/ccg/ - Classical Conservative General

[Anonymous No.10054251]

Enough already about "classical liberalism". Here's a thread for classical (traditional) conservatives and the literature thereof. Here is the Wikipedia article on that if you don’t know what that is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_conservatism

If nothing else, post your faith. I’m personally an Orthodox Christian.

There’s a book out recently, you might be interested in it: “The Politics of Virtue: Post Liberalism and the Human Future. Here is a piece on it: http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2016/10/liberalism-and-capitalism-have-hollowed-out-society-so-where-do-we-turn-now

Feel free to post other book recs as well as articles. I enjoyed these:

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2017/01/13/long-read-what-liberal-intellectuals-get-wrong-about-transgenderism/

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2016/05/17/4463500.htm

Music, it’s a non-liturgical piece (liturgical music for us must be a cappella) by one of our bishops in homage to Bach: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5XgsLqUN6k The finale, 1:41:45, kept playing in my head after my baptism (we do full immersion and it’s quite beautiful). You can see a political and religious interview with him here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzfjCb-3bcY

Please, feel free to post art, but make it great art, not sentimentalist crap.

[Anonymous No.10054265]

faith and tradition are for gaylords

[Anonymous No.10054279]

gorrilla minset by mike cernovitch is a must read for all conservatives

[Anonymous No.10054353]

>>10054279
Why?

[Anonymous No.10055669]

Bump

[Anonymous No.10055682]

>>10054353
He's fucking with people. Cernovich is a joke.

A book I'd encourage people new to this stuff to check out is Archeofuturism by Guillaume Faye.

[Anonymous No.10055701]

What are some right-wing novels that are actually good?

>>10054251
Were you born into Orthodoxy or did you convert? It seems like a lot of conservative-but-smarter-than-/pol/ posters on 4chan convert to Orthodoxy.

[Anonymous No.10055715]

Are classical realists invited too?

[Anonymous No.10055742]

>Orthodoxy annoyed Catholicism got most of western canon
>those anglophone links
I'm offended on behalf of traditionalists tbph

[Anonymous No.10055858]

>>10055701
Convert, I was baptized in adulthood

We do convert to Orthodoxy. They 're actually even more high church than Catholic and have very conservative saints and monks. Also our theology and aesthetic are centered around tradition, tradition, tradition. It's very satisfying for tradition to be considered so important and reverently in an age that is concerned with overcoming tradition

[Anonymous No.10055866]

>>10055701
Convert, I was baptized in adulthood

We do convert to Orthodoxy. They 're actually even more high church than Catholic and have very conservative saints and monks. Also our theology and aesthetic are centered around tradition, tradition, tradition. It's very satisfying for tradition to be considered so important and reverently in an age that is concerned with overcoming tradition


>What are some right-wing novels that are actually good?

Demons

[Anonymous No.10055885]

Dostoevsky
Julius Evola

[Anonymous No.10055892]

>>10055885
Evola is hardly a classical conservative

[Anonymous No.10055934]

>>10054251
>I’m personally an Orthodox Christian.

Enjoy hell.

[Anonymous No.10055991]

>>10054251
Don't associate with degenerates!

[Anonymous No.10056050]

>>10054251
Leftists analysis about civilization is mostly right, but their solutions are wrong. They believe we can overcome the negative outcomes of modernity through further progression - greater equality, more deconstruction, newer morals - whereas the traditionalist knows that one can only defeat modernity by leaving it completely, to abandon the idea of progress altogether, and to return to what sustained us for thousands of years.

[Anonymous No.10057179]

>>10056050
I think that depends on which leftist analysis you mean. Also the focus of value is much different. Classical conservatives, for instance, want to repair our estrangement from the land and therefore support things like conservationism and reviving gardening and farming. Leftist enviromentalists by contrast are more about protecting earth from hunanity than recovering our bond to the land. Leftist economics also don't analyze non-material factors, which are crucial for us in considering flaws in a system.

