European New Right

[Anonymous No.6833680]

What do you think of this movement?

Any must read works in this vain?

[Anonymous No.6833718]

Better than the American one, where it's all about 'muh race', which just means decultured whites who can't let go of their retard Constitution and as such turn into something that's even more silly than the KKK.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6833721]

>>6833680
It's just the old right.
How new are you?

[Anonymous No.6833727]

>>6833721
That's how the movement is called, what do you want?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6833764]

>>6833727
>what do you want?
I want you to grow up, unite with the far left and end capitalism. This should slow to a stop mass immigration enough to settle your jangled nerves.

>>6833718
It's essentially the same thing.

[Anonymous No.6833774]

>>6833764
The far left wants to stop immigration?

[Anonymous No.6833778]

Metaphysics of War

[Anonymous No.6833788]

the art nouveau of politics

[Anonymous No.6833790]

Far right movements always make gains in times of capitalist crisis.

It's very easy to imagine that Greek people for example will be disillusioned by the inevitable failure of the social democrats. Instead of rejecting reformism (which will never ever work) for revolutionary leftism, they could easily embrace reactionary nationalism

[Anonymous No.6833792]

>>6833764

You leftists don't see the difference among right wingers.
An AnCap is as much a 'fascist' as a neo-nazi. You think we're as entryist as you are.

[Anonymous No.6833862]

>>6833792
What's AnCap? anarcho capitalist?

[Anonymous No.6833863]

>>6833862

Yes

[Anonymous No.6833932]

>>6833718
>who can't let go of their retard Constitution

Wait, what? Thinking the Constitution is a good thing makes someone a racist right-winger now? Somehow I wouldn't be surprised if we've arrived at this point in this country, even after the Constitution was just used to legalize gay marriage.

[Anonymous No.6833955]

>>6833932
Ieftie idealists are gullible children who use uneducated morons as an argument against right wing ideals

[Anonymous No.6833985]

>>6833955
This, to be honest. I used to be a typical lefty - I think it's normal for young people to gravitate towards those ideals because they're typically insecure - but then I grew out of it. It's just so childish.

[Evola « Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » Kid:The Usu(...) !vKJYJAzBlI No.6833989]

>>6833764
Except stopping capitalism and stopping the the left is the goal of the new European right

Also it is left wing parties that want unrestricted third world immigration

[Anonymous No.6833998]

The Bilderberg Group has made European countries into eunuch nations purposefully. The new right goes against this, so it will recieve zero funding and support. It will continue to be irrelevant. Europe is doomed to become Eurabia, this is a fact.

[Anonymous No.6834002]

>>6833764
>the far left will stop mass immigration

Be careful, your nose just grew so long it poked Marx's corpse right in the butthole

[Anonymous No.6834010]

>>6833792
>An AnCap is as much a 'fascist' as a neo-nazi
There's no "ancap"s in Europe, that's Murikan bullshit

[Anonymous No.6834017]

So what books should I read?

[Anonymous No.6834691]

Why is Arktos media so expensive?

[Anonymous No.6834698]

>>6834691

TEH JOOZ

[Anonymous No.6834886]

>>6833680
>What do you think of this movement?
pure shit

>Any must read works in this vain?
none

[Anonymous No.6834902]

>>6833680
Literally garbage.

[Anonymous No.6834908]

>>6833989
>dribble

[Anonymous No.6834932]

>>6833790
Very true, but the Far left also grows in crisis, and Greece still has a sizeable (but, of course, disunited) communist bloc, some of whom joined the SYRIZA coalition and will be leaving/have left, like Varoufakis.

[Anonymous No.6834980]

>>6833680
The entire concept of neoconservative movements is ridiculous.

By definition, if they are right-wing, they draw on tradition for their moral/philosophical validation. So any new book written for the political right will either be a derivative re-hashing of ideas better expressed by earlier authors, or it will be a work of progressivism merely masquerading as conservative.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6835141]

>>6833774
They immigrate for the jobs and the stability. If their homelands were a comfortable place to live, less would travel away from family and friends. I speak of course of the far left that wants an end to capitalism, any use of money to form classes.

>>6833792
Oh I know there's many issues that set them apart. I'm just addressing one aspect here.

>>6833989
I'm sorry, by "capitalism" you probably mean liberal-capitalism, I mean the use of money entirely. And by "left wing parties" you mean the moderate political animals that have had to go along with the central banks domination tactics.

