>Carlyle >Reactionary what the fuck /lit/ who made this garbage

File: 901 KB, 1500x984, reactionary.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Oct 26 21:51:48 2014 No.5640658 [Reply] [Original]

>Carlyle
>Reactionary
what the fuck /lit/ who made this garbage

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 26 21:54:21 2014 No.5640678 idk, probably reddit

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 26 21:59:11 2014 No.5640711 >>5640678 I've seen it touted around on here almost as much as that shitty /lit/ guide to right wing literature

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 26 22:00:54 2014 No.5640723 File: 1.47 MB, 4000x3549, lit_conservatism_chart.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5640658 this one is much better. And besides, whoever thinks Tolkien's works are even remotely concerned with real world politics isn't worth listening to.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 26 22:01:24 2014 No.5640725 >>5640723 Speak of the devil

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 26 22:11:45 2014 No.5640776 >>5640658 Carlyle disliked democracy, making him redpill as fuck.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 26 22:12:41 2014 No.5640778 >>5640723 Tolkiens work can be analyzed from a Right wing viewpoint in that it clearly advocates for a return to traditionalism and away from rampant industrialization.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 26 22:14:12 2014 No.5640785 >>5640658 carlyle is probably one of the only ones in that pic who deserve to be called reactionary you utter dumbfuck

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 26 22:15:23 2014 No.5640790 >>5640785 He was a romantic, you cumguzzler

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 26 22:30:10 2014 No.5640848 >>5640790 "romantic" is an artistic stance, not a political one. it isn't mutually exclusive with "reactionary."

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 26 22:35:50 2014 No.5640869 >>5640723 Is liberalism right or left wing?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 26 22:39:15 2014 No.5640879 >>5640869 Historically or now? Classical liberalism or modern? >>5640848 >Romantic is an artistic stance Just leave

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 26 22:40:33 2014 No.5640888 >>5640879 >Classical liberalism or modern? Oh, you must be American. Liberalism means less governance.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 26 22:45:44 2014 No.5640902 >>5640888 I know, but given the significant american posting on 4chan it seemed relevant to ask. No, liberalism isn't right wing. Right wing (conservatives and reactionaries) are historically concerned with the monarchy.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 26 22:47:57 2014 No.5640912 >>5640879 Wow, Romantiscism can be as much reactionary as it is revolutionary. Never heard of Goethe or Pushkin?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 26 23:15:40 2014 No.5641028 >>5640912 No

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 26 23:36:08 2014 No.5641123 >>5640658 how the fugg is Beowulf reactionary?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 26 23:38:17 2014 No.5641134 >>5641123 who even knows m8 this entire chart is pants on head retarded

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 26 23:38:22 2014 No.5641135 Reactionary doesn't mean pro monarchy, why do people take that stupid interpretation? It could mean that, it surely did 200 years ago, but alone like that it doesn't mean shit.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 26 23:42:49 2014 No.5641151 >>5640658 >Carlyle >not reactionary Are you dumb.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 26 23:44:19 2014 No.5641159 >>5641135 >not being promonarchy >being a pissbaby reactionary

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 26 23:47:42 2014 No.5641175 >>5641135 Reactionary has no set philosophy you clownboat. Its a reaction to contemporary society.

Anonymous Sun Oct 26 23:47:44 2014 No.5641176

>>5641135
>Reactionary doesn't mean pro monarchy

Well yeah, I guess you could advocate for some other form of hierarchical power distribution instead, but being pro-monarchy is definitely reactionary.

Also that list is fine, Carlyle, Filmer, de Maistre, Evola, Guenon, and Spengler are all reactionary as fuck.

Anonymous Sun Oct 26 23:50:34 2014 No.5641190

>not understanding anything about science, genetics, or the evolution of populations
>using phrases like "cultural marxism" when the phrase "cultural marxism" doesn't even make any sense and is nonsensical to anyone who actually knows anything about marxism

I sympathize with some of the neoreactionary ideas (not the traditionalist religion shit though), but in all seriousness, why are racist/MRA neoreactionaries consistently getting blown the fuck out? Every NRx blog I read is laughably bad, and usually written by some religious basement dwelling metacontrarian who uses the word "fedora" as a pejorative but ironically fulfills every checkmark on the list of the fedora stereotype.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 26 23:51:21 2014 No.5641192 File: 15 KB, 231x346, 41t7jw4JnLL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] These lists are retarded and I'm embarrassed by a lot of the people that are in these threads, but I really really like Theodore Dalrymple

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 26 23:51:59 2014 No.5641194 >>5641176 Not necessarily, depending on what country you're in being pro monarchy could be perfectly mainstream

Anonymous Sun Oct 26 23:58:43 2014 No.5641210

>>5641190
There is no good NRx blog besides Moldbug.

>>5641194
Eh, I don't consider people who support democracy and constitutional monarchy to be "pro-monarchy." Those are the kinds of people who argue that the monarchy should be kept because it brings in tourist dollars.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:00:21 2014 No.5641214 >>5641192 I read Dalrymple's column on Takimag, he is usually cringeworthy and definitely not a reactionary.

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:02:22 2014 No.5641221

>>5641210
>There is no good NRx blog besides Moldbug.

Even Moldbug is shaky, but I do admit I enjoy some of his writing, as rambling and affected as it may be, especially his post about what happens when you "speak truth to power". It seems as though he's stopped writing though.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:03:25 2014 No.5641227 >>5641214 >he is usually cringeworthy and definitely not a reactionary being cringeworthy and being a reactionary go hand in hand, so he should fit right in

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:06:09 2014 No.5641238

>>5641190
It makes sense given Moldbug's background, that he'd bring out some serious geek to his following.