[Anonymous No.10057188]

>>10055934
We believe hell is heaven, God's fiery presence, but in an ungodly state. So if I'm enjoying it, it's heaven

>>10056050
I think that depends on which leftist analysis you mean. Also the focus of value is much different. Classical conservatives, for instance, want to repair our estrangement from the land and therefore support things like conservationism and reviving gardening and farming. Leftist enviromentalists by contrast are more about protecting earth from hunanity than recovering our bond to the land. Leftist economics also don't analyze non-material factors, which are crucial for us in considering flaws in a system.

[Anonymous No.10057317]

>>10055885
>Evola
>Classical conservative
He is more of a reactionary t b h

[Anonymous No.10057332]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Works_by_Edmund_Burke

[Anonymous No.10057357]

>"I will simply point out the error of principle that has provided the foundation of this constitution and that has led the French astray since the first moment of their revolution.

>The constitution of 1795, like its predecessors, has been drawn up for Man. Now, there is no such thing in the world as Man. In the course of my life, I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, etc.; I am even aware, thanks to Montesquieu, that one can be a Persian. But, as for Man, I declare that I have never met him in my life. If he exists, I certainly have no knowledge of him.

>....This constitution is capable of being applied to all human communities from China to Geneva. But a constitution which is made for all nations is made for none: it is a pure abstraction, a school exercise whose purpose is to exercise the mind in accordance with a hypothetical ideal, and which ought to be addressed to Man, in the imaginary places which he inhabits....

>What is a constitution? Is it not the solution to the following problem: to find the laws that are fitting for a particular nation, given its population, its customs, its religion, its geographical situation, its political relations, its wealth, and its good and bad qualities?

>Now, this problem is not addressed at all by the Constitution of 1795, which is concerned only with Man."

T.Joseph de Maistre

[Anonymous No.10057360]

>>10057357
smart guy.

the new climate of absolute egalitarianism is one of the stupidest mistakes ever made by mankind, and proceeding with it as a first principle will continue to turn out terrible results until we finally abandon the idea.

[Anonymous No.10057380]

[Anonymous No.10057384]

[Anonymous No.10057399]

>being a conservative when there is nothing left to conserve

[Anonymous No.10057405]

>>10057399
this

[Anonymous No.10057406]

>>10057399
>Being a liberal when there is nothing else to liberalize

[Anonymous No.10057411]

[Anonymous No.10057421]

>>10057360
But so is the idea that superior people should simply enjoy superior place. All should work for the benefit of society, not just one's class or oneself. Classes ONLY serve the purpose of bettering society as a whole, just as church classes (laity, monks, hermits, deacons, priests, readers, choir, fools-for-Chtist, bishops etc) only exist for the benefit of the Church; without that defing purpose, they are just special interest groups.

[Anonymous No.10057429]

>>10057406
>feminism and welfarism is destroying the family
>atheism is destroying religion
>multiculturalism and social mobility are destroying the community

It's going well, but there's plenty more work to be done before Rome falls

[Anonymous No.10057443]

>>10057429
Wtf I love liberalism now

[Anonymous No.10057445]

>>10057429
>atheism is destroying religion
Except athiesm is the fastest dying belief in the world. You see you, can't have children if you never get laid in the first place.

[Anonymous No.10057449]

>>10054251
Are you guys racist, too?

[Anonymous No.10057450]

>>10057443
>What even is a nation like it's just borders lol
>What is a common modality between a large group of people inheriting a political sphere that they govern over without too much conflict of interest
Is this guy retarded?

[Anonymous No.10057452]

>>10054251
>/ccg/ - Classical Conservative General
you fucked it up, we are gonna get drowned in american """"conservatives""""

[Anonymous No.10057455]

[Anonymous No.10057462]

>>10057443
>What is a Crip? I refuse to be kille- *pop pop pop*

>>10057406
>not being an accelerationist and gearing yourself up for the rebuild

[Anonymous No.10057468]

[Anonymous No.10057472]

>>10057445
True, Christianity is still being lost in the West though, and that's significant. The idea of atheism being replaced by Islam doesn't exactly fill me with hope.

[Anonymous No.10057494]

it's impossible to be an intelligent human being and religious at the same time.

