/lit/ - Literature

saged and reported

>>5881283
Keep the /r9k/ memes (and yourself) out of here, thanks

>>>/r9k/
>>>/pol/

>>5881285
>announcing reports
Seriously? It's 2014, you should know that's against the rules.
>>5881286
Sorry my pic was unrelated and I'm not a Marxist shill.

>>5881289
>using the term 'shill' unironically
You'll be talking about 'pills' and 'Cultural Marxism' next

>>>/pol/

>>5881292
/pol/ doesn't read. I'm asking for books.
Also, /pol/ is kill.

>>5881294
That fucking frog is the worst meme of all time.

>>5881283
The fountainhead.

>>5881313
I've already read Rand, she seems a bit too unscrupulous for my liking.

>>5881314
>Wants to reinstitute absolute monarchy and be a parasite living off the stolen value of the working class' labor
>Thinks Ayn Rand is too unscrupulous
Top kek, faggot.

>>5881283
I thought reactionary was the movement arising in the late Enlightenment and the Victorian era which opposed the tendency toward liberalism and supported stronger and more absolute monarchies.

>>5881329
By which I mean, pretty much the opposite of libertarianism.

>>5881283
>wants to be something
>hasn't read anything on that topic
That just won't work out, you know.
For reactionary, I'd go with the first reactionary:
Edmund Burke

>>5881329
>>5881333
Columbus' voyage to the New World was financed by the king and queen of Spain. I want to be the next Columbus.

>>5881329
You're correct. However, there are certain understandings of libertarianism where you can have the important parts of libertarianism (rights to property, free economic action for the wealthy, freedom of capital) in a monarchistic state. Also, lots of neoreactionaries are stupid.

>>5881329
The grand majority of Libertarians would support an absolute monarchy and are distasteful of vague liberalism.

>>5881342
What even are neoreactionaries? I've heard of them but it just sounds like such a retarded idea when it's described that I don't believe anyone can actually be one of them.

>>5881342
>and if the king doesn't give us those rights
>we'll just kill him and install a new one

>>5881352
>Killing the king
Do you even know what reactionaries are? We don't ever support murdering the monarch. He rules by divine right. Who are we to go against God's will?
Do you even read Moldbug?

>neo
>reactionary

dafuq is this?
the entire basis of reactionary politics is trying to maintain feudalism, who the fuck in this day and age wants a return to feudalism?

also reactionary capitalism is an oxymoron, the reactionaries consistently opposed free trade, protectionism was their entire economic model

>>5881356
>ruling with a divine right
>in 21st century
monarchists are truly retarded.

Republic is the only viable way to rule.
Monarchism is the worst shit ever.

>>5881346
>According to The Daily Caller, the movement's objectives included opposition to any form of egalitarianism as well as "a return to traditional gender roles, monarchism, and typically a more libertarian-oriented economic system".[14]
These niggas forget about guilds, levies, and 66% tax rates? Isn't the libertarian-oriented economic system their trying to return to a result of industry owners wresting power AWAY from monarchs?

>>5881365
>Implying the tyranny of the majority is preferable to the benign rule of a competent monarch

>>5881369
>implying more than maybe 10% of the monarchs were competent and that of those almost none were benign
The objective best system is tribal bigmanism anyway.

>>5881376
>and that of those more than a few were benign
I mean.

>>5881376
>Implying Congress has ever gotten anything done
>Implying the American/French Revolutions weren't the greatest geopolitical tragedy of all time

>>5881380
Congress got plenty done! They did a pretty good job staying out of the American people's way for a god couple centuries.

>>5881369
Actually yes it is. A tyranny of a majority is better than a tyranny of one.
Also there's no reason to believe that the monarch will actually be competent.
Most of monarchs were far from competent. And even if you install a competent man as a king, there's no rule that his successors will be as competent. They probably won't be, because the royal lifestyle will alienate them from the needs of the people.

Capitalism isn't actual anymore.

>>5881383
>They did a pretty good job staying out of the American people's way for a god couple centuries.
What is the FDA? What is the minimum wage?
>>5881385
>Also there's no reason to believe that the monarch will actually be competent.
Augustus Caesar was pretty competent. Marcus Aurelius was pretty competent. Louis XIV was pretty competent. Queen Victoria was pretty competent. Qin Shi Huang was pretty competent.

>>5881390

>>5881390
>Augustus Caesar was pretty competent. Marcus Aurelius was pretty competent.
And every other Caesar between those two was a fucking nut, who had to be killed off, before completely destroying the empire.
For every Augustus, there are 10 Caligula and Nero's.