>>6833998
I don't know enough about it, but this sound about right. It seems you need a coalition revolt. Strange bedfellows, as they say.

[Thomas No.6835481]

>multi-culturalism was pioneered by "Judeo"-Christianity
The work is ridiculous

[Anonymous No.6835484]

>>6835141
Interesting as fuck

[Anonymous No.6835507]

>>6835484

[Anonymous No.6835640]

>>6833998
>The Bilderberg Group
Are totally powerless.

[Anonymous No.6835887]

>>6834980
>The entire concept of neoconservative movements is ridiculous.
Neoconservatism is american fake-conservatism that is using neo-liberalism to justify it's jingoism, while actually being abused by neo-liberals itself as means to their ends. Europe doesn't have neoconservatism.

[Anonymous No.6835897]

>>6835887
Interesting as fuck

[Anonymous No.6835913]

>>6833680
It's interesting as fuck brother

[Anonymous No.6835940]

>>6833788
What is the Art Deco of politics?

[Anonymous No.6835949]

>>6835887
Europe has a lot of computers. For sure its interesting as fuck Merkel

[Anonymous No.6835980]

>>6833680

Alain De Benoist, despite his anti-christian outlook, has a few must read works. " Beyond Human Rights" and " The Problem of Democracy" are both essential.

>>6833774
De Benoist actually mentioned in an interview about how in the 70's the French Communist party promoted strict immigration policies in order to protect the working class, hence why he used to support them. Since then most far left parties have found their revolutionary subjects in third world immigrants and neurotic privileged college girls. Due to this allot of the old left people in Europe have jumped ship to "right wing" parties ( which are actually third position parties, facism and it's derivatives were never right wing), as they are the ones who care most about the working class people now.

[Anonymous No.6835994]

>>6835980
Interesting as fuck

[Anonymous No.6835998]

Look, all this political bullshit aside, is there anything wrong with people wanting to preserve their race? I don't hate anybody, I just don't want my country to be flooded with brown people and look like a third world country in a few generations. Is that so wrong?

[Anonymous No.6836405]

>>6834886
>>6834902
Great thoughts, I will now believe that it is shit.

[Anonymous No.6836411]

>>6834980
Not every right winger is a conservative.

[Anonymous No.6836418]

>>6835141
>They immigrate for the jobs and the stability. If their homelands were a comfortable place to live, less would travel away from family and friends. I speak of course of the far left that wants an end to capitalism, any use of money to form classes.

Much less likely to happen than simply dealing with the issue internally.

[Anonymous No.6836428]

>>6835949
>>6835913
>>6835897
>>6835484
Are you ok?

[Anonymous No.6836506]

>>6835980
What do people mean with neurotic in this context?

[Anonymous No.6836520]

>>6835998
Under current dogmas, it's terrible.

[Anonymous No.6836523]

>>6833764
>>6833721
left right is a spook butters, not even meming.

You'll never have a revolution if you continue to think in terms of broken antiquated political faction classification.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6838128]

>>6835998
>is there anything wrong with people wanting to preserve their race?
Yes. It isn't "their race" and there isn't even a clear distinction. You're just grossed out that a grandchild or great grandchild etc. will have darker skin, but that's really none of your fucking business.
>I just don't want my country to be flooded with brown people and look like a third world country
"Look" like one or be one? If you don't want it to *be* one, you end capitalism.

>>6836418
Like erecting a fence? Shutting the doors to anyone wanting in? Skin colour chart quotas at the office of immigration? I don't care about likely, I want what's best.

>>6836523
Oh I know full well they're squishy terms. That's why I think it's quite possible the anti-immigration right can unite with the far left ;^)

[Anonymous No.6838199]

>>6838128
>Yes. It isn't "their race" and there isn't even a clear distinction.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.174.698&rep=rep1&type=pdf

It's better to listen to biologists on the subject of race rather than social science ideologues .

Also skin colour is one of the least important factors involved in race.

I do, however, agree with you that part of ending mass immigration is is putting limits on international finance capitalism and making the immigrants countries better places to live. The union you are talking about is somewhat underway. While I don't like them much, Dugin's faction combines old school leftism and third position politics together, with some light Traditionalist flavoring added to the mix.

[Anonymous No.6838214]

>>6833955
Not our fault the gibbering retard is the face of rightism.

It's literally true that right wingers tend to be less educated than the left. Which is why we /lit/ users like to keep you in your containment boards.