[Anonymous No.10057502]

>>10057494
It is impossible for a human being not to be religious. It only depends which particular certainties they choose to cling to and which idols they choose to follow.

[Anonymous No.10057516]

>>10057502
That makes no sense.

I am a human being. I am not religious.

[Anonymous No.10057522]

>>10057449
We believe different peoples have different cultures and temperments (therefore a utopia, one-size-fits-all government style is not practic). We don't factor in or care about racialist science, though, and we certainly aren't interested in making policies to harm different races out of spite

[Anonymous No.10057524]

>>10057516
Yes you are.

[Anonymous No.10057528]

>>10057516
Except you are? Modern athiesm is based around scientism , their moral authorities come from talking heads on the television, and their tradition stems from a secular interpretation of liberation theology.

The only kind of men without religion are total psychopaths incapable of empathy and relation with others

[Anonymous No.10057534]

>>10057468
>plato
>conservative
>wants to literally create a new man and forbid traditional myths and poetry
yeah, no

[Anonymous No.10057538]

Why is this not on /pol/? It's literally just a political ideology general that barely references books.

And it has been up for almost an entire day now. What the fuck, jannies?

[Anonymous No.10057539]

>>10057494
Religion is not an individualist conclusion, it's a collectively inherited and treasured system of belief and practice. It does require a willingess to not exalt one's own reasoning as the foremost source of truth and wisdom.

[Anonymous No.10057546]

>>10057522
>We
Speak for yourself, pal. Biological determinism is something I defend, including race naturalism. Any kind of large scale interaction with other racial groups should give you an immediate sense of quintessential differences between different kinds of folk. Even within racial groups there are differences between different kinds of folk as well.

Human biodiversity and biological determinism are conservative and anti-egalitarian values. Whether or not people see this as "racist" doesn't matter. I for one don't hate other races, I just like my own and accept their differences.

[Anonymous No.10057549]

>>10057538
Gotta purge fast

[Anonymous No.10057556]

>>10057528

This, again, makes no sense. You're assuming my moral authorities come from television?

How does atheism (where it necessarily must not believe in a deity) ever derive from liberation theology?

Can we ban this shit from /lit/? Go back to screaming on street corners you deluded loons.

[Anonymous No.10057558]

>>10057538
Politics and culture are inseparable and have profound effects on each other. Also
>trying to have an intelligent discussion on /pol/

[Anonymous No.10057564]

>>10057534
Except Plato's republic and the responses to it are essential to understand conservative thought, especially his defense of aristocracy as a form of government

[Anonymous No.10057565]

[Anonymous No.10057575]

>>10057556
>where it necessarily must not believe in a deity)
>He is such a brainlet that he doesn't understand that most laws and mores of the secularized west come from Christian values
>Doesn't understand that egalitarianism comes from Christianity either
Fucks sake

[Anonymous No.10057576]

if your country is developed to the point where you can access 4chan from your home and you are still religious you are an idiot.

How can any adult in the 21st century still be brainwashed by pedos who believe in magic sky men?

[Anonymous No.10057578]

>>10057546
I guess that depends on what you mean by "biological determinism". Classical conservatism is more rooted in tradition as justifaction (seeing it as collective wisdom we might not always understnd), that trying to justify tradition. As soon as traditions become based on rational justifaction, you're on the modernist ride,

[Anonymous No.10057579]

>>10057558
>/lit/ is for the discussion of literature, specifically books (fiction & non-fiction), short stories, poetry, creative writing, etc. If you want to discuss history, religion, or the humanities, go to /his/. If you want to discuss politics, go to /pol/.
If OP wants to make a thread about The Politics of Virtue: Post Liberalism and the Human that is fine. But literally just a political ideology general is ridiculous, it's not on topic at all.

>trying to have an intelligent discussion on /pol/
Have you considered that this is because political discussions are retard magnets and making /lit/ an acceptable place for political generals would only make /lit/ worse?

[Anonymous No.10057583]

>>10057556
>You're assuming my moral authorities come from television?
>Assuming
Except I'm right. Unless you would like to tell me where your socialized morality came from?
>Inb4 idk , school

[Anonymous No.10057588]

>>10057575
I understand where laws come from, the only problem is most of them also come from common sense and we would have gotten here (much quicker, may I add) without religion.