>>5881390
>Marcus Aurelius was pretty competent
This is why /lit/ needs to stop recommending the Meditations when people ask for books about stoicism.

>>5881396
Name a time when Congress wasn't actively trying to dismantle America's economic freedoms.

>>5881409
What does that have to do with Caesars?

>>5881409
The Gilded Age?
Every moment since Reagan was elected?

>>5881415
The point is that every form of government is tyrannical. Some tyrants are more competent than others. Monarchs > Senates.
>>5881416
The 'Gilded' Age was a golden age. Reagan was a hero.

>>5881419
>The point is that every form of government is tyrannical.
That's why I'm anarchist.

>>5881419
>The point is that every form of government is tyrannical. Some tyrants align with my interests more than others.

FTFY. It's pretty clear that people in different classes would want different kinds of tyrants.

Personally I'd rather have a democratically elected tyrant.

>>5881421
But government is impossible to eliminate, and anarchism is childish.
>>5881431
You trust the unwashed masses to know what's best?

>>5881440
>But government is impossible to eliminate, and anarchism is childish.
Says the guy that calls himself "libertarian neoreactionary".
If you'd know anything about actual anarchism, you'd realise it's the most "grown-up" responsible ideology there is. There's no safety net, nothing or nobody that would prevent you from doing something stupid. it's just you and your own decisions.

>>5881440
>You trust the unwashed masses to know what's best?

Yes. I'm "fortunate" in being mostly in line with the same interests of other members of the unwashed masses.

I completely understand why somebody who isn't would not want democracy.

And there is no objective "best governance" because different classes of people want different things out of government and most of those things are mutually exclusive.

>>5881440
>You trust the unwashed masses to know what's best?
I'm part of the unwashed masses. I trust myself more than I trust some random faggot, who was born into position of power.

>>5881443
>it's just you and your own decisions.
It's also Utopia.

>mfw reading this thread as a capitalist

>>5881457
>It's also Utopia.
Says the guy who wishes he'd live in a absolute monarchy in 21st. century.
Sorry m8, but you're the utopian here.

>>5881458

The plebs were the proto-capitalists of Rome.

>>5881443
>If you'd know anything about actual anarchism, you'd realise it's the most "grown-up" responsible ideology there is.
Only a child would believe this nonsense. Have you been reading too much Marxist bullshit?
>>5881448
>And there is no objective "best governance
It's become clear that the French Revolution was the worst thing ever to happen and that democracy is a failure.
>>5881455
>I'm part of the unwashed masses.
Wash yourself, acquire some property, and support your king, then.

>>5881462

>>5881461
I'm not him.
>Says the guy who wishes he'd live in a absolute monarchy in 21st. century.
Right, I forgot, when the almenac struck 2000 humanity suddenly mutated into something else. The history of mankind is filled with monarchies and other authoritarian systems. Anarchy, however, has been strangely absent...

>>5881363

>who the fuck in this day and age wants a return to feudalism?

Trolls, contrarians and retarded people.

>>5881469

The plebs were freemen who could own property. They were only a class below the patricians that were sort of like nobility. Some plebian families ended up being more wealthy than the patricians.

The underclass of Rome was made up of slaves.

>>5881463
Only a child would need a king to tell him what to do with their life. A true man decides for himself.

>>5881481
>Anarchy, however, has been strangely absent...
That's because its time has not come yet.

But seriously, how many absolute monarchies are there in the world, and how does the rest of the world look at them? Also look at how many people, all around the globe demand for more democracy and more direct governance by the people. It's obvious from various "revolutions" and protest, that the world is moving towards more direct democracy, and thus anarchism, than towards absolute monarchy.

>responding to neoreactionaries

>>5881504
>A true man decides for himself.
A true man knows he has superiors and accepts it.

>>5881283
First of all OP, reactionaries don't like libertarians, they just think them of a lesser evil where they could practice communitarianism. 2nd, you can drop the neoreactionaries, since it's just a bunch of blogs that are so diverse that they have things that can't be considered reactionary, like transhumanism. Real reactionaries are aesthet traditionalists. Start with Burke, de Maiste and Carlyle. If you really want your libertarian monarchist there's Herman Hoppe, but economics aren't that important for a reactionary since it's vulgar.

>>5881509
>this is what neo-reactionaries actually believe.
lel. I feel sorry for you kid.

>>5881463
If democracy is a failure why is every world power a liberal democracy?

