/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16113743]

Are there any conservative political books that have arguments that could actually hold up in a debate?

[Anonymous No.16113749]

No

[Anonymous No.16113750]

>>16113743
idk the bull curve maybe.

[Anonymous No.16113755]

>HOLD ON HOLD ON HOLD ON HOLD ON HOLD ON
The great destroyer of all arguments.

[Anonymous No.16113757]

>>16113750
https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39

[Anonymous No.16113764]

>>16113743
It's hard to say. Every time I've seen a panel discuss a conservative book, it's always 100% leftists and the author or someone who shares the author's views wasn't invited.

[Anonymous No.16113769]

>>16113749
Ben Burgis lost hard to Destiny

[Anonymous No.16113771]

>>16113749
everything else < socialism < socdem < neoliberalism < omniliberalism

[Anonymous No.16113772]

>>16113757
Debunked. A for effort on trying to keep himself uncancellable, but he's still wrong.

[Anonymous No.16113784]

>>16113769
lmao did you watch the same debate? burgis btfo destiny cuz destiny wasnt prepared for the debate at all

[Anonymous No.16113786]

>>16113784
Which one the first one or the second one?

[Anonymous No.16113799]

>>16113784
Ben "I don't need to use empirical data to prove that universal programs last longer because 'muh reasoning to the best explanation'" Burgis.
Ben "A co-op market economy wouldn't pollute despite market forces still incentivizing pollution" Burgis.

He's shit. In a real argument he's a stuttering mess.

[Anonymous No.16113802]

>>16113769
I have no idea who either of these people are.

>>16113750
That's not really a Conservative book, however, it's just a statement of facts and a call to prevent a what-if (a specific what-if that frankly nobody really wants).

I'm going to say The State in the Third Millennium, and Reflections of a Russian Statesman. The former is by an actual sitting monarch and leader of a country, the latter is by a man who might as well have been one (he was the Grey Eminence behind like four Czars, he died about a decade before the Russian Revolution and the undoing of his work is in part what lead to it). Hans Adam puts forth arguments of what we should do, Pobedonostevsovofostenovevosteveovofestovevstsev levies critiques (the only prediction he gets wrong in this book is that the US will convert to Catholicism, which he's only sort of wrong about in that the US converted the Vatican to Liberalism).

I'm not really versed in NatSoc literature, I'm sure someone can bring something out however.

[Anonymous No.16113806]

>>16113743
god i love this little guy

[Anonymous No.16113808]

>>16113786
the one from the 10 months ago

[Anonymous No.16113813]

Debates are gay

[Anonymous No.16113881]

>>16113802
There is no NatSoc literature you could post Destiny has debated the most famous debaters of NatSoc and they came out looking like retards. I don't know those books you posted but would they pass the most basic question "Is this actually politically feasible?"

[Anonymous No.16113931]

>>16113881
> the most famous debaters of NatSoc
who did he debate?

[Anonymous No.16113935]

>>16113881
I don't know who Destiny is, nor do I care what he believes.

The answer to your question is yes, by the way. I explained why in my post. One book was written by a sitting monarch and contains a plan for enacting his political model (no, it does not involve making him king of the world). The latter was written by a grey eminence behind a massive empire, and while he would find the idea of exporting Czarism preposterous (not because it's bad, but because the world is inherently wicked and sinful and the idea of applying order to chaos is absurd), there's absolutely no reason his political model couldn't be applied litearlly anywhere. He was, after all, defending a political model that just a few centuries ago was used in literally every human society on Earth except a few places in England.

[Anonymous No.16113954]

>>16113743
John Lott on guns has never been refuted by anyone

[Anonymous No.16113966]

>>16113935
Yes but I doubt it's actually politically feasible. You can do nothing but make utopian ideologies. Communists can use the same arguments you use but I don't think Communism is coming to America anytime soon.

[Anonymous No.16113977]

>>16113954
I've seen many people go over his use of faulty statistics. He is a hack

[Anonymous No.16113998]

Written debate is superior to formal debate. Formal debate boils down to who farts the loudest.

[Anonymous No.16114029]

>>16113966
Neither of the works I have listed are utopian in the slightest. If this is the sort of argument the e-celeb you so badly want to talk about makes, I can see why he isn't more widely known.