So without further ado:
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.6838215]

>>6835940
Please respond.

[Anonymous No.6838244]

>>6838214

These days /lit/ seems allot more right wing to me.

>Anti-feminists owning feminists at every turn.
> Christian Thomists owning atheists at every turn.
> Reactionaries owning Communists at every turn.

The "far right" is the de facto counter culture right now. It is the one thing mass culture has yet to be able to subsume because it is inherently antithetical to its values.

[Anonymous No.6838247]

>>6838214

Oh the ironing

You're a typical leftard and you don't even realize it

[Golly !zR/LhJxu0Q No.6838250]

>>6838214
>thinks /lit/ users are smarter than /pol/ users
Two sides to one coin you narcissistic retard

[Anonymous No.6838286]

>>6838244
>These days /lit/ seems allot more right wing to me.
Only because these days /lit/ has more right wing shitposters.

[Anonymous No.6838287]

>>6838244
Because it's only popular among retards. Nobody wants another mass butchery on the scale of WWII. You're right in some sense, globalization is antithetical to nationalism. Since I can be across the world in a day, and my ideas can be across the world in seconds, it's hard to convince any but the most gullible that old-school nationalism is still tenable.

But there are plenty of gullible people out there who think old-boundaries will be the panacea to international capitalism.

>if i can stop the sand niggers from immigrating, i will finally get my unskilled job back

>>6838247
>>6838250
>the anger

Read a book you retarded faggots. You're on /lit/ after all. Maybe if you picked up something halfway decent you wouldn't spend your time shitposting on one of the few good boards left.

>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.6838298]

>>6838244
>shitposting is owning

This board is truly dead.

[Anonymous No.6838316]

>>6838287

> All right wing and third position thought is the same as Nazism.
> We're the retarded ones.

Have you ever considered that people are working on new forms of nationalism , and coming to new conceptions of right wing politics that are not identical to old versions ?, and have you been paying attention enough to realize that Europe is well on it's way to a new kind of nationalistic disintegration, and that this shift is taking place within all different sorts of people, including educated leftists.

You seem pretty ignorant honestly.The right is allot more intellectually stimulating than the same drab post-modern obscurantism and resentment politics that the left has totally degraded into. I mean hell, most of the good leftists take their ideas from right wing thinkers like Schmitt and Heidegger anyways.

[Golly !zR/LhJxu0Q No.6838330]

>>6838287
>thinks /lit/ is a "good board"
>incessant shitposting
>thinks everyone calling him out on his retardation is a /pol/nazi/reactionary
Fine summer we're having.

[Anonymous No.6838335]

>>6838330
Who the fuck are you?

[Anonymous No.6838340]

>>6838298

The people who size up their opponents as "shit posters" becaue they can't make a coherent argument are allot more of a problem for this board than someone who happens to disagree with some leftist dogmas and can give supporting reasons for why they do.

[Golly !zR/LhJxu0Q No.6838342]

>>6838335
Someone with enough common sense and experience to spot babby-tier posters

[Anonymous No.6838350]

>>6838340
>supporting reasons

Ain't that the problem?

Right wing threads are all the same: masturbatory bullshit where /pol/ immigrants pretend they're literate. I doubt most of you have even picked up a book on politics (that didn't have a politician's face on it)

[Golly !zR/LhJxu0Q No.6838371]

>>6838350
Are you honestly so intellectually disingenuous that you characterize opposition to not using "supporting arguments"?
I've been in enough Left/Right (not to prop up this dichotomy) threads to know that you're literally, as I said before, the same as this spooky /pol/-boogeyman that you've created in your head.

[Anonymous No.6838394]

>>6838350

Could you have any less vague of a critique ? Lot's of right wingers are university educated, especially young ones. I know I personally read leftist literature as well and can appreciate lots of it, most of my right wing friends are similar. For every one or two /pol/ immigrants you have another 5 fairly well read people who happen to be on the right side of things. Leftists have to scream and bitch about /pol/ whenever someone dares make a point against their dogmas because they are so used to their echo-chambers they have forgotten how to be critical thinkers, which is a shame really.

[Anonymous No.6838399]

>>6838371
>y-you're equally r-retarded!
>b-both s-sides are capable of the same stupidity

Don't you love how right-wingers fall back on relativism when it suits them? Sorry, m80, most of you are fucking retarded. I'm not going to concede out of some "spooky" obligation to be even-handed to an ideology which is actually retarded.