>>5881504
Direct democracy =/= anarchism.
Anarchism will evolve back into monarchy.
>>5881519
Because every world power is degenerate.
>>5881517
Do you really think you know what's best? You're an anarchist, so you clearly don't.

>>5881524
>Direct democracy =/= anarchism.
I see, you don't know anything about anarchism.
Yeah that makes sense.

>>5881532
Enlighten me, then.

>>5881537

Not something you would like. It involved the unwashed masses actually having a say in society.

>>5881504
>A true man decides for himself.
Right, that's why you're telling people that they can't rule anyone else.
>That's because its time has not come yet.
Cute. Call me when a stable anarchist society has proven to be viable.
>But seriously, how many absolute monarchies are there in the world, and how does the rest of the world look at them?
Are you trying to pull something about how humanity "matured" so that natural laws don't apply anymore? And what does it matter if more people yell for muh freedoms and democracies? We don't want them voting in the first place! Not that democracy is the same thing as anarchy, anarchy is about the rule of none over none, while democracy is about the rule of everyone over everyone, clearly two completely different concepts. They're only united in their resentment towards authority.

And utopias cannot exist in this world. Monarchy is blatantly not an utopia because it has already proven itself to be capable of existing, some little hiccup the last 100-200 years doesn't mean much in the scale of things.

>>5881540
Explain your system to me. You implied you understand it. If you understand it, you can explain it. If you don't understand it, you're clearly an immature fool and I can disregard all your opinions.

>>5881537
Well for starters, every serious anarchist knows that direct democracy is necessary for anarchism to work.

>>5881541
>natural laws don't apply anymore?
There's nothing natural about monarchism. Monarchism is completely based on theology, the natural laws are more in favour of democracy, than monarchy.
It's like you haven't read Thomas Paine at all.

>>5881550
>There's nothing natural about monarchism.
There's nothing natural about authority, neither is there anything natural about gravity or genetics or social organization or sexuality. Up is down and in is out!

>>5881550
>There's nothing natural about monarchism
Then why has it been the natural form of government for most of human history?
>Monarchism is completely based on theology
Indeed.
>the natural laws are more in favour of democracy, than monarchy.
How so?
>Thomas Paine
>Not a revolutionary shill
Enjoy your Republican propaganda.

>>5881547

I'm not an anarchist. I just know that it is basically the opposite of what you want. The common people, by some means or another (such as direct democracy) get to have a say in all aspects of politics and society.

Which is different from the system we have today where you elect a member of the elite to pretend to represent your interests.

>>5881419
>The point is that every form of government is tyrannical.
Closet anarchists, you ought to plow fields, not argue in internette.

>>5881376
>tribal bigguyism

>>5881564
>The common people, by some means or another (such as direct democracy) get to have a say in all aspects of politics and society.
Why are the masses better fit to decide than the aristocracy?
>Which is different from the system we have today where you elect a member of the elite to pretend to represent your interests.
Which is why we should revert to monarchy and cut out the election part entirely. It would streamline the process of government.
>>5881569
Government is tyrannical but also necessary, idiot. Name a society that didn't have government and was capable of functioning.

>>5881519
> China
> Liberal democracy

>>5881572
>You're a big guy
>For the tribe

>>5881573
> Name a society that didn't have government and was capable of functioning.
My family. My social acquaintances. My school peers. My neighborhood.

>>5881580
Those aren't societies. Your neighborhood and your entire social life exist only because the State provides them with stability.

>>5881573
>Why are the masses better fit to decide than the aristocracy?

Because natural law clearly shows that people are tribal and selfish and therefore will rule the country to meet their own self interests.

So if your goal is to meet the wants of most people.

You need to let the country be ruled my most people.

>>5881580
>this is what anarchists think passes for societies
Jesus christ you "people" are a joke

>>5881336
You can't support the 'murifat revolution and be reactionary m8ty

>>5881564
>Which is different from the system we have today where you elect a member of the elite to pretend to represent your interests.
I am an anarchist and pretty much this.

>>5881560
>>5881561
>Thomas Paine
>Not a revolutionary shill
Enjoy your Republican propaganda.
Then maybe John Wise will be more appropriate author for you?

I highly recommend reading his book.
link:
https://ia700505.us.archive.org/13/items/vindicationofgov1962wise/vindicationofgov1962wise.pdf

>>5881584
>Because natural law clearly shows that people are tribal and selfish and therefore will rule the country to meet their own self interests.
How is that not true of the masses, though? The factions that exist in society will vote for their own interests, interest groups will form, lobbyists will become more powerful than the people, and you'll end up with a 'democracy' like the one we have today.
I'd rather have a king who doesn't pretend to be elected than a President who pretends he was.