[Anonymous No.16114106]

>>16114029
Walk me through politically how your system could actually occur under our current system?

[Anonymous No.16114121]

>saves conservatism in your path
Nothing personell extrauterines Dasein.

[Anonymous No.16114168]

>>16113977
You have some kind of blurred memory of it having been addressed but I assure you there was no refutation involved

[Anonymous No.16114199]

>>16114168
Not in the debate with Destiny. Destiny doesn't know shit. I'm talking about by other academics which is why he doesn't debate them.

[Anonymous No.16114212]

>>16113743
>muh debates
American “Intellectual” debates are the epitome of sophistry and a symptom of the horrors of modern discourse.
Debates are pure sophistry for people who want to turn philosophy into a game they can win for dopamine rather than having a discussion where all participants seek to approach truth from ignorance, acknowledging short comings and finding solutions.
>>16113813
Based and monkypilled

[Anonymous No.16114222]

>>16113749
>Zero T cell count books

[Anonymous No.16114227]

>>16114106
Go pirate the book and read what Hans Adam said. He devotes an entire chapter to it.

[Anonymous No.16114257]

>>16114227
dodging huh

[Anonymous No.16114264]

>>16114212
>American “Intellectual” debates are the epitome of sophistry and a symptom of the horrors of modern discourse.
>Debates are pure sophistry for people who want to turn philosophy into a game they can win for dopamine rather than having a discussion where all participants seek to approach truth from ignorance, acknowledging short comings and finding solutions.
t.Someone who got wrecked in a debate irl then wrote an angry blog post "refuting" their opponent who wasn't there to respond

[Anonymous No.16114272]

>>16114212
Very true.
The only debates happen in print, between voices whose lifetimes never intersected.

[Anonymous No.16114277]

>>16114257
No, I'm shitposting at work and don't have time to sum it up for you. I'll elaborate when I get home from work, OR, you could just pirate it, go to the chapter where he explains it, and find out for yourself in like, a third of the time.

[Anonymous No.16114296]

>>16114264
>t.Someone who got wrecked in a debate irl then wrote an angry blog post "refuting" their opponent who wasn't there to respond

Y'know, you just proved his point, you comedian.

[Anonymous No.16114298]

>>16114264
>t. Someone completely alien to earnest search for truth
If you can’t see how turning philosophy into a game is foolish and unproductive then you shouldn’t be on /lit/

[Anonymous No.16114305]

>>16114277
I can wait for you my love

[Anonymous No.16114307]

>>16114121
I think he is a progressivist. Right progressivist.

[Anonymous No.16114308]

Why do Destiny fanboys shit up /lit/ out of all the fucking boards and why do retarded jannies not delete these threads

[Anonymous No.16114348]

>>16114308
heh, sorry kid. the jannies are all team destiny. nothing personal.

[Anonymous No.16114354]

>>16113966
>2 books by people who ruled nations explaining their systems
>utopian

[Anonymous No.16114367]

>>16114307
Thats called fascism

[Anonymous No.16114369]

>>16114308
>Why do Destiny fanboys shit up /lit/ out of all the fucking boards
Like all internet pseudo who don’t read books and get all of their philosophy through Wikipedia and YouTube e-celebs, they want to be in the place they see as intellectual in their vicinity, and /lit/‘s terrible moderation allows them.
>and why do retarded jannies not delete these threads
The jammies of /lit/ barely do their job at all, they’ve allowed posting that is explicitly forbidden in the sticky to go unopposed. A couple of days ago some guy posted a photo of his dick in a moby dick thread and it was up for hours; a month ago, two coomers posted entire doujins page by page for hours in a thread at the top of the catalog (the OP of the thread in question was a rickroll disguised as an eceleb bait thread). /lit/ is terminally ill because the nannies don’t care, very soon it will be like /tv/ but without memes

[Anonymous No.16114372]

>>16114354
Just become someone ruled a nation in the past doesn't mean the system is currently politically viable today. Communism, feudalism, and lots of other ideologies are not politically viable in anyway

[Anonymous No.16114400]

>>16113998
Honestly debate in general is overrated. The existence of an audience turns the debate into a competition and competition rewards winning which is not done necessarily by seeking the truth.