You're making associations that don't really make sense (MRA's are gender egalitarians, not reactionaries. ), so while they may label themselves reactionary, they don't have any idea beyond the surface level of what that entails. I don't think most people do now, unfortunately.

Don't read the blogs, there's much better published material.

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:09:29 2014 No.5641255

Why the fuck is Fascist and proto-Fascist literature mixed in with a. Conservative literature without a Fascist or authoritarian bent and b. Old myths and fairy tales, and fantasy novels inspired by old myths and fairy tales? I could see an argument for Lewis, but Tolkien?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:10:41 2014 No.5641261 >>5641255 Welcome to Neoreaction, aka Virgin Nerd Amateur Hour Bonanza.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:11:55 2014 No.5641268 >>5641190 Why are MRAs lumped in as right wing reactionaries? Most of their talking points about curbing and preventing domestic abuse or about promoting LGBT rights are actually fairly liberal if not outright progressive.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:13:53 2014 No.5641273 >>5641268 >Why are MRAs lumped in as right wing reactionaries? Because there is an enormous overlap between the online neoreaction movement, the men's rights movement, the pickup artist movement, and the traditionalist / Biblethumping movement.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:14:40 2014 No.5641277 >>5641268 I guess the same reason white rights and bourgeois rights activists tend to be considered right wing.

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:15:33 2014 No.5641279

>>5641273

This is a stereotype held by people who don't realize that gay and trans rights and equal pay for women are major men's rights issues, mostly because of negative press that falsely claims troll sites like returnofkings are MRA or falsely equates MRA and PUA mindsets.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:17:40 2014 No.5641289 >>5641277 Boy, I sure am glad to know that preventing sexual assault and domestic abuse against male victims is equivalent to fascist-tinted racial supremacist movements

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:17:49 2014 No.5641291

>>5641255
It might be apolitical in nature but still represent a former (and highly stylized) organization of society. It's silly though, for both Fascist and apolitical writings to be on there, but it's a step up from >>5640723, quite frankly.

>>5641268
Mostly to discredit them I'd imagine.
As >>5641279 says, most PUA sites despise MRAs.

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:19:28 2014 No.5641300

>>5641279
No, it's literally not a stereotype. Almost every single large neoreactionary blog links to and references other blogs from these various movements. Neoreaction is an umbrella organization, not a single ideology. It employs the "Big Tent" strategy.

I can link you to some of the major ones like Radish Magazine, Heartiste, TRS, etc. and you can see for yourself. They all routinely discuss each other.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:21:15 2014 No.5641309 >>5641289 They aren't equivalent, it's just that for some reason there's an enormous overlap between the two. Analogously: blame the fanbase, not the work of art itself.

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:21:18 2014 No.5641310

>>5641289
That is a stereotype. There is racism against whites, a lot of hate crime gets committed against whites, and it is ignored by the law and the media. Blacks have a leg up in scholarships and getting a job, they need fewer qualifications than a white applicant, just being black makes you more eligible for a job or a scholarship due to quotas.

But whatever, bring up facts and it makes you a fascist shitlord.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:23:48 2014 No.5641315 File: 247 KB, 513x742, 1412809299412.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5641279 >returnofkings >troll site Are Jezabel and Gawker "troll sites" now too?

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:25:26 2014 No.5641320

>>5641315

Jezebel and Gawker present usually reasonable opinions, if somewhat presented in a sensationalistic style by ideological hacks. returnofkings does not present reasonable opinions and exists solely for the purpose of eliciting negative responses by spouting counterintuitive, hateful bullshit. That is the definition of trolling.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:26:11 2014 No.5641321 >>5641320 >exists solely for the purpose of eliciting negative responses Source

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:26:54 2014 No.5641323

>>5641310

There isn't "racism" against whites, just as there isn't "sexism" against men, because both of those "-isms" are based on a system of vertical oppression based on who holds power in society. Any educated person conscious of these issues recognizes that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:27:17 2014 No.5641327 File: 6 KB, 200x199, jackstop.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5641320 >Jezebel and Gawker present usually reasonable opinions

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:28:59 2014 No.5641333

>>5641323
There is racism against whites, there is sexism against men, and there is growing discrimination against straight, traditional families, and there is a festering hatred of people who are financially successful and hardworking. If you'd take off your SJW goggles for a few minutes you could see it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:30:15 2014 No.5641340 >>5641333 >growing discrimination against straight, traditional families This is the sort of nonsense that reactionaries actually think

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:31:19 2014 No.5641347 >>5641320 >Jezebel and Gawker present usually reasonable opinions At least try to troll

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:31:29 2014 No.5641348 >>5641340 It's true though.

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:31:40 2014 No.5641349

>>5641320
A quick look at the comments section of Return of Kings and it becomes obvious that that site is not tongue in cheek, or just simply "trolling". 200+ "Trolls" don't upvote comments discussing how women are shit with a straight face.

Again, I'm not saying modern women aren't shit. The point is that modern men are shit as well, and websites like that are Exhibit A.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:32:21 2014 No.5641353 >>5641340 this is the kind of post transgendered otherkin make

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:32:54 2014 No.5641355 >>5641323 >muh power and prejudice fuck off cunt

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:33:09 2014 No.5641356 >>5641333 >festering hatred of people who are financially successful and hardworking Don't you enjoy feeding on that resentment? Sometimes I take a drive with my friends past trailer parks so we can point and laugh at the poor white trash.