I wouldn't believe this if I didn't witness this shit time and time again with you faggots.

The only right-winger who isn't actually retarded on this board is Otis. Why? The same reason I'm complaining about you now: he's actually read a book and it shows. The rest of you haven't, and it also shows.

And that's the problem with most of you /pol/ refugees. This board is for literature and the literate, not people who can namedrop authors from an "essential right-wing reading" chart.

[Anonymous No.6838400]

Nouvelle Droite / GRECE. Plutarch Press is also one to look out for, recently translating many 20th century right-wing intellectuals' work into English, when it was hard to find before, or only select scholarly translations existed. There are a couple similar things.

The Dark Enlightenment shit is mostly dumb as fuck, but it's to be expected. For every increase in high level scholarly or intellectual interest in something that you see, you're going to see an exponentially larger increase in For Dummies versions of it, and a geometrically larger increase in poorly edited Youtube videos using sound bites of it. That's just human nature. For every Gramsci there are departments full of thousands of uninspired academic hacks, and for every hack there are a billion fat chicks on Tumblr who think Marx's contribution to political philosophy was that no one should be a meanie on Twitter.

[Anonymous No.6838410]

>>6838316
I'm interest to see what kind of ground the anti-SJW sort of leftists can get. I see this ethos a lot of /lit/ but not much else, though it can be found throughout comment sections on various left-leaning blogs, especially those with a strong economics focus. There doesn't seem to be any mass movement in any way yet, they don't have popular outlets and aren't a big force on any kind of social media, but it feels like a cadre that is steadily taking shape.

[Anonymous No.6838412]

>>6838394

Err, " any more vague of a critique" I meant to say, my mistake.

[Golly !zR/LhJxu0Q No.6838427]

>>6838399
There you go again, assuming people who know that you're retarded are the political opposition.
I'm not going to go far into my political background, but its assuredly not "right-wing" (as dichotomous as that is).
And yes, the problem is indeed that people don't keep to this boards purpose, literature, sort of like how you are shitposting for political gains! (And how I'm countering it - as countering shitposting is usually still shitposting).
And I can also assure you that my read library is vastly larger than yours or the average /lit/izen (without your spooky reactionary authors).

[Anonymous No.6838437]

>>6838427
>pretending to transcend the "dichotomy"

Absolutely easiest way to spot a pretentious highschooler.

Your extensive library must be Redwall books and Goosebumps.

[Anonymous No.6838443]

>>6838399

There are good thinkers on the right and the left, but you are showing yourself to be the left wing version of what /pol/tard is to Carl Schmitt.

[Anonymous No.6838451]

>>6833932
not that guy, but yes in a way, because its tied into a lot of the bigoted worldview of these people. a lot of right wings make a huge deal about 'muh constitution,' especially in reference to their right to bear arms, because they think Obama, a evil muslim commie who wasn't even born in this country, is going to instate martial law in order to take their guns away and establish a dictatorship. Check out this article from yesterday and its quite obvious:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/16/us/in-texas-a-military-exercise-is-met-by-some-with-suspicion.html

[Anonymous No.6838453]

>>6835141
>I mean the use of money entirely
Well that's blatantly ahistorical

[Golly !zR/LhJxu0Q No.6838457]

>>6838437
Please tell me how ascribing to a political dichotomy is going to change any existing political forces?
Also, by lack of response to the core of the post and focusing on a parenthetical aside, I can only imagine that you're so out-of-touch with this interaction. It shows in your shift from making me a reactionary to a high schooler (you're going to have to add at least half the age of the high schooler to get to me kiddy).
If you could escape your narcisstic need to be right in exchange for an actual willingness to change yourself and the world, that'd be fantastic. But you're (I can only imagine) at a mental bypass, and won't.

[Anonymous No.6838500]

>>6833955
most of the voter base of both parties are uneducated morons, but i'd say the republicans are worse. This is because the way voting districts have been arranged in republican states and many democratic ones for that matter. This was cause during the 2010 census republicans swept the house and senate, which allowed them to gerrymander districts in such a way that white older voters are represented. And these white older voters, being old and having been raised in the jim crow era basically, are of the racist, teaparty type, anti-tax type. But ironically, this gerrymandering set off a process in which the republican party has been pushed further and further to the right by its far right wing base, to the point that the leading republican in the senate, eric cantor, who was actually the protector of the radical teaparty republicans in the senate, was actually voted out of power in the last election for a guy even further to the right....