>/lit/ whines about muh art being dead
>doesn't want a return to more authentic culture

>>5881594

>How is that not true of the masses, though?

It is.

>The factions that exist in society will vote for their own interests, interest groups will form, lobbyists will become more powerful than the people, and you'll end up with a 'democracy' like the one we have today.

Yes, but the disparity between classes within the unwashed masses is far smaller than the disparity between the unwashed classes and the aristocracy. The result will be more people satisfied with the governance of the country.

>>5881580
Come on buddy you couldn't have seriously thought that was a good argument right?

>>5881612
>disparity
Disparity is inevitable.
>satisfied
People will be satisfied or dissatisfied no matter what. The satisfaction of the people has nothing to do with how well they're being governed.

>>5881573
>Government is tyrannical but also necessary, idiot. Name a society that didn't have government and was capable of functioning.
Not completely without government, but Rhode Island from 1647 (and even before then) was the closest thing to actual anarchist society.
>Instead of courts and juries, things were solved through arbitration
>every decision was first decided among townsfolk, who then sent their representative to the state legislation, where they had to agree on decision, then present them back to the townsfolk, to then finally be accepted.

>>5881626
>but Rhode Island from 1647 (and even before then) was the closest thing to actual anarchist society.
It was more of a religious commune, actually. I doubt you approve of organized religion.
Also, I'm surprised you didn't mention anarchist Spain. RIP Franco

I once met a guy who had a hard-on for monarchy.

His rational?

Thomas Aquinas said so in some book he authored.

Yes, he was one of those fake heretic "Catholics" from the US.

>>5881584
Except most people have no fucking idea what they need, even nobody capitalists like ford knew this.

>>5881637
>fake heretic "Catholics" from the US.
Care to elaborate?

Anarchism is not only unsustainable, it is self defeating. Individualists need not seek validation from a collective or a label, but to seek it within themselves. Thinking, making decisions, and acting outside of the false collective is the ultimate expression of the sovereign self.

I really don't want to post in this thread.

>>5881631
>Also, I'm surprised you didn't mention anarchist Spain.
Spain was great, but in the end it wasn't really successful. Unfortunately.
Also I'm okay with Rhode Island, because it was based on religious toleration. Roger Williams is one of the people in history that I really look up to.

And yes I'm aware, he wasn't perfect, his dealing with both Quakers and Gortonites was less than great. Also both Quakers and Gortonites are great. Quakers are also a good example of anarchist-like organisation of society.

>>5881647
>Thinking, making decisions, and acting outside of the false collective is the ultimate expression of the sovereign self.
I don't see how this isn't compatible with anarchism.
Well other than individual sovereignty. We need to behead the king. Only way we can do that, if we stop seeing people as individual sovereigns, which in turn then create political sovereignty, like "The people" or "Monarch".

>>5881642

In the US there are a bunch of people who call themselves "Catholics" but are actual WASP protestants in disguise.

Basically they hold the same puritan ideas about politics and society that are widespread in the US but are incompatible with Catholicism. But still insist on calling themselves Catholics.

>>5881666
>I don't see how this isn't compatible with anarchism.
Because anarchists are baby egalitarians who think nobody should rule anyone else or it will hurt their baby feelings.

>>5881647

Very few anarchists are individualists though.

>>5881672
What ideas in particular are you talking about? I'm an American Catholic and I'm just wondering if I'm guilty of being one of these people.

>>5881677

>anarchists are baby egalitarians

Actually anarchists are extreme egalitarians who believe that everyone should rule over everyone else.

>>5881677
top lel.
This has to be bait. Right?
Was I transported to /pol/?

>>5881682
Egalitarians are babies though and anarchists are the most infantile of them all.

>>5881682
If everyone has equal authority, no one has any actual authority over anyone else.

>>5881688
>Was I transported to /pol/?
Probably since /pol/ is filled with a bunch of mentally deficient fuckwits whining about other internet communities instead of talking like normal human beings.

>>5881690
Statists are babies, and monarchist are the most infantile of them all.

>>5881666
>we
there's your problem. I don't need to do anything except what I will.

>>5881690
>>5881695
listen to yourselves, you are literally calling each other babies on a Laotian claymation imageboard

>>5881679
Very few individuals are individualists

>>5881699
I mean we as "we the political scientists". I was paraphrasing Foucault.