"If we outlaw murder people will kill each other less"
wow we really needed god for that one didn't we?

>>10057583
See my last point.

Sorry I didn't get my entire life philosophy from a book written by ooga-booga ghost man and his twelve dickriders

[Anonymous No.10057591]

>>10057564
i could understand plato in general being key to conservatism, but not the republic which is pretty revolutionary, he wants to break the traditional family, open up all positions to all citizens, in principle men and women, put all kids in the same undifferentiated pile, educate them together and choose the best of them

that's a meritocracy but i wouldn't compare it with a normal hereditary aristocracy

[Anonymous No.10057593]

>>10057576
Orthodox believe God is an energy (depicted most oftwn as a light or fire) dwelling in and sustaining all things. Heaven and hell are acute experience of him

[Anonymous No.10057602]

>>10057593
I grew up Orthodox and most people subscribed to the magic sky man interpretation.

I've experienced enough of your people's stupidity for one lifetime . Santa isn't real, kids. It's time to grow up.

[Anonymous No.10057603]

>>10057578
Except the concept of kin and the differences between folk has also existed as collective and intergenerational wisdom for thousands of years? Conservatism still allows for rational justification, it's the definition of "rational" that conservatives have a qualm with modernists. Where modernists only see the surface of things and call the denial of things underneath it

[Anonymous No.10057609]

>>10057588
>my morality comes from common sense
>Has no idea where the collective sense of morality of his surroundings comes from

[Anonymous No.10057611]

>>10057609
I'm sorry you're too stupid to realise the inconsistency of religion and its morals.

Keep deluding yourself. Hope you have fun in heaven which is totally a place.

[Anonymous No.10057613]

>>10057588
>Because killing each other is wrong a priori
Except that's a Christian teaching. Not every culture sees murder as being inherently evil

[Anonymous No.10057614]

>>10057588
>the only problem is most of them also come from common sense
are you retarded? it's 2017 and you have seen what multiculturalism looks like, the "common sense" meme died a long time ago

[Anonymous No.10057624]

>>10057602
If that's all you can grasp, that understanding is fine.

>>10057603
I'm not comfortable using rationalism and science as justification because they are rooted in change and progress. The sun used to orbit the earth

[Anonymous No.10057626]

>>10057611
>Dude ad infinitum denial is any better than ad infinitum faith
>All of my morality comes from absolutely nowhere and is a praxeology , it's just something that always was human law and always was moral since the beginning of time
How to spot a moron who doesn't know himself 101

[Anonymous No.10057633]

>>10057613
it's not about wrong or right, it's about self-preservation. Did jesus not tell you about social contract theory?

"I don't kill you and you don't kill me"

>>10057614
and most of the problems from other 'cultures' are actually problems deriving from religion. even a religious moron like you must understand that.

>>10057624
>'grasping' something that doesn't exist

>>10057626
faith is just another world for delusion.

leap of faith = committing to something despite reality = delusion


do the world a favour and please commit suicide. All of you. There's nothing worse than religious pseudos.

[Anonymous No.10057637]

>>10057591
He wanted to create a meritocratic aristocracy, probably because he recognized that the son of someone prominent does not always have the same abilities as his progenitor

[Anonymous No.10057640]

>>10057624
And btw I'm not saying change progress when based on tradition is bad (tradition changes unless it's dogma), but science and reason make abrupt, radical changes. Tradition makes cautious change over a long period

[Anonymous No.10057647]

>>10057633
>Treat those as you would have them treat yourself
>admitting that the basis for your morality comes from a religious decree and being too stupid to realize your hypocrisy
Wew, when did self preservation and individualism become the basis of morality in mankind? When was that inherent?

[Anonymous No.10057654]

>>10057633
>Because asserting that there is nothing beyond yourself isn't a leap of faith that asserts a form of reality

[Anonymous No.10057655]

>>10057637
yes, he wanted to break with tradition, the republic is not a conservative book

[Anonymous No.10057667]

>>10057654
What's your point? Given the choice, I'd asser there is nothing beyond myself than taking a blind chance on magic god man's existence, and then using that belief to follow an incosistent moral doctrine

>>10057647
Since survival of the fittest was a thing, or do you not believe in that either?