[Anonymous No.6838525]

>>6838437
>pretending sticking to the dichotomy is worthwhile

Easiest way to spot a pretentious undergrad.

I bet you're the one telling all your friends that they should stop reading pseudo-activist clickbait and think about the party primaries instead

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6838532]

>>6838453

Of all the things we invented way back then, what could we do without? The wheel, fire, writing, coinage.

It's caused as many problems as advances in human civilization, I think it's about time we admit to it's utter lack of true value to us

[Anonymous No.6838548]

>>6838532
>It's caused as many problems as advances in human civilization,
Could apply to any of the above
>I think it's about time we admit to it's utter lack of true value to us
Doesn't apply to any of the above

[Thomas No.6838558]

>>6838532
It's pretty sinful, but you don't need money-driven economies to exploit people, just look at slavery and feudalism.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6838565]

>>6838244
>It is the one thing mass culture has yet to be able to subsume because it is inherently antithetical to its values.
What do you mean? It is possible that the general mass culture will have more right wing ideals.

[Anonymous No.6838572]

>>6838287
Nationalism began and ended with nazis? Why are "intellectual" leftists such fucking IDIOTS. It's fucking painful.

[Anonymous No.6838579]

>>6838565
For one thing, the business arrangements underpinning consumer culture depend on the fetish of the new and the belief in progress.

[Anonymous No.6838587]

>>6838400
Any specific works you recommend?

[Anonymous No.6838588]

>>6838548
what value does it have, then? there's a pretty clear downside in intellectual property and caste-based societies, not to mention destroying peoples lives for no reason at all (i.e. inspiring wars or greece right now).

real people are being abused and killed for the sake of imaginary things

[Anonymous No.6838600]

>>6838410
but what i don't get is, isn't the idea of an sjw a good thing? isn't traditional leftist politics about delivering social justice to the lower classes? or is it cause sjw has become synonymous with gender politics and eliminating racism? And even if anti-immigration is actually beneficial for labor, isn't eliminating racism between citizens a good thing? Its a bit fucked up that black workers, for example, were the first to lose industrial jobs in the 70s in order to protect white blue collar jobs, although those eventually went down the gutter too...

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.6838605]

>>6838548
>Doesn't apply to any of the above
Nnnno. I think we still use fire, wheels and I do like the written word.

>>6838558
Money has been used since recorded history. Bronze age. Debts are fake. Gold, some other metals or paper money is a sham.

[Anonymous No.6838610]

>>6838532
Peter Joesph pls stop

[Anonymous No.6838611]

>>6838500
in the house of reps*

[Anonymous No.6838614]

>>6838588
> what value does it have, then?
It rapidly distributes goods on a grand scale without any coordinated planning effort. It does this better than the best coordinated human planning efforts ever have. It doesn't do it perfectly, but on the other hand it doesn't fuck up miserably and starve millions of people to death, incite internal political violence that pushes the regime to begin exterminating its own people, etc which are typical traits of attempts at economic planning.

[Anonymous No.6838617]

>>6838600
Because the SJW ethos now has more to do with made-up bullshit like cultural appropriation and microaggressions. If you don't actually interact with these people you could be fooled into thinking that this is just a strawman but no, these people actually take this stuff seriously and these are THE things they care about.

To say that SJWs are about promoting non-racism and respect for all people regardless of ethnicity is like saying the Nazis were about promoting cultural pride.

[Anonymous No.6838618]

>>6838579
But anyone believes in progress when it refers to technological things

[Thomas No.6838622]

>>6838605
>Money has been used since recorded history. Bronze age. Debts are fake. Gold, some other metals or paper money is a sham.
Yeah, but my point is that you don't need money to exploit the heck out of workers.

[Anonymous No.6838623]

>>6838565

Mass culture requires identities that are fixed by the market and the state. Race, religion, sex, etc are all ontologically prior to it and thus politics the affirmation of those things cannot be subsumed. Few right wingers are nationalists in the statist sense, most are more for small hierarchical ethno-communities based on real bonds between people, with a strong, but limited overarching power that is authoritarian but not totalitarian. Kind of like a neo-feudalism without anyone with serf status involved.

[Anonymous No.6838627]

>>6838614
>doesn't fuck up miserably and starve millions of people to death, incite internal political violence that pushes the regime to begin exterminating its own people, etc which are typical traits of attempts at economic planning.

a system with currency leads to the separation of rich and poor which leads to exactly those situations

[Anonymous No.6838633]

>>6838287
>Nobody wants another mass butchery on the scale of WWII.
OF course not. When kings were the rulers, war was just a small sport for property. Democracy and Enlightenment brought us mass and total war.