Feminarkist !!XI7SJUHr/Uv Mon Oct 27 00:34:01 2014 No.5641359

>>5641320
I'm a feminist whose opinions would be considered full SJW by most of this site and even I think the entire Gawker network is a steaming pile of clickbait. They're not even "ideological hacks", they're just hacks. Look up their coverage of Chris Brown's childhood abuse and get back to me on their "reasonable opinions".

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:34:42 2014 No.5641361 >>5641359 What are your opinions? I'm genuinely curious.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:37:26 2014 No.5641372 >>5641359 Do you think men who are single for a long time or are virgins are that way because they are misogynists and disrespect women? Years spent on 4chan have slowly indoctrinated me into thinking that's a main idea feminists believe.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:37:31 2014 No.5641374 >>5641359 You are such a completely trite, mediocre tripfag.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:37:45 2014 No.5641376 >>5641323 >I'm going to redefine sexism and racism to mean something else entirely no

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:39:42 2014 No.5641380 >>5641376 That's not a redefinition. That is an explanation that exists as much within the halls of academia and the definitions used in professional studies as it does in angry internet arguments.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:41:03 2014 No.5641387 >>5641327 >Vice-reading libertarian pothead manchild detected

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:41:17 2014 No.5641388 [DELETED]

File: 30 KB, 700x453, truelove.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5641340
>>5641320
mad as fuck femifaggots detected

mfw im a manager at work

mfw i descriminate against women always

mfw ill get raises to men who are outright worse employees over women

mfw i wont hire a woman over a man

mfw i wont promote women either

mfw i do this all silently and there is nothing anyone can do to stop me

i think its funny as fuck. keep bitching about inequality you little fuck tools. ill be over here doing what ive always done lol

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:41:40 2014 No.5641392 >>5641323 you're throwing away the idea that racism is wrong because we shouldn't discriminate unfairly based on race, and saying instead that racism is wrong because it's just something powerful rich white people do.

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:41:45 2014 No.5641393

>>5641380
>racism: noun prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

>sexism: noun prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

nothing about a system of vertical oppression

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:41:47 2014 No.5641394

>>5641356
I don't actually find that trailer trash tends to hate successful people. The greatest source of hatred of success comes from people who are slightly successful because they have it handed to them, but aren't ambitious or hardworking enough to make the most of their headstart, so they perceive ambition, innovation and motivation as morally repugnant in order to make themselves feel like saints.

Feminarkist !!XI7SJUHr/Uv Mon Oct 27 00:42:00 2014 No.5641395

>>5641361
depends on what. I agree with most of the standard positions about gender as a social construct (or more accurately, I don't give a fuck what it is, I just don't see a good reason to interfere with how people identify or present). Power + prejudice vs. just prejudice is a distinction that needs to be made, as long as it's being made I don't care about the semantics but when people bring up "reverse racism" or something without understanding why it's different I cringe. Gender, racial other social issues in media etc. should be taken seriously (although nobody's actually trying to police what you enjoy), rape culture is real, affirmative consent is a good idea etc.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:42:34 2014 No.5641398 >>5641388 >im a manager at work It's nice that you have a job, but do you really think supervising line cooks at McDonald's is something to brag about?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:43:14 2014 No.5641400 >>5641380 >That's not a redefinition yes it is back to your women's studies class

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:43:53 2014 No.5641402 >>5641395 I have never seen anyone actually argue for "reverse racism" they just point out that anyone can be the victim of racism. And no, that distinction doesn't need to be made. Racism is racism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:43:59 2014 No.5641403 >>5641398 >LOL U WERK AT MCDONALDS LOL stay mad cunt worshiper protip: putting pussy on a pedestal wont get you laid

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:44:15 2014 No.5641404 >>5641388 >femifaggots lol. all this manchild rage with no outlet but to shitpost on /lit/. must be a tough life to live m8

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:44:26 2014 No.5641405 >>5641395 >affirmative consent is a good idea I think so too, but most women leave the bedroom in disgust when I demand they sign a contract or agree to an audio recording confirming that we both consent.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:46:07 2014 No.5641409 File: 79 KB, 403x498, thou has t'be shitting me.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5641395 >Power + prejudice vs. just prejudice is a distinction that needs to be made >rape culture is real >affirmative consent is a good idea

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:46:58 2014 No.5641413 >>5641409 I bet you only vote for politicians who voted against the Violence Against Women Act

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:47:32 2014 No.5641418 File: 90 KB, 300x450, multiple-testicular-impalement.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5641404 stay mad as fuck m80 i jerk off with your pussywhipped tears

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:48:09 2014 No.5641419 >>5641413 I don't vote for anyone. They're all horrible people.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:49:07 2014 No.5641423 >>5641419 >I don't vote for anyone Given your horrific misogynistic opinions, it's probably for the better that you abstain from having a say in the democratic system

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:49:11 2014 No.5641424

>>5641395
>affirmative consent is a good idea

Only virgins say this, which again solidifies my notion that all feminists who actually give a shit about what they term "rape culture" are all landwhale virgins who look like Lindy West.