>I don't need to do anything except what I will.
In anarchism, you'll be free to do just that.

>>5881706
Baby detected

>>5881695
>Statists are babies
Say that to my face, faggot, not online, see what happens

>>5881710
Do what you will, and so will I.

>>5881715
I was hegelian once, then I started to read Foucault. My life was better ever since.

>>5881680

If you're Catholic you would know about the Catechism of the Catholic Church and about Catholic Social Teaching.

These bodies of work contain the rational for why a particular political and social stance is the proper Catholic one.

As a Catholic one is supposed to follow this guidance in their political and social life. One cannot just maintain any given political or social ideology and still be living in line with the teachings of the Church.

It suffices to say that some American Catholics have political and social stances that are clearly not in line with the Church but still like to pretend that the are good practicing Catholic. They seem to believe in the protestant idea of Sola fide.

>>5881715
ai ni benzi ;)

>>5881719
Cool so we're in agreement that anarchism is the best ideology? I mean it is the only system, that will let you do just that.

>>5881695
And now you're aping! I call you a child and you respond by acting like one! Hilarious. No, anarchists are childlike because they reject authority, which is rejecting reality.

>>5881691

I think that's the point.

>>5881726
I've been meaning to read my Catechism for a while, but I've been caught up with Hegel and other assorted edgelords
>They seem to believe in the protestant idea of Sola fide.
Oh, well, I'm not dumb enough to be committing THAT heresy, even unwittingly.

>>5881729
>anarchists are childlike because they reject authority
No child rejects authority. If you'd say teenager, I'd might agree. I mean few years ago I was pretty sure that anarchists can only be edgy teens who don't want their parents to boss them around. Then I actually read some books on anarchism, and realised how wrong I was.
It's okay. I had to get my masters in political science to understand anarchism. It's not for everyone.

>>5881728
>we're
stop triggering me

>>5881737
Sorry, didn't know I was talking to a solipsist.

>>5881728
>I mean it is the only system, that will let you do just that.
Then you'll sit and watch while I conquer, I presume?
>>5881736
>No child rejects authority.
No, but they reject reality regularly. And to clarify, it's not so much about rejecting a certain authority as it is about rejecting the concept of authority.

>>5881739
lel

joshin' ya mate

we can be friends but I will not fight bloody revolution unless I do will in the future

>>5881741
>Then you'll sit and watch while I conquer, I presume?
If you'll be able to do that. Then, be my guest. I'll also be watching, when the subjugated people revolt against you, and behead you.
Also there's nothing natural in authority. It's a relation of power. And every relation of power can be changed.

>>5881741
we can be friends, too
do you like spicy food?

>>5881583
> Those aren't societies
How come?

>>5881603
> Return to authenticity
> Not impossible

>>5881754
>And every relation of power can be changed.
Of course. They can't however, be equalized, no matter how much your you peddle your ridiculous fantasy. That's why anarchy never suceeds, after all.
>>5881756
I love spicy food, sure!
contact me, my email is gasthekikesracewarnow@stormfront.org

>>5881773
Social groups =/= society.
All those things can only exist within the context of a larger social organism, i.e., a fully realized society with a fully realized state.

>>5881721
> I was Hegelian once [and then no more]
Clearly you weren't since you disregarded it.

>>5881782
>implying our civilization will last forever in it's current state
just throw some humongous wars and market crashes and hundreds of years on decline on it and our descendants descendants will be able to enjoy authenticity

>>5881785
They don't need to be equalised, they just have to be organised in a nexus, instead of a pyramidal form.
So that power doesn't emanate from one centre, but is distributed in a network fashion. I mean, there will always be "thicker knots" in the network, but none of those knots will poses absolute power.

>>5881797
then maybe, I should say "I thought I was".

>>5881802
What even is authenticity, and what makes you think it'll come back after a nuclear holocaust irrevocably alters the way the planet's biosphere functions?

Landed aristocracy is pretty much impossible now, in any capitalist system the bourgeois will have much more power. Because owning a lot of land isn't what counts, what counts is copyrights, patents, laboratories, investments, marketing. Bill Gates or Warren Buffet are far wealthier than someone who has a bunch of serfs.

>>5881815
>Landed aristocracy is pretty much impossible now
m8, the death of middle class in the western world is largely caused by too fast real estate prices which in turn are largely caused by middle classes attempts to ascend to upper classes through real estate manipulation

just might

>>5881826
Real estate speculation generate can make you a shit load of money, but the landed aristocracy is not about real estate speculation, they're about one large piece of land passed down through generations, the exact opposite of real estate speculation.