Iinb4 fedora posts because you guys have no argument

why don't you all go back to sucking dick at the altar

[Anonymous No.10057669]

>>10057655
Except it was? His critiques of democracy and inquiry into human nature needing to be reigned in by the the state. He also calls for eugenics and a ruling class by the state.

In fact, he kind of advocates for an early form of fascism, and you're right that this would make it utopian, but still it's an important work to read and has (some) conservative values within it which are important to consider as well.

[Anonymous No.10057672]

>>10057667
>I'd asser there is nothing beyond myself than taking a blind chance on magic god man's existence, and then using that belief to follow an incosistent moral doctrine
So you're openly admitting that you are taking a blind leap of faith via solipsism that asserts a reality you aren't willing to question.

Good job anon, it's good that you can admit that

[Anonymous No.10057673]

>>10054251
Most great literature is pretty conservative. Leftists tend to see life in black and white terms. This kind of literal worldview can be good for producing naturalistic literature, like Dreiser's Sister Carrie and Sinclair's The Jungle. But it's hard imagining a leftist writing a Henry James novel.

[Anonymous No.10057680]

>>10057669
>In fact, he kind of advocates for an early form of fascism
so? fascism is revolutionary, not conservative, the italian fascist party was literally called Fascist Revolutionary Party

[Anonymous No.10057683]

>>10057672
and yet it STILL makes more sense to do it my way than yours, why is that? is it because religion asserts a whole laundry list of other shit it can't prove with a single bit of evidence?

Can I ask you a question? Do you seriously think you're a sane person?

[Anonymous No.10057689]

>>10057667
>Individualism is Darwinian
No
>Mankind lacks any autonomy like the animals around us that run on pure instinct
No
>Self preservation implies no murder, rape, theft, etc on an individual level
No, and according to your Darwinian morality, anything that promotes you genotype and reproductive dominance over others is morally justified. So rape is , you know, fine then?

[Anonymous No.10057705]

>>10057683
>is it because religion asserts a whole laundry list of other shit it can't prove with a single bit of evidence?
Except your belief system also assets a whole list of mores which you believe in by a quasi biblical decree that just happens to be "common law" and egalitarianism , neither of which have any kind of real argument for that goes beyond moral ones, the morality of which ultimately coming from Christian traditions This is all, meanwhile, coming from an assertion of total solipsism beyond the self which is ten times more absurd which in itself is a religious assertion.

Man is inherently religiou, period.

[Anonymous No.10057717]

>>10057680
>Is revolutionary
Reactionary, but yes still had post-enlightenment assertions of egalite in it. It would be hard to call Codreanu, Hitler, or Rivera revolutionary compared to anyone else at the time though.

Still, Plato's republic is a good read

[Anonymous No.10057718]

>>10057689
wow, so all that's stopping you from raping people is your God? That's fucked up.

I understand the damaging psychological and physical consequences of rape. I would not wish it upon myself (I also would not wish it upon others, but thats beyond the point) and others would not wish it upon themselves. Therefore, in the same way no murder laws would come about, no rape laws would happen. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand

Oh wait, you're stupid enough to be religious, so Imay as well tell you my moral code comes from frogs that whisper in my ear every morning telling me not to rape others


>>10057705
please give me some of these assertions from my 'belief system'

[Anonymous No.10057729]

>>10057718
>>(I also would not wish it upon others, but thats beyond the point)
>being this clueless
>introduction christian morality in a parenthesis without justification
wew lad, the least you could do is at least be edgier if you are going to portray this level of fedoraism

[Anonymous No.10057730]

>>10057718
>wow, so all that's stopping you from raping people is your God? That's fucked up.
It's the same with you though, the social contract is based on Christian morality.
>I understand that it hurts people and hurting people is inherently wrong just because
>I mean that sentiment is just inherent, it has been what mankind practiced since the dawn of time because it's Darwinian

Except taking war brides was always something mankind did, and if you want to justify morality by a Darwinian decree, then the Rape of the Sabine women was the most moral thing for the early Romans to do because it asserts their reproductive supremacy over others. Just admit that your morality comes from a Christian basis already, this is just getting sad

[Anonymous No.10057736]

>>10057718
>please give me some of these assertions from my 'belief system'
I already gave you solipsism and egalitarianism. I guess I missed pacifism , although not all athiests are pacifists

[Anonymous No.10057737]

>>10057729
are you really that dense that you can't get to empathy without god?

and I inb4'd fedora comments, but nice try.