There is nothing less sexy then asking for permission in the middle of undressing a bitch and fucking her. Not that Lindy Wesy-ite feminists would know, because they've never been laid.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:50:16 2014 No.5641430 >>5641424 Wow, shaming women for their sexual status. Classy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:50:37 2014 No.5641433 >>5641423 >he disagrees with SJ >he's a misogynist stay classy, liberals

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:50:39 2014 No.5641434 >>5641423 see >>5641418

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:52:11 2014 No.5641437
File: 15 KB, 244x300, laughing foucaulr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5641423
>he thinks his vote means anything

Given how easily tricked you are into thinking you have real power when you don't, it's probably better that you spend your time defending lost causes on an online Cambodian photograph bazaar.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:52:44 2014 No.5641438 >>5641430 see >>5641418

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 00:57:31 2014 No.5641443 sweet mra tears

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 01:00:13 2014 No.5641451 sweet tears

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 01:00:47 2014 No.5641454 >>5641443 please point out these MRA tears

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 01:01:43 2014 No.5641459 >>5641443 see >>5641418

Feminarkist !!XI7SJUHr/Uv Mon Oct 27 01:02:59 2014 No.5641465

>>5641402
"anyone can be the victim of racism" is still dumb if it implies prejudice and power+prejudice have the same impact. "reverse racism" is just an especially annoying word (and yes, I have seen it used).

>>5641405
nice strawman.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 01:04:26 2014 No.5641469 >>5641465 >"anyone can be the victim of racism" is still dumb if it implies prejudice and power+prejudice have the same impact >implying they don't >implying parsing them out does absolutely anything for addressing racism

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 01:08:32 2014 No.5641480

>>5641469
Chomsky has a pretty interesting interview in which he comments how racism is just a boogieman to make people blame each other instead of blaming the power structures that out it in place (be it state, corporations, church, etc). You have the masses pointing fingers at each other and censoring his opinions instead of questioning why that's a thing. He comments on how MLK jr was turned into state propaganda for that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 01:13:30 2014 No.5641487 >>5641480 >muh power structures Jesus christ just stop

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 01:15:21 2014 No.5641493 >>5641487 are you a post-structuralist

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 01:17:12 2014 No.5641497 >>5641493 >>5641493 God no.

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 01:45:39 2014 No.5641570
File: 119 KB, 335x211, hansolo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>MFW conservatives and reactionaries start bitching about "post modernism" (skeptical interpretations of culture, art and history), "Cultural Marxism" (analyzing cultural history through a materialist lens), "Feminism" (Movement towards gender equality and egalitarianism) and "Patriarchy" (cultural bias towards male power and authority) when it's blatantly obvious they have no fucking idea what they are even talking about and don't even have a basic grasp on even a single thing of what those words even mean.

Reactionaries are the dumbest fucks you can argue with because they can never be fucked to read or research anything that doesn't automatically conform to their pre-determined social beliefs and will never change their ideas on anything.

Reactionaries are not just conservatives though, even leftist fucks like The Amazing Athiest don't even have the most basic understand of feminist theory or sociology, he like most just strawmans patriarchy as "a secret club that all men belong to who think about putting down women!, fucking conspiracy level crazy bullshit!" instead of the actual social structure it describes and then does that terrible argument "Well men lose child custody more! Men get less mental health help! how can patriarchy exist huh!" when THOSE ISSUES ARE LITERALLY CAUSED BY THE SOCIAL CONDITIONS OF FUCKING PATRIARCHY.

Arguing against reactionaries is like arguing against a brick, there is no fucking point. There is a psychological effect caused "The Backfire syndrome" that basically all reactionaries suffer heavily from and actually makes it psychologically impossible to change their minds on a topic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 01:49:02 2014 No.5641577 >>5641570 >create an unfalsifiable concept that anyone with critical thinking skills doesn't believe in >get mad when people don't agree with your view and call them intelligent I bet you claim to support free and independent thought.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 01:50:05 2014 No.5641579 >>5641577 >ignorant Fucking autocorrect

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 01:52:59 2014 No.5641593

>>5641268
>Most of their talking points about curbing and preventing domestic abuse or about promoting LGBT rights are actually fairly liberal if not outright progressive.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ahem, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

As a former hardcore MRA, this is a load of shit.

The vast majority of the MRA movement are neo-reactionaries who hide behind a self-professed "progressive" movement, that really just masks defending the status-quo gender relations.

Male issues are fought for heavily by actual feminists. Listening to public radio the other day they were talking about male issues that I've never even once seen brought up by MRAs or brought up in the 6-8 years I was a radical MRA.

I have no problem with groups that try fight for fathers rights, or mental health clinics for men or whatever, but the MRA movement is just filled with toxic misogyny and the worst part is that they are totally blind to it and will claim they are egalitarian and yet in the same sentence say some ultra passive-aggressive misogynistic shit.

I've literally seen countless MRAs say shit like "I'm not misogynistic, women just don't have the brains to do this stuff!, it's evolutionary!" and shit like that.

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 01:56:17 2014 No.5641607

>>5641577
>create an unfalsifiable concept

How is patriarchy unfalsifiable? Please tell the 150 years of sociology is metaphysical when sociology is literally founded in the materialist scientific movement.

What you are saying is "Because I can't disprove patriarchy because the overwhelming documented and material evidence it exists, It doesn't exist."

