that doesn't mean there aren't immigrants that made the nation what it is without non-European influence.

My point being, what ideals exactly are you extolling? What ideals that influence culture that you see as purely European do you think need to be conserved, or that are threatened by other cultures? I can't think of any.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:49:12 2010 No.484824 >>484819 Being proud of one's own culture and its achievements is racist? I have nothing culturally in common with an Australian Aborigine, but I should immediately accept his culture as a part of who I am?

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot !!WgWcz5V3TdQ Sat Mar 27 21:49:12 2010 No.484827

>>484804
>There is a very good reason why Europe and America have come to have such power and influence in the world, and it is not due to chance.

Read Jared Diamond and Paul Kennedy and you will realize that it wasn't our culture that made us powerful.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:49:12 2010 No.484831 >>484824 You choose to accept what makes up what you are. Non-Euro influence doesn't detract from that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:50:12 2010 No.484836 >>484824 No, excluding other culture is pretty racist, though. Your second point is kind of a non-sequitur...

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:51:12 2010 No.484837 >>484799 >You're Jürgen Habermas, aren't you? I wish I could be so generous and friendly while being so critical, but thank you for the complement!

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:52:12 2010 No.484840

Well, I came here to get recommendations and not to debate, though the debate has certainly been lively. I'm bowing out of this one with the promise that once I've read some of the works that others have recommended to me here I will be back for further debate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:53:12 2010 No.484847 >>484836 Not the guy you were talking to, but how, exactly is that racist?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:55:12 2010 No.484849 >>484822 Not OP, but the whole hip-hop consumer culture that is taking over today's youth could certainly fit that bill.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:55:12 2010 No.484850 >>484847 Where does culture come from?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:55:12 2010 No.484851 >>484836 Culture and race are different things. It's racist to assume that, say, raping virgins to get rid of AIDS is a racial characteristic of Blacks rather than a cultural characteristic of some Africans.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:56:12 2010 No.484853 >>484849 Wait, consumerism is tied directly to hip hop/black culture? What?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:57:12 2010 No.484856 >>484853 They aren't directly tied together, but there is certainly a correlation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:58:12 2010 No.484857 >>484850 Family, land, and people.

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 21:58:12 2010 No.484859

>>484827

If you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know that Diamond agrees that culture has played into European/American power over the world. His argument is that the cultural characteristics that enabled this were able to develop due to environment, NOT that they have no place in making these cultures powerful.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 22:01:12 2010 No.484872 >>484851 This. Multiracialism =/= multiculturalism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 22:05:12 2010 No.484882 Don't let the debate die just because OP left! I found this thread very informative.

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 22:06:12 2010 No.484890

>>484859
and if YOU knew what you were talking about, you'd know that the United States grew to be powerful through its unique geographical position, its abundant natural resources, and its rise in power at a time of relative economic decline for the other major powers.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 22:08:12 2010 No.484897 >>484890 But what was it that led us to become the USA in the first place? Certainly not the middle-easterners, asians, africans, or others.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 22:11:12 2010 No.484906 >>484890 Typical self-hating liberal, always looking for excuses to why we're so much more awesome than anyone else.

>>	WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot !!WgWcz5V3TdQ Sat Mar 27 22:12:12 2010 No.484912 >>484897 But the cultural origins of the U.S. were not what led to the U.S.'s current position of power.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 22:13:12 2010 No.484914 >>484912 But the US would not have existed at all without those cultures.

>>	WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot !!WgWcz5V3TdQ Sat Mar 27 22:16:12 2010 No.484922 >>484914 I'm not saying that the US would have existed without those cultures. I am saying that our current position of strength was a result of factors other than any sort of european-descendant culture.

Anonymous Sat Mar 27 22:17:12 2010 No.484929

>>484922

European-descended cultures led European-descendants into this land which was not being utilized to its maximum potential by the different, non-European culture that was here already. European drive and strength of will led us to utilize these resources as they were meant to be used.

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot !!WgWcz5V3TdQ Sat Mar 27 22:20:12 2010 No.484935

>European drive and strength of will
But these are extremely ill-defined and nebulous ideas. I might as well say that it was "American spunk and moxy" that won World War 2. But the fact remains that it was not just that. It was also the result of economic and military trends that had nothing to do with America's culture.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 22:27:12 2010 No.484948 >>484935 By your logic Native Americans should be in control of one of the most successful countries on earth, but this is obviously not the case.

>>	WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot !!WgWcz5V3TdQ Sat Mar 27 22:28:12 2010 No.484951 >>484948 >by your logic I don't understand. Could you expand on your statement?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 22:29:12 2010 No.484955 >>484951 Well, they were here and in control of all these resources first, were they not? Something inherent in their culture and mindset prevented them from utilizing these resources to their fullest potential.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 22:31:12 2010 No.484960 >>484955 >They lacked gunpowder.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 22:31:12 2010 No.484965 >>484960 There was nothing preventing them from discovering it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 22:39:12 2010 No.484983 Once again liberals get butthurt and start making excuses as to why everyone else has fared so poorly. They can't accept the fact that some cultures are simply superior to others. Sad, really.

>>	WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot !!WgWcz5V3TdQ Sat Mar 27 22:41:12 2010 No.484989 >>484983 >culture >superior LOOK OUT CAPTAIN, ITS A DEBATE ON CULTURAL RELATIVISM FAST APPROACHING

>>	WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot !!WgWcz5V3TdQ Sat Mar 27 22:42:12 2010 No.484991 >>484965 You do know that once Native Americans were introduced to firearms, they adopted them enthusiastically, right? And that they lacked the factories and technology to produce more of them?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 22:42:12 2010 No.484992 >>484989 There is no relativism when it comes to culture and anyone who says otherwise needs to get the guilt out of their eyes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 22:44:12 2010 No.484996 >>484991 Of course they embraced them. Tribal Africans did the same thing. But their cultures and mindsets were simply not of the same caliber as those of European descendants. This is why they hadn't invented them beforehand.

>>	WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot !!WgWcz5V3TdQ Sat Mar 27 22:45:12 2010 No.484999 >>484996 >But their cultures and mindsets were simply not of the same caliber as those of European descendants. This is why paleoconservatism attracts racists, dude.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 27 22:46:12 2010 No.485004 >>484999 It's rather unfortunate that the only people attracted to realism are those who I'd rather not be associated with.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 00:21:12 2010 No.485301 > See paleoconservatism thread on /lit/ > control-F for "Goldwater" > No results found > control-F for "Buckley" > No results found > /lit/ is officially useless

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 28 00:28:12 2010 No.485332 File: 30 KB, 482x399, moron.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>485301 >Goldwater and Buckley >paleoconservative

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

/lit/ - Literature