Honest, thorough reflection > debate.

[Anonymous No.16114401]

>>16114367
He has a different definition of right progressivism. One has to discover their "being-in". Human presence on the planet becomes too impactful so the only way is to add a vector to humanity and create a global immune system

[Anonymous No.16114412]

>>16113743
Isn't this the cuck dude? Cucks are extremely easy to beat down, even with a mediocre intellectual capacity taken to a modicum of its potential. I will teach you, uneducated plebeians.

For women, the nexus of femininity is the Eros; the principle of relatedness and relation; in short, the faculty of sentimentality and emotional association. Women care above all else about how others feel, especially men.

For men, the nexus of masculinity is the paternal principle of Logos: the discrimination of the opposites, the abstraction out from the emotional associations the consistencies of actuality. This leaves men and women in an interesting position relative to one another as a consequence of their unconscious compensations, which, as we all know, is an autonomous response to any one sided position taken by the ego; men compensate for their polyamory with an anima figure, a model of the feminine, which takes the form of a singular entity. Whereas in women, the animus, the model of the masculine, is taken as many men or as a caucus to compensate the singular male figure she latches on to in conscious life.

What does this have to do with cucks and with destiny? Well, take a married couple; the woman has several close relationships which share deep emotional bonds. The husband has one; his wife. This is the normative situation. If it were reversed, the woman would be mad with envy and psychotic with rage, while the man would be an effeminate and emotionally distraught mess. Why is it this way? Because men feel as though a sexual conquest means he has a woman under his control, when in reality he has her least. For a woman, sex is an incidental act; the relation, the emotional bond, is paramount in her decision to love a man and to be owned by him.

Cucks, like destiny, have nothing to offer women except this insight. They know that in offering a woman as much sex as she likes, while also allowing her the emotional connection afforded by a loving partner, she can have her cake and eat it too.

Be a whore and a wife.

A mother and a slut.

A degenerate and a saint.

It's a co-dependent illusion fostered entirely by the weakness of both parties.

[Anonymous No.16114439]

>>16114372
Thats not what utopian means your retard. These people make arguments that could easily hold up in a debate against Mr "ive never lifted more than 10 lbs in my life and I'd be useless without wikipedia".

[Anonymous No.16114450]

>>16114401
What to I have to read to grasp what satherdick says other than Heideggar?

[Anonymous No.16114463]

>>16114450
Nothing.
He is quite good at explaining himself.

[Anonymous No.16114470]

>>16113743
the only des-tiny video I've watched is when he's dismantled by ryan dawson

[Anonymous No.16114473]

>>16114307
Hm I you are right. That does describe his overall stance a little bit better I guess.

[Anonymous No.16114489]

>>16114450
There is no philosophical background needed. My favorite books are "You must change your life" and "Rage and time".
He implicitly states that global vector (not some spacism bullshit) is the only way for survival of our planet.

[Anonymous No.16114510]

>>16114439
Sure

[Anonymous No.16114530]

>>16114412
I see you're all too stupid to understand my post.

Good day, plebs.

[Anonymous No.16114580]

>>16113743
Ideas have Consquences by Weaver

[Anonymous No.16114602]

>>16114510
Let me guess, you browse r/destiny...

[Anonymous No.16114648]

>>16113749
based

[Anonymous No.16114661]

>>16113743
Melina was fucking pathetic on the Austin Royale lol, literally crying sexism because Hasan called her flabby ass out for using d.gg to clipchimp him. "WAH WAH h-he TALKED OVER ME!" Cry me a fucking river, people get talked over all the time on the Austin Royale! It was amazing watching Melina fans (who double as Destiny simps) try to brainwash people into believing that it's unusual for people to get spoken over. and lol at Destiny calling SuspectSushi a token Black guy because he dared to go against him, but if SuspectSushi had called him a GUSANO... ! I love how hypocritical this cunt is.

[Anonymous No.16114680]

>>16114661
Also Bastiat is a bitch for delivering lines from Destiny during the Royale, what a cunt, if I was Hasan I would refuse to go on the Royale if either Bastiat or Melina were invited UNLESS they both apologize for the stunts they pulled last time.