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 01:56:22 2014 No.5641609 >>5641593 >t. Anita Sarkeesian

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 01:57:19 2014 No.5641613 >>5641609 Great argument there. If you reactionaries stand so strongly behind your beliefs, please actually argue them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 01:58:23 2014 No.5641615 >>5641607 What evidence would need to arise for you to drop the concept of the patriarchy? You've already swallowed the idea of patriarchal backfire so it clearly isn't when the system that strongly prejudices men harms them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 01:59:24 2014 No.5641622 >>5641613 >implying I will respond to obvious b8 with anything more than a funpost

>>	WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy Mon Oct 27 02:03:37 2014 No.5641634 File: 14 KB, 400x383, sad robot2.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >my beliefs of the feelings and trends of groups are the truest

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 02:05:07 2014 No.5641637

>>5641615
Evidence that either societies gender roles are egalitarian based or slanted towards female power structures, which they clearly are not and no evidence or study of culture historically can lead us to those assumptions.

Society was created by men, for men, the most powerful in the world are men and society idealizes traits of power as masculine.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 02:07:38 2014 No.5641646 >>5641637 I'm far too high to respond to this tonight. If this thread is up in the morning I'll try to remember to respond

WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy Mon Oct 27 02:09:39 2014 No.5641649
File: 24 KB, 295x377, Kali Statue.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5641615
Patriarchy deals with institutional power. Patriarchy as "society that benefits men" or some shit is bullshit and incorrect with the academic understanding of the term.

The issue with this is it clearly shows the female focus over men in gender studies as institutional power has it's own issues that come with it so valuing it as the most valuable thing in gender relations shows a focus on getting what men have, which is most likely because of the heads of the field early on were women.

Both sides struggle because of their roles they are conditioned to. The focus on institutional power and making it equal has liberated women but done little for men because of it. Power in society has nothing to do with institutional power but people's positive liberty.

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 02:10:23 2014 No.5641651

Reactionary here.

I am resigned to the collapse of Western civilization and the disappearance of the European peoples in a brown tide rising from the Third World.

But if order breaks down sufficiently during my lifetime, I am going to do me best to execute as many Progressives and other assorted traitors as I can you. You all disgust me.

WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy Mon Oct 27 02:14:44 2014 No.5641662
File: 200 KB, 500x566, smtgummies.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5641637
>Society was created by men, for men

Yes, we totally have men trained to be good workers and sacrificial for their own sake and totally not the common good of all.

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 02:15:45 2014 No.5641667

>>5641646
>Browsing 4chan while high.

Oh god how?

>>5641649
As someone who hold feminist beliefs, I agree with this and is why I view more importantly the wider struggle of the proletariat, not just bourgeois liberal feminism which actually pisses me off quite a bit because all it's really doing is trying to push females to the top of hierarchical tyrannical power structures.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 02:17:29 2014 No.5641673 >>5641662 Patriarchy isn't good for most men, it's good for men in powerful positions.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 02:22:09 2014 No.5641683 >>5641673 How exactly?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 02:22:46 2014 No.5641687 >>5641673 Men care about what is good for the whole, not what is good for themselves. Unlike women, who are selfish, have short time preferences, and only care about what is good for themselves.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 02:23:07 2014 No.5641688 >>5641667 Because my life is dope and I do dope shit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 02:24:10 2014 No.5641691 >>5641673 That's an oligarchy then

WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy Mon Oct 27 02:24:52 2014 No.5641693
File: 144 KB, 854x859, abstractfeel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5641667
>"As someone who hold feminist beliefs, I agree with this..."
>this is the general view of the the biggest thinkers in men's rights, who recently began to try to avoid labels due to the crap happening on both sides.

>>5641673
So what is the focus then? The powerful positions or the small amount of men who get them?

The view of feminism for decades has been letting people know women can compete with the men for these small amounts of powerful positions, mainly as a reaction to the strict "housewife" role instilled during the 50s and such and in many cases trying to escape it and demonizing the past situation of women, which has also done nothing for trying to get men to be okay with taking up that role as well.

All the focus has been on getting men and women in men's social roles and while we can quite some cases of Gloria Steinem talking about wanting to get men okay with women's roles there has been incredibly little work towards that and much done against it.

>>5641688
Best poster.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 02:33:33 2014 No.5641719 >>5641570 I'd argue that what is called the tpartriarchy greatly benefits both men and women when we are allowed to act in accordance with our reapective natures. As soon as that is tampered with, it becomes terrible.

>>	WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy Mon Oct 27 02:35:26 2014 No.5641726 >>5641719 >being gender essentialist Prep your pantaloons, Jeremy. It's gonna be a bumpy ride.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 02:36:01 2014 No.5641728 >>5641465 That ignoea the fact that being in a so-called oppressed group has an inherent power of its own. The egalitarian axioms required to even utilize that definition makes it inadequate to begin with.

>>	WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy Mon Oct 27 02:39:04 2014 No.5641732 File: 401 KB, 3872x2592, octo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >nothing I'm disappointed. I was ready for more.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 02:49:15 2014 No.5641748 >>5641726 Honestly, I think it's irrelevant. Even if the only differences were reproductive, I would still feel the same way.

>>	WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy Mon Oct 27 02:51:45 2014 No.5641751 >>5641748 Complementary gender roles are a pretty big jump away from the "liberating" ideas of the west, however. Honestly, it's impractical at the least.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 02:52:18 2014 No.5641753 >>5641751 Impractical? Jeez dude, don't forget to comb your neckbeard

>>	WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy Mon Oct 27 02:53:15 2014 No.5641760 File: 115 KB, 700x837, but i love fried potatoes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5641753 Wat

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 02:54:10 2014 No.5641763

>>5641570
>"Cultural Marxism"

This phrase doesn't even mean anything. It's completely nonsensical. It's a buzzword used by conservatives who don't know anything about Marxism.