>>10057730
i am against rape because I don't want rape to be a thing in our world. You have to be literally autistic to need something other than the definition of rape to be against it. Then again you're all religious, so the autism thing make sense

[Anonymous No.10057746]

>>10057737
>i am against rape because I don't want rape to be a thing in our world
Yeah because you have a moral sense that stems from Christian thought but you're just too dense to understand how mores develop within a society.

Lrn2 humanities m8

[Anonymous No.10057751]

>>10057737
>are you really that dense that you can't get to empathy without god?
lol, i'm not religious, i'm just not clueless and i'm aware that your "common sense" is just as magical as their "god". values are not created from thin air and morality has no basis in science.

>i am against rape because I don't want rape to be a thing in our world.
well of course, because you've gone through a western education and been completely christianized, not you just take it for granted and want to ignore the roots

[Anonymous No.10057757]

>>10057746
you're a steaming hot retard

please continue to fund pedos and anti-science practices with your outdated beliefs, lads. I'm out of here.

Lets hope I don't rape anyone on the way out!

[Anonymous No.10057767]

>>10057757
So this was a troll, right thread? There's no way this was real person?

[Anonymous No.10057783]

>>10057767
He insulted people and kept saying "inb4 Fedora memes", although nobody posted a fedora meme. I think he is a troll.

[Anonymous No.10057791]

>>10057757
One day, you might understand. Until then have fun rereading The God Delusion and believing yourself rationally superior to everyone else

[Anonymous No.10057795]

>>10057737
>Makes generalizations and ad hominems everywhere
>Strawmans as a desperate attempt to claim moral superiority
>Literally believes religious people are insane
Did you literally just finished reading The God Delusion, and came here to shitpost, or are you underage?

[Anonymous No.10057804]

>>10057421
Specification (as opposed to the delusion that an ideology being "universal" makes it better) does not imply such a stratification.

[Anonymous No.10057812]

>>10057443
There is almost something innocent in people trashing the concept of nations that didn't have to live the first 15 years of their lives around muslims.

[Anonymous No.10057819]

>>10057795
>>10057791
>>10057783
>>10057767
Yes I'm a troll you got me I actually believe in god teehee

[Anonymous No.10057825]

>>10057819
Not bad to be honest, I've literally had the same argument about 500 times

[Anonymous No.10057829]

>>10057825
Those are the best arguments.
Like defending Tifa on /v/ or 2001 on /tv or Kissinger on /pol/.

[Anonymous No.10057830]

>>10057825
if god exists then why are you a faggot?

[Anonymous No.10057831]

so that article linked in the OP doesnt really elaborate on how conservatism (or evne liberalism) in the early 18th century had an influence on the french revolution.

Klemens von metternich hated liberalism, but I also know that he wasn't really a conservative of the time either. Apparently conservatism of the age was about state stability (which sounds sort of fitting to modern conservatism) and liberalism aroused too much nationalism among the lower classes (which sounds like a far cry from modern liberalism).

can someone give me a rundown on the two thoughts of this age?

[Anonymous No.10057879]

>>10057831
The ideas behind the French Revolution were rooted in liberalism, specifically the idea of universal human rights and the rejection of the divine right of kings (eg Thomas Paine). Conservatives of the time (eg Edmund Burke) wanted to maintain the ancien regime and the monarchy, believing that reform was preferable to revolution.

In the general assembly, Conservatives sat on the right of the king and liberals on the left, which is where we get left/right wing from.