>>5881834
I'm pretty sure that's what he means. That is, that while landed aristocracy is safe from any outside change, the modern bourgeois who tries to do similar thing is destined to fail, because of the market irregularities.
But the thing is, even if landed aristocracy would still exist it would be hit by the crisis as well. Maybe no to the extent as the middle class was, but still.

>>5881813
Authenticity is when culture of a people/nation shows its own pure ideal in the visible aesthetic realm. Basically when new myth and logos are made, those that will be future inspiration.

>>5881852
lol even if you can make a solid argument that bourgeois wealth can't stay in the same family for hundreds of years (which you can't, since it has in the case of families such as the Rothschilds), that doesn't change the case that collectively the bourgeois would have far more economic power than the aristocracy, and that members of the haute bourgeoisie would individually be far more wealthy and powerful than individual members of the aristocracy.

Even if you did establish a libertarian aristocracy state, it wouldn't stay aristocratic for very long before the bourgeoisie altered the system to accommodate their having political office. The aristocracy could either gentle accept the change, or try to stop it, in which case the bourgeoisie would kick the aristocracies ass in any war, because the bourgeois would have the masses, the money, and the world on their side.

>>5881871
hey m8, I'm agreeing with you.
I'm just explaining what I think that other guy said.

>>5881859
That's the first time I've heard anyone talk about authenticity that way.

top kek

>>5881921
what's wrong with that argument?

This is the best writing about neoreaction you will find, anywhere:

slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/03/reactionary-philosophy-in-an-enormous-planet-sized-nutshell/

It's written by a guy on the complete opposite side of neoreactionaries on every single issue, but he's great at presenting their ideas (and the arguments behind them) neutrally and without judgment.

>>5881736
Actually younger children are initially driven purely by what affects them positively or negatively and have no regard for authority or other people. Sounds kinda like anarchists, doesn't it?

>>5881944
half way through this, this is fucking excellent

>>5881944
>slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/03/reactionary-philosophy-in-an-enormous-planet-sized-nutshell/

>Reader. You have just been convicted of grand theft auto (the crime, not the game). You’re innocent, but the prosecutor was very good at her job and you’ve used up all your appeals and you’re just going to have to accept the punishment. The judge gives you two options:

>1) Five years in prison
>2) Fifty strokes of the lash

>Like everyone else except a few very interesting people who help provide erotic fantasies for the rest of us, I don’t like being whipped. But I would choose (2) in a fraction of a heartbeat.

I would definitely take the lash. Thinking about it, it seems like a perfectly acceptable and effective punishment. Lashing someone publically, there's definitely something to it. The pain, the shame, the trauma, stigma. A whip and a hand is a lot cheaper than 5 years rent and board in prison too.

>>5881590
The American "revolution" was a conservative revolt against the radical plotting of George III, just as the Dutch revolt had been a conservative stand against the idiocy of Philip II.

A lot of the arguments I've read from reactionaries I've found convincing, but I have no real use for it. Sure, it's interesting, but really there's nothing I can do to change anything. Things will run their course. I try to read the news ad all things political as little as possible now.

>>5882142
political apathy is your prerogative I guess, but others certainly have 'use' for it, insofar as anybody has use for any particular doctrine

>>5881283
libertarianism != reactionarism
reactionary capitalist is an oxymoron.
Maybe you meant neoconservatism? There are a bunch of these

>>5882112
If the American Revolution was a conservative revolt against radicals, why was their such an effort by its founders toward a secular gubment?

http://freenortherner.com/dark-enlightenment-reading-list/

>>5881804
> I mean, there will always be "thicker knots" in the network, but none of those knots will poses absolute power.
Why not?
What's to keep the thicker knots from getting bigger?

What is the necessary effort to keep this balance and if such a balance is possible, why was this effort not exerted so far?

>>5882111
I'm generally libtarded as fuck, but I actually do support reinstating corporal punishment and think it would be both more effective and humane than prison.

>>5883283
but dem false convictions. Just a necessary evil?

>>5883322
False convictions occur all the same regarding the sentences for those found guilty. That said, the corporal punishment I support would be heavily controlled; I wouldn't want amputation or shit like that.

>>5883332
>corporal punishment
Nevermind Im retarded I read it as capital punishment.

>people shitposting on /lit/ about being reactionaries
What's stopped you from joining ISIS and recreating your feudalism that you keep saying you want?