>The whole idea of "applying" Marxist theory/dimat to a specific facet of superstructure or base, such as culture, is fundamentally flawed. Dimat is an overarching analytical framework that serves as the base for Marxism. It's not a specific framework. Culture always has a place in the framework, as it's a part of superstructure in the relationship we've established above. You can't apply Marxist theory specifically to culture (as is proposed by cultural Marxism) because culture is already an element of Marxist dialectics, and is already examined via the theoretical framework. Furthermore, even if we were to examine culture specifically using dimat, this is contradictory in nature. Marxist theory is deterministic, where Marx emphasized that ideas have no significant consequences. To examine culture deterministically would be a fundamental contradiction to Marxist theory - it would be a dialectic idealism, not a materialism.

>The term "cultural Marxism," then, is either redundant, or self-contradictory in nature. Certainly the Frankfurt School would have nothing to do with such an application of dialectic materialism, but even if they were, they would quickly run into problems. Beyond the Frankfurt School, framing of the term "cultural Marxism" is inherently flawed because it fails to grasp a basic understanding of Marxist dialectics, and this is why it serves no position in scholarly debate, but in propagandizing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 02:55:56 2014 No.5641768 >>5641751 That could be true, but I can't see any other system being anymore practical. I feel that we likely have very different goals though.

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 02:58:08 2014 No.5641774

>>5641751

>impractical

How are negative birth rates practical?

How is cultural demonization of nuclear families practical?

How is widespread depression and malcontent practical?

Feminist cultures will always be overran or subsided by "patriarchy" cultures as feminism just creates weak societies.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 02:59:04 2014 No.5641776 >>5641763 I thought that it was based off the colloquial use of the term Marxism and that Cultural Marxism was about trying to create some form of cultural egalitarianism.

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 03:01:49 2014 No.5641782

>>5641776
>based off the colloquial use of the term Marxism

If by "colloquial use of the term Marxism" you mean "a phrase that refers to a boogeyman created by conservatives who don't understand what dialectical materialism / Marxism is" then yes, you're correct.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 03:03:35 2014 No.5641784 >>5641774 >negative birth rates There is nothing inherently wrong with negative birth rates. Take your breeder scum ideology elsewhere, Pedro, the adults are talking.

WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy Mon Oct 27 03:08:26 2014 No.5641794
File: 146 KB, 1024x1280, 1347761484231.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5641768
What would say is your goal though?
And, also, what is less practical about what we have currently?

>>5641774
>How are negative birth rates practical?
Most likely caused by abortion/contraception than the liberation of roles, however. Contraception did wonders to empower liberation from roles. Take that away and keep the liberation and you may have a far different picture. If you wish to have abortion/contraceptives, though, I could see enforced gender roles being a positive thing but there would be no clear way to enforce it that isn't tested by the sheer existence of abortion/contraceptive methods in the society.

>How is cultural demonization of nuclear families practical?
Isn't that only because of the free love movement and reaction to gendered roles?

>How is widespread depression and malcontent practical?
That is pretty loaded, yo.

>>5641784
Economically, it could cause a lot of problems.

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 03:08:50 2014 No.5641796

>>5641593
>I've literally seen countless MRAs say shit like "I'm not misogynistic, women just don't have the brains to do this stuff!, it's evolutionary!" and shit like that.

Are you arguing that the two sexes haven't been exposed to different pressures that lead to different traits being selected?

Next time I visit my doctor I'll have to ask him what happened to my womb.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 03:13:37 2014 No.5641811 >>5641794 >What would say is your goal though? To creat a nation strong enough to conquer other lands and dominate their populace. I think it's pretty easy to see how our modern system may be inadequate for that.

WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy Mon Oct 27 03:18:13 2014 No.5641823
File: 38 KB, 472x390, 1348439170374.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5641811
But our tech and weapons, along with our soldiers, are pretty based. How are we inadequate and how does our common folk to reflect our ability to conquer lands and dominate others?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 03:19:29 2014 No.5641829 >>5641726 >"gender" >thinking anyone gives a shit about anything except your biological sex You can call yourself a space unicorn for all I care. Doesn't change your chromosomes.

>>	WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy Mon Oct 27 03:20:34 2014 No.5641836 >>5641829 >not thinking they aren't synonymous terms to the common people Get in touch, Jeremy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 03:22:25 2014 No.5641840 >>5641836 Indeed, which is why your use of the term "gender essentialism" as a pejorative implies that you're just as dumb as the people who want to push gender as some strange construct differentiated from biological sex.

WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy Mon Oct 27 03:32:10 2014 No.5641867
File: 99 KB, 650x844, Baby Dredd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5641840
I simply gave them the label for their views. I didn't meant to show contempt. I knew evolutionary psychology is a touchy subject just about anywhere so it coming up is a pretty sure sign an argument will happen.

You're picking a fight with the wrong person. Stop your shit, Jeremy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 03:39:27 2014 No.5641881 >>5641867 >Jeremy Is this some weird new slang SJW's use or something?