[Anonymous No.6838642]

>>6838627
>a system with currency leads to the separation of rich and poor which leads to exactly those situations

>market democracies in the developed West are plagued by famine and genocide
Okay then.

[Anonymous No.6838643]

>>6838633
>mass and total war.
Would you say that this was also valid to rome's period?

[Anonymous No.6838644]

>>6838532
as long as resources are 1) limited 2) unevenly available and 3) subject to change, a system to account for resource allocation and transfer is probably a good idea.

Money is a much better method then violence, which is the other historical option

[Thomas No.6838648]

>>6838644
Money is back by violence, and no, it's not a good distribution method, since people starve.

[Thomas No.6838654]

>>6838648
*backed

[Anonymous No.6838655]

>>6833680
I like that they at least recognize the problems caused by immigrants from African and Islamic countries. I agree with their racism, but it's not out of some notion of racial pride - race is not an accomplishment, so I don't see how people have pride in it. For me, the reason that immigration from these countries into Western countries should be heavily restricted is that Arabs and especially blacks are a security hazard due to their low average intelligence.

[Anonymous No.6838663]

>>6838648
> no, it's not a good distribution method, since people starve.

This would be a valid argument if starvation under every other distribution method was not vastly higher.

[Anonymous No.6838675]

>>6838655
It's valid to appreciate your race's attributes and liking belonging to it. However taking pride and acting like it's an achievement is silly.

[Anonymous No.6838700]

>>6838675
Really, I feel bad for races with poor average intelligence. It's not as if it leads to good outcomes in life for them. I'd like to think that wise application of eugenics could solve the problem somewhat.

[Anonymous No.6838701]

>>6838633
Sounds like a matter of scale, honestly. The period happened to just precede the development of technology that allowed wars to be fought on such scales.

[Anonymous No.6838703]

I've heard Generation Identity is supposed to be a pretty good book on the subject.

Have anyone read it?

[Anonymous No.6838712]

>>6838700
Right tails should be fine though

Although if we did reinstitute a eugenics program, where should we stop? Until everyone is at the level of Ashkenazi Jews?

[Anonymous No.6838713]

>>6838642
what do you think we're heading towards? every time these societies are reset they start of mostly equal, but head towards oligarchies and eventual self-destruction. they're not sustainable at all

[Anonymous No.6838724]

>>6838712
I think offering to pay violent criminals, drug addicts, and the severely mentally ill and cognitively disabled to get sterilized, and encouraging successful people from the lower-IQ races to have kids, would be a good start.

[Anonymous No.6838732]

>>6838701

Feudal warfare could have been to a much greater degree than it was though. They had lots of civilians to draft if they wanted to, but the social arrangement was civilians work to sustain everyone and therefore nobles fight to protect everyone. It wasn't uncommon for battles to be just a few hundred on each side due to this. Of course in dire circumstances like a mass foreign invasion they would have to grab more combatants from the peasantry. But ideally the social order was conducive to small scale combat between nobles. There was also no nationalism/egalitarianism that demanded equal duties for equal rights, as the later did not exist. Due to this there was no patriotic duty to fight for one's country, there was just what ever arrangement your family had with a local lord by custom,and custom was rarely challenged.

This is the same reason why most peasants in the middle ages worked 200 days out of the year and usually less than 8 hours a day, ultra conservative societies have fixed standards that can't be shaken by someone who happens to have made allot of money- those days were religious holidays that could'nt be messed with no matter what. It was a totally antithetical system to bourgois enlightenment values where everything becomes a free business transaction between "equal" individuals ( see Social Contract theories).

[Anonymous No.6838734]

>>6838648
you seem to be unaware that every (yes, every) historical society has suffered from starvation, genocide, and famine to a greater degree than in the modern world. They also suffered from much greater amounts of tyranny, injustice, and bad dentistry.

[Anonymous No.6838740]

>>6838648
states are also backed by violence, and yet human standards of living are much greater under stable state structures.
there's a big difference between being backed by violence and the arbitrary use of violence

[Anonymous No.6838746]

>>6838643
Of course not. Even if Rome did some genocide, especially in the Republic era, they were mostly a country that relied on subduing and taming their conquered lands.