The French Revolution turned out to be a disaster, but liberalism is now overwhelmingly dominant in the West. This is either a disaster or a triumph, depending on your perspective.

Someone who knows the history better might be able to fact check this, I'm no expert.

[Anonymous No.10057887]

>some aspects of Christian morality have been taken up by secularists
>therefore God is real

[Anonymous No.10057903]

>>10057887
>secularists
christian atheists would be a better term

[Anonymous No.10057908]

>>10057640
>I'm not saying change progress when based on tradition is bad
fuck off, Burke

[Anonymous No.10057910]

>>10057831
Conservatism was mostly defined by opposition to the French Revolution (Burke supported it, but after seeing it first hand became a conservative). Liberals believed in historical progress, whereas conservatives didn't believe history has a goal. Liberals believed in an ideal form of government, conservatives believed each society must be governed according to its own values and customs. Liberals believed in direct loyalty to the nation, conservatives believed in mediations of loyalty: an individual to a family, family to a community, etc. Liberals saw class (I mean in the formal, not marxist sense) as oppressive, conservatives saw it as a useful division of roles, with each class needing and benefiting the others. Liberals wanted to privatize land, conservatives wanted to keep a lot of land common (comnon land could be used for farming or hiking etc), believing patriotism is linked to love of the land

[Anonymous No.10057936]

>>10057903
a bunch of oxy morons then

[Anonymous No.10057941]

>>10057443
>Nationalism is an abstraction and not an observation
P L E B I AN

[Anonymous No.10058078]

>>10057910
>(Burke supported it, but after seeing it first hand became a conservative).

For good reason too. The revolutionaries were batshit insane and I encourage everyone to look into some of the sort of things they did. They were so hardcore about removing religious influences on society that even banned the Gregorian calendar from use and tried to make their own.

[Anonymous No.10058095]

>>10057831
Without going in to special snowflake territory, any understanding of theses events based on "two thoughts" is doomed to fail, even if you want a surface reading.
As Jacques Bainville said, there are three France from an ideological perspective (which is what interest us here):
>the legitimists or Ancien Regime
The most prominent writers of this faction are Louis de Bonald and Joseph de Maistre. Most of the old nobility followed them, and a very significant portion of the common people. A bit throne and altar to me, but they are definitely the most /lit/.
>the Orleanists or liberal/libertarains (and I mean Ron Paul for muricans trying to meme the words liberal and libertarian to mean anything else)
Notable examples are Turgot, Portalis and Rivarol as writers, Danton ,Sieyes and the majority of the Girondins as politicians. They were the initial instigators of change and somewhat close to the American Revolution, with the difference that most remained monarchist to the last end. Efficient people for peacetime, the core of the future industrial revolution, but far too "petty bourgeois" for times of trouble. The kind to talk about tax policy and central banking right in the middle of the Terror. Many will be murdered, some will regain prominence as civil administrators of the Empire while Napoleon went warring the world.
>the radicals
There really is not much argument against calling them leftists. People like Mably or St Just or Morelly. During the revolution, most of the Jacobins were radicals. This will culminate in the conspiracy of the equals of Babeuf (the man that will first described by the term "communist"). There isn't much to be surprised about them. Property bad, marriage/monogamy bad, Church bad. Robespierre was close to them, though it would be unfair to strictly categorize him as such.

[Anonymous No.10058159]

>>10054251
Tradition is literally the stupidest thing there is.

[Anonymous No.10058191]

>>10058159
>Intergenerational wisdom is the stupidest thing there is
Oh yes, I too do not support parents paying attention to there children and trying to help them learn about things its hard to understand / they haven't experienced yet and might make mistakes that hurt them in the future with their inexperience

Fuck inheritted wisdom :DDD

[Anonymous No.10058215]

>>10058159
t. 19-year-old female sociology student

[Anonymous No.10058549]

>>10058159
The Reformation was a mistake

[Anonymous No.10058552]

>>10054279

The most conservative thing Ape Arete ever said was "#TULSI2020"

[Anonymous No.10058586]

>>10057516

Right, you just believe in fantastic phenomena that you have not personally observed because dead men wrote in a book that they witnessed it.