>>	WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy Mon Oct 27 03:40:35 2014 No.5641887 File: 36 KB, 768x576, Wendy Darling.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5641881 Of course not, the fuck is wrong with you, Jeremy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 03:47:15 2014 No.5641903 >>5641887 So you're just autistic then, gotcha.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 03:52:05 2014 No.5641917 >>5641784 Eat shit solipstic scum.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 03:53:54 2014 No.5641922 >>5641917 tips low IQ

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 03:56:44 2014 No.5641926 >Nietzsche >reactionary >when he considered Christianity a literal cancer and specifically told people to create their own values, instead of following the ones that were set in stone for them This shows you how fucktarded /pol/acks are

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 03:57:00 2014 No.5641927 >>5641922 tips dead-end genese

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 04:03:06 2014 No.5641943

>>5641926

Also, is neo-reaction based in Christianity or paganism? Because those two don't actually complement each other very well, considering the whole 'one eradicated the other by force' stuff

In short, I'm going to say that the whole /pol/-neo-reactionary-neo-religious movement is arguably one of the most contradictory and confused thought movements of recent times. The only thought movement that has an equal amount of cognitive dissonance is feminists who defend Islam

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 04:04:15 2014 No.5641948 >>5641943 >feminists should be against freedom of religion and freedom of speech Kill yourself, you are part of the feminist cancer.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 04:07:21 2014 No.5641954 >>5641948 >defending Islam >defending Christianity >defending Judaism >defending any religion whatsoever Rock-worshiping desert scum please go.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 04:07:41 2014 No.5641955 >>5641948 As far as I'm concerned, you're more than allowed to be a Muslim, feminists just have a very difficult case presenting it as not oppressive against women, because it demonstrably is

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 05:11:30 2014 No.5642065 >>5641955 Muslim girls can't wear headscarves in French public schools. You can't wear any religious garment, but the law most likely was enacted to prevent headscarves.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 05:27:53 2014 No.5642093 >>5641763 And "capitalism" is a buzzword used by leftists who don't know anything about economy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 05:29:33 2014 No.5642095 >>5642093 >And "leftists" is a buzzword thrown by those who don't know anything about economics or politics.

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 05:30:24 2014 No.5642098

>>5641763
The nature of Cultural Marxism is using the idea of Marxism as a "philosophy of praxis", to develop a method where cultural analysis is subjected to the interests of the revolutionary movement. It is not a buzzword them, but a a good description of a phenomenom that was never named before, the strain of Marxism that exists in the Western world from Antonio Gramsci to Ernesto Laclau.

>Historicism of this type dispenses with the notion of transcendental truth and ascribes a functional character to all human knowledge. I f this was Labriola's view, he was in agreement with the young Marx and not with Engels's positivism. For, if praxis signifies the whole of man's part in history, the value of intellectual production as an aspect of that whole is to be measured by the mind's ability to 'express' changing historical situations, and not by the correspondence between some 'objective' universe and the description of it, This line of reasoning was later followed by Gramsci, probably under Labriola's influence.

>In spite of the imprecision of his wrrtmgs, Labriola played an important part in the history of Marxism. His was probably the first attempt to reconstruct Marxism as a philosophy of historical praxis, treating this as a concept in terms of which all aspects of human life should be interpreted, including intellectual activity and its product. He was thus opposed to the scientistic ideology that dominated Marxism in his day. The doctrine outlined in his works was revived in the twentieth century by Gramsci and Lukitcs among others, inspired by the publication of Marx's early writings. This version gave new life to the idea of humanism as an epistemological standpoint, treating human history as the boundary of attainable knowledge and re-stressing the relativistic aspect of Marxist doctrine.

Leszek Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 05:34:10 2014 No.5642112 >>5641926 He opposed the French Revolution, though.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 05:37:48 2014 No.5642121 >>5640658 r/ReactionaryCirclejerk and /pol/

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 05:41:23 2014 No.5642126
File: 89 KB, 500x633, replication-graph.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5641607
>when sociology is literally founded in the materialist scientific movement

You mean sociology is literally founded in the communist movement, and will never publish anything that can harm the communist movement, which includes disproving the tenets of feminism, which is a merely a auxiliary line of communism, just see the fate of Alexandre Kollontai in the USSR.

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 05:46:39 2014 No.5642139

>>5642126
>You mean sociology is literally founded in the communist movement
Not the anon you're talking to, but what?
Sociology could be said that was founded by the greeks, the romans, the french during the revolution, and even the muslims philosophers, but communists?
Dude what?
>which includes disproving the tenets of feminism, which is a merely a auxiliary line of communism
Do you really think a social science is political itself?

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 06:14:20 2014 No.5642179

>>5642098
No, you idiot, and if you took the time to actually read my post instead of reading the first sentence and then whipping out that copypasta you had saved from browsing Conservapedia, you'd know what you're talking about. But you didn't and you don't.

Many people, such as yourself, are unfamiliar with and unsure as to what exactly Marxism / dialectical materialism actually is. So conservatives take two terms ("cultural" and "Marxism") and combine them into one scare quote soundbyte. It's an easy scapegoat that incites fear and is sure to do so based on the small amount of people in conservative political circles who have actually read Marx. Conservatives use it interchangeably with "moral/cultural relativism" to make it seem like a very specific attack on the culture and traditions of Western society. It's an illustrated conspiracy theory intended to make people afraid of anything that seems to resemble critical theory. Dialectic materialism is merely an analytical framework - it doesn't seek to "do" anything, merely analyze it.

It's perfectly fine to disagree with Marx, or the Frankfurt School. But actually take the time to read them first instead of getting all your information secondhand from Conservapedia or neoreactionary blogs.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 06:26:48 2014 No.5642218 >>5642126 >>>/pol/

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 07:59:14 2014 No.5642423

>>5642179
As i daid, cultural marxism describes one strain, not every strain, of marcism. Diamat is not like it at all, but then again such orthodox marxism is irrelevant in the west after the death of kark kautsky, with the exception of an althusserian interlude.