[Anonymous No.6838755]

>>6838633
You're so full of shit. When kings were the rulers and warred over property, warfare was absolutely chronic and you'd better believe they waged the biggest wars they could and retained the largest armed populations they could manage. Laws in England, for example, required every man to own a sword. It goes more or less without saying that the torch was a more popular weapon than that, and the burning of farmland was always a popular tactic offensively and defensively.

Quoth Huizinga (The Waning of the Middle Ages):
>Is it surprising that the people could see their fate and that of the world only as an endless succession of evils? Bad government, exactions, the cupidity and violence of the great, wars and brigandage, scarcity, misery and pestilence -- to this is contemporary history nearly reduced in the eyes of the people. The feeling of general insecurity which was caused by the chronic form wars were apt to take, by the constant menace of the dangerous classes, by the mistrust of justice, was further aggravated by the obsession of the coming end of the world, and by the fear of hell, of sorcerors and of devils. Everywhere the flames of hatred arise and injustice reigns. Satan covers a gloomy earth with his somber wings.

[Anonymous No.6838756]

>>6838732
On the other hand, it seems like it was technology that allowed fewer civilians to be able to sustain the entire population and that allowed relatively untrained civilians to be competitive on the battlefield.

[Anonymous No.6838759]

>>6838713
>what do you think we're heading towards?
Probably a massive backlash against income inequality and better-regulated economy. We definitely have problems but comparing them to the failures of economic planning does a massive injustice to the dead.

[Anonymous No.6838760]

>>6833718
>decultured whites
dumbest thing I've read all day

[Anonymous No.6838761]

The fact that /pol/ loves it means you should automatically assume it's fucking stupid. Further investigation proves that it is:
>often associated with paganism
>Evolafags love it
>belief in the Judeo-Marxist conspiracy meme
>no tangible goals other than "fug de joos and feminists :DDD"

[Anonymous No.6838763]

>>6838732
>Feudal warfare could have been to a much greater degree than it was though.

Not really. The civvies stayed at home because they had to farm. Most campaigns petered out in the summer because people had to go home to farm. The fact that most people farmed instead of fighting wasn't some gentlemanly agreement, it was necessity and the fear of starvation.

[Anonymous No.6838771]

>>6838759
> Probably a massive backlash against income inequality and better-regulated economy
*and a better-regulated economy.

[Anonymous No.6838772]

>>6838755

> Enlightenment shill revisionist history.

Most professional historians hold a much more nuanced idea of the period than " It was literally like a Mad Max movie".

[Anonymous No.6838779]

>>6838772
> Enlightenment shill revisionist history.

Huizinga is describing the sentiments of writers who were writing in the middle ages, dumbass.

[Anonymous No.6838781]

>>6838761


You should probably actually read the literature before you comment on it. Go read some Alain De Benoist some time and get enlightened.

[Anonymous No.6838962]

>>6838761
>People who disagree with me are silly and dumb

go make more comics on /v/

[Anonymous No.6838966]

>>6838763
Much better times

[Anonymous No.6839001]

>>6833718
The European far right is at least more consistent. The American one seems to be "Everybody should go back to their ancestral homelands. Except us, because Murrica."

[Anonymous No.6839351]

>>6833680
>new right

[Anonymous No.6839390]

>>6839001
Americans have no obligation to throw open their borders to unskilled immigrants simply because our ancestors were immigrants many years ago. There is a rich history of immigration quotas in the country and most were imposed when we were still only taking European immigrants. You cannot flood a nation with cheap illegal labor from another race and then expect there to be zero economic or cultural conflicts

[Anonymous No.6839391]

>>6838703
Its good as far as political manifestos go. I get the sense that its better in the original french.

[Anonymous No.6839416]

>>6838287
Ha, as if the only reason people are against mass third world immigration is for "unskilled jobs". Nicevstrawman, european countries originally imported immigrants to do those jobs

[Anonymous No.6839519]

>>6839390
Not talking about the practicalities, I'm talking about the logic of the argument. I'd say the belief that people belong in their ancestral homelands is a fairly central one for the far right- it certainly comes up all the time in immigration discussions. But that would seem to be a big problem for the American Far Right. Shouldn't they logically go back to Europe?

[Anonymous No.6839524]

>>6839519
Rightist Americans don't really care if immigrants are in their ancestral homelands, they just don't want them here

[Anonymous No.6839604]

>>6838451
This is really the level of discourse on /lit/ these days? This reads like a fucking Buzzfeed comment.