[Anonymous No.10058589]

I'm not a conservative in any sense but I like you guys more than classical liberals.
My question is though, what would be an economic system compatible with traditionalist conservatism? I feel like people are way too vague on this point, which doesn't work for me.

[Anonymous No.10058601]

>>10058549

The Reformation was based on a traditionalist argument, that the Catholic Church had usurped and corrupted original Christianity which needed to be reformed into a theological state that was closer to its origin.

In a world where the Pope delights in suckling the toes of Saracen invaders, the reformers can hardly be blamed for the decay of their successors.

[Anonymous No.10058618]

>>10058589
To my mind, traditionalist conservatism is not overly fussed about economic systems – free-market capitalism with some restraints works perfectly well for the production of goods. Conservatism is far more concerned with things that are outside the economic sphere, which are actually far more important than material wealth. The integrity of the family, civil society and the community, individual charity et cetera, these are natural mechanisms for a caring society that doesn't require a big state.

That's why conservatives tend to be Christian – even if you reject the literal truth of Christianity, it contains great wisdom and is the most effective way of bringing people together to help each other, create a strong society and live virtuous lives.

[Anonymous No.10058626]

>>10058601
The problem with that is, Protestantism wasn't at all "closer to Christianity's roots", it was radically different from our earliest historical sources of the early Church. Luther and Calvin can hardly be described as reviving early Christianity. With Orthodox Christianity being a thing, this is a poor excuse for Protestantism, it is wholly a product of philosophical contemporaries.

[Anonymous No.10058656]

>>10058618
I can't accept this view because it radically underestimates the importance of economic factors. You are essentially saying that you can have an entirely separate communal sphere outside of free-market economics, which isn't affected by market forces. I can't see this as anything but naive. The increasing dependence and integration of social relations into the logic of global capitalism, regardless of cultural forces, is a major fact of life in modernism. Personally, I don't see a workable plan to counter these developments by focusing on cultural issues.

[Anonymous No.10058671]

>>10058589
Normally aristocratic systems, but today it's somewhere between distributism and market socialism. The book in the OP covers a lot on economics. John Milbank is probably the foremost classical conservative writer on economics

[Anonymous No.10058733]

>>10058656
You can't fight economic progress forever and you're a fool if you try. I reject the idea that economics is all powerful though. For example, my town has its own independent butcher, grocer, bakery and other shops. People know who they're buying their food from and the supermarket isn't very heavily used. Personally I think this is a better way of doing things and there's no reason why it shouldn't become the norm, even in a capitalist system – it depends on culture. Another example, conservative Christians in the US give more to charity than almost any other group. Private charity is almost always better than state charity, as demonstrated by the disastrous effects that the welfare state have had on the integrity of the family. Whether or not people donate to charity is almost entirely a matter of culture, and represents a complete departure from the hard logic of economics.

[Anonymous No.10058946]

>>10058656
>The increasing dependence and integration of social relations into the logic of global capitalism, regardless of cultural forces, is a major fact of life in modernism
>Because people wanting to live in faux cosmopolitan spheres has nothing to do with liberal consumerism being pushed onto them by international corporations and therefore the future has to be some bourgeoise post-national global market place
Anon plz

[Anonymous No.10059040]

>>10054265
This

[Anonymous No.10059072]

>>10054251
Wondering what the image was that the biased Hillary mods censored.

[Anonymous No.10059856]

>>10059072
This. It's classified as hate speech

[Anonymous No.10059970]

>>10059856
Is that what the mods said? Topkek.

[Anonymous No.10059982]

religion is the cancer of our wolrd

[Anonymous No.10060347]

so i have in my traditionalist list so far:
- guenon
- evola
- girard
- eliade
- benoist
- dugin

any other authors or critiques of the people above i should be aware of?

also thanks for the music OP

[Anonymous No.10060352]

>>10060347
De Maistre

[Anonymous No.10060929]

>>10060347
Perennialism isn't classical conservativism and uses the word "tradition" totally differently.

[Anonymous No.10061628]

>>10060929
what's the difference?

[Anonymous No.10061637]