Everyone else, gramsci, lukacs, the frankfurt school, french poststructuralists etc were reading young marx and asking how could philosophers stop only interpreting the world, and start changing it.

And they found a way.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 09:09:55 2014 No.5642638 >>5641465 How's that a strawman? That's a legitimate argument over how problematic affirmative consent laws are.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 09:11:26 2014 No.5642646 >>5641570 >THOSE ISSUES ARE LITERALLY CAUSED BY THE SOCIAL CONDITIONS OF FUCKING PATRIARCHY. I've heard this a lot but no one has ever bothered to explain how.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 09:14:56 2014 No.5642661 >>5641570 But when people point out that jewish people wield disproportionate influence and all stick up for each other the "impossible secret club we all belong to" strawman is extolled from every roof top by frenzied leftists.

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 09:17:20 2014 No.5642667

>>5641593

>Listening to public radio the other day they were talking about male issues that I've never even once seen brought up by MRAs

I heard some MRA bullshit on a public radio station a few months ago. Whatever reactionary sexist tool on their staff insisted they include that nonsense in their programming should be fired.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 09:17:54 2014 No.5642671 >>5642661 That's because only white people can be oppressive, and Jews are only white when it suits them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 09:18:52 2014 No.5642677 >>5642661 I think you mean frenzied rightists.

Black Knight (Saviour of the B(...) Mon Oct 27 09:33:06 2014 No.5642717

>racism against whites doesn't exist

Whites are subhumans compared to blacks, blacks have all the strength and power and get all the bitches, whites are nothing but poor little white guys

t. someone who wasn't definitively racist against whites.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 09:36:02 2014 No.5642726 >>5642717 As the person who mentioned jews I'm telling you to go back to /pol/

>>	Black Knight (Saviour of the B(...) Mon Oct 27 09:40:02 2014 No.5642745 >>5642726 Why

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 09:40:31 2014 No.5642747 >>5641609 >>5642717 >t. [name] is this a new tumblr meme that I'm not aware of I just recently learned what "bae" is and every time I hear/see it I want to stab myself in the brain stem with a screwdriver

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 09:41:57 2014 No.5642754 >>5642747 Other cringey slang terms include "thot", "ratchet", and "basic". People who say this shit are the worst kind of cretins and tools.

>>	Black Knight (Saviour of the B(...) Mon Oct 27 09:43:09 2014 No.5642758 >>5642747 t. is short for terveiset which means regards in finnish t. meme expert

>>	AnelCrest !m9jxTLhLcw Mon Oct 27 09:44:22 2014 No.5642762 >>5640723 >much better If by "much better" you mean "done by someone who hasn't even read half of the books listed there".

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 10:31:12 2014 No.5642926 >>5640658 Most of the fiction and epics there aren't at all reactionary, but Carlyle is definately spot on there. >>5640723 Tolkien is considered part of conservatism even on wikipedia.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 10:32:55 2014 No.5642930 >>5641593 Most of the MRAs seem atheist le epic technocrats. They arent reactionary.

>>	The cats Mon Oct 27 10:33:10 2014 No.5642932 >>5642758 Spurdo pls

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 10:36:06 2014 No.5642940 >>5641954 >>>/reddit/

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 10:37:07 2014 No.5642946 >>5641926 >implying Nietzche isn't considered counter-Enlightenment by Oxford University

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 10:40:51 2014 No.5642952 The reactionary/progressive grouping of ideas and ideologies is possibly the most retarded thing ever.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 10:43:33 2014 No.5642957 >>5642952 The grouping should be: reactionary/radical, but radicals like to make points.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 10:52:45 2014 No.5642977 >>5641214 >other people read TakiMag Cool. I thought I was alone. It's really going downhill, though. I usually only find myself being interested in Buchanan's posts, now, which is strange, considering I initially came for Goad.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 10:53:21 2014 No.5642980 File: 78 KB, 536x596, tips moonshine.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5642940 tips mullet

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 11:18:17 2014 No.5643030

>>5642977
>It's really going downhill, though

It was good before? I'm not a reactionary nor that right wing but I stopped reading it because it became way too much like other political publications that do little more their shit on their perceived opponents most of their articles painfully predictable. It is equal to or worse than places like Stale.

Anonymous Mon Oct 27 14:03:05 2014 No.5643426

>>5643030
It was good before they kicked out the real far rightists who used to write for them. Now the only things I really look forward to are Week that Perished and Taki's columns. The new Jewish woman they have writing pop-culture columns is especially disgusting.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 14:23:14 2014 No.5643476 >>5641570 I'm a reactionary and I quite like post-modernism and Camille Paglia.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 14:37:26 2014 No.5643513 >>5641570 >leftist fucks like The Amazing Athiest You're right about everything else but that individual is not a leftist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 15:06:24 2014 No.5643604 >>5641151 Carlyle was a socialist, you dumb idiot

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 15:09:58 2014 No.5643618 >>5640723 >Carlyle >Fascist

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 15:11:31 2014 No.5643627 >>5642926 >Tolkien is considered part of conservatism even on wikipedia. hah hah hah?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 15:33:08 2014 No.5643710 >>5643426 >before they kicked out the real far rightists Like who?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 27 15:38:57 2014 No.5643733 >>5643604 Young Carlyle is radically different from older Carlyle you dumb idiot. Carlyle in the full glory of his intellectual maturity was a reactionary.

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