Who the fuck cares if there are rednecks who are in love with the second amendment because they're paranoid racist fucks? How does that make the Constitution itself a bad thing? Try to put forward an actual argument instead of resorting to partisan name-calling and the worst kind of strawmanning.

[Anonymous No.6839833]

>>6839604
He is a teenage leftist, what the fuck do you expect?

[Anonymous No.6839876]

>>6839519
How? Americans ARE in their homeland. The majority of North American natives were hunter-gatherers. The overwhelmingly vast majority of the country was uninhabited and still is. The incredibly tiny amount of North American natives had already been dragged down to only some 2 million thanks to disease (Unrelated to the diseases Europeans would later bring).

Were there natives? Yes. Did they have native lands that were taken by Europeans? Yes, and many of their lands were given back (Or they were given new land that is now their homeland). The natives still have their own nations mind you, they're just subject to the federal government. The Apache, the Ottawa, the Objiwe, and so on all have their own land. Americans are heavily discriminated there (For good or ill). But they did not inhabit the majority of the country which had never been set foot upon by humans until the people who would go on to become Americans came along and claimed it. We are thus by definition the natives.

The place I'm currently sitting in and typing this post out in had no natives living on it. How then are my people not the natives given that we are the first ones to be at it? My ancestors have been on this continent since the late 1600's. That's longer than several tribes have been in their current location. Why then is this not my native land? Because I'm White and the Indians are Brown/Red?

This isn't getting into South America and Canada which are different stories, I'm only talking about the United States.

[Anonymous No.6841065]

>>6839604
Where did I strawman? You're insulting many republicans by saying that they DONT believe in these government conspiracy theories.

And note, I said the Constitution is bad "in a way". But let me elaborate: the constitution is a symbol, and over the last decade it has become more of a right wing symbol than a left wing one. This is because far right republicans, such as the members of the tea party who now dominate the house of representatives, advocate the constitution as a kind of religious document that is perfect because the founding fathers were infallible and so on. That is to say, it is a fundamentalists movement that believes in the literal interpretation of constitution, which in practice would mean unlimited gun rights, no income taxes and basically no central government, which depending on your perspective this strict interpretation is a good or bad thing.

So of course the constitution isn't 'bad', and I never argued this view, though I would argue for some amendments with a leftist bent :^). However, the idea of the constitution doesn't exist in a vacuum, and what the constitution has come to represent today, as espoused by the constitutional fundamentalists, is not MY constitution.

I think its unfair that you call my post a buzzfeed comment, I dont even know what that is. And how could you say my level of discourse is poor if you don't even read the news and know about US politics?

[Anonymous No.6841083]

>>6833680
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.6841122]

>>6839876
>many of their lands were given back (Or they were given new land that is now their homeland)
I'm not a tree hugger or anything but thats not true. The five civilized tribes owned huge swathes of Mississipi and Alabama as farmers until Jackson kicked them in the 1830s out and gave them shitty lands out west. Nor did the Sioux and other Black hills tribes get treated fairly, nor the Indians around Jamestown or Massachusetts colony that were genocided. come on now

[Anonymous No.6841170]

>>6841083
u rekt me

i feel defeated and torn

[Anonymous No.6841202]

I feel the modern right is ironically too backward and held back by archaic and needless ideas on race and gender that will only harm them in the longrun.

Unless they were to found a state by force.

[Anonymous No.6841212]

>>6841083
>Implying /pol/ can comprehend Spengler

[Anonymous No.6841290]

>>6841202
Not a right winger at all, but I think you underestimate modern opinions about race. Although lots of people identify as 'multicultural', in practice most races stick to their own, at least so long as they're in the same class. Ignoring the loud minority of SJW lots of people hold fairly 'racist' opinions towards different ethnic groups and there's a lot of animosity under the surface. Besides, among many minorities there's a push of cultural assimilation into the dominate white culture as well as a reasonable backlash against that.

In hindsight, I'd argue that some of the right wing conceptions of race (that of Mussolini for example) of a kind of shared organic social existence within a country seem almost progressive.

Personally I think our generation is going to see left wing fascism come back in vogue

[Anonymous No.6841290,1]

>>6841212
They did at one point. ;_;

[Anonymous No.6841290,2]

>>6841290
>fascism
>right-wing
You speak some truth, however, the left-right paradigm is dumb, and so are those who still believe it is relevant past the 1790s.