[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 117 KB, 1024x798, reagan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16997069 No.16997069 [Reply] [Original]

Books to understand America's current brand of 'Conservatism'?

>> No.16997073

The Israel Lobby

>> No.16997074

>>16997069
literally who cares. just become a communist.

>> No.16997076

>>16997069
Are you including Trump supporters?

>> No.16997083

>>16997076
Trump supporters are 'conservatives' so yes

>> No.16997102

>>16997069
Reagan (the guy in pic related) gave a speech at CPAC in 1981 in which he listed his intellectual influences. They are:
Russell Kirk, whose best political work is "The Conservative Mind."
Friedrich Hayek, who had a large ouvre. Most important is "Road to Serfdom" (for pop lit), "The Constitution of Liberty" (for political stuff) and The Fatal Conceit/Individualism and Economic Order (for actually intellectual stuff).
Henry Hazlitt, whose main political work is "Economics in One Lesson"
Milton Friedman, whose best book is either Capitalism and Freedom (for more pop stuff) or A Monetary History of the United States (for serious work).
James Burnham, whose best political work is probably "The Suicide of the West"
Ludwig von Mises, whose main work is either "Human Action" (for his actual beliefs) or "Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis" (for criticism of socialism)
And especially, Frank Meyer, who most accurately displays modern American conservatism in his book, "In Defense of Freedom and other Essays."

>> No.16997110

>>16997083
Then you're talking about two different types of conservatives. The Republican Party is very divided at the moment.

>> No.16997114

>>16997110
no they are not

>> No.16997116

>>16997102
Thank you for the recommendations anon.

>> No.16997118

>>16997102
So he's not so much a conservative as an ultra liberal.

>> No.16997126

>>16997114
You're blind if you think that the nationalist, populist Trumpism branch is the same as the globalist neoconservatavism preached by most of the GOP

>> No.16997130

>>16997118
Kind of. Remember, there are people on that list like Russell Kirk and James Burnham who are undeniably conservative. I think his (and American conservatives' in general) ideology is best explained by Frank Meyer's fusionism (which is why Reagan singled him out for praise in his speech).
>>16997116
Always here to help, fren.

>> No.16997150

Jeff Foxworthy - Redneck Dictionary
Larry the Cable Guy - GitRDone
Rush Limbaugh - Adventures of Rush Revere
Donald J Trump - Art of the Deal
Dinesh D Souza - Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left
Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged
Glenn Beck - An Inconvenient Book

>> No.16997161
File: 100 KB, 800x1230, CBFFEEA7-DEBC-4A9A-AB76-B20EBC9EADE5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16997161

>>16997069

>> No.16997164

The Talmud

>> No.16997165
File: 76 KB, 1200x1200, peepo cringe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16997165

>>16997126
>populist Trumpism
lmao
>globalist
dumb alt-right buzzword that doesn't mean anything

>> No.16997173

>>16997150
>Donald J Trump - Art of the Deal

kek

>> No.16997177

>>16997165
>>16997126
actually you know what you're right. the former are bigger clowns.

>> No.16997178

>>16997150
did rush limbaugh really write a kids book wtf

>> No.16997181

>>16997165
>thinks trump and bush are the same

it's scary that you can vote

>> No.16997186

>>16997069
Like all good Conservatives: Start with D'Souza and work towards Limbaugh.

>> No.16997197

>>16997165
>dumb alt-right buzzword that doesn't mean anything

Oof.

>> No.16997201

>>16997069
chomsky

>> No.16997374

>>16997074
school of thought died like 40 years ago

>> No.16997388

>>16997161
wtf im a neoliberal?

>> No.16997419
File: 31 KB, 328x488, The_Conscience_of_a_Conservative_(1960),_by_Barry_Goldwater.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16997419

>>16997069
This is the most important if you want to understand American conservatism. Goldwater basically kick started started the Regan Revolution

>> No.16997431

>>16997161
This. Conservatives and Liberals are Neoliberals. Their policy hardly varies at all. Trump was Neoliberal to a fault.

>> No.16997432
File: 35 KB, 333x499, 51R39MbnjEL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16997432

>>16997419
This along with pic related, at least if you want to explain the Reagan version of conservatism that roughly lasted up through George W Bush. Trump, at least in public, represents a different and more populist strain though.

>> No.16997445

>>16997073
this

>> No.16997455

>>16997432
That's a comfy ass audiobook, can't wait to listen to Nixonland next.

>> No.16997489

on a serious note pat buchanan's writings are kind of a blueprint for trump's rhetoric and platform.

>> No.16997494

>>16997069
Traditional conservativism is dying and people whom those values appeal to are looking for them from somewhere other than washed up fixtures of power. No major movement has crystalized yet so the liberal power structure is trying to nip anything that sprouts up in the bud. It is all going to crash and burn if they have their way because you need both sides in order to maintain balance.

>> No.16997542

>>16997388
You like capitalism?

>> No.16997548

>>16997083
what are they conserving

>> No.16997646

>>16997083
Retard tier take. Trump is more progressive than any president in the last few decades. That isn’t saying much when everyone is a tool of power with zero autonomy, but still.

>> No.16997653 [DELETED] 

>>16997646
Trump is the most progressive president since Jimmy Carter. The only "rightwing" thing he did was lower the corporate tax rate to be on par with Europe.

>> No.16997659

>>16997548
israel

>> No.16997672

>>16997646
uh are you high? same old reagaonomics trickle down bullshit under trump. same old goldman sachs bankers. hardcore catholic anti abortionist on the court. tried to get rid of obamacare. Not even touching the social rhetoric and emboldening nationalists

>> No.16997678

>>16997672
Goldman Sachs are all Democrats dude.

>> No.16997682

>>16997672
None of that is conservative. It's at best liberal and probably Keynesian centrism.

>> No.16997706

>>16997678
Steve Mnuchin wasnt
>>16997682
I guess if you're talking economics and getting technical sure

>> No.16997722

>>16997706
>talking economics
You only mentioned economics (other than abortion, and that's more a definition debate than a liberal-conservative debate).
>getting technical
Words have meaning. We should probably attribute actually accurate terms to writers.

>> No.16997729

>>16997722
*politicians, not writers.

>> No.16997735

>>16997083
Trump supporters aren't really conservatives they are pseudo wannabe autocrat worshipers .

>> No.16997741
File: 37 KB, 430x265, obama-geithner.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16997741

>>16997706
Wow, you found the one Goldman guy who would be willing to work with Trump. The rest of the Goldman parade is straight Dem.

>> No.16997770

>>16997102
Based anon actually giving good recommendations. It's so rare to see a good post on /lit/ these days.

>> No.16997778

The Paranoid Style and Anti-Intellectualism in American Life by Richard Hofstadter

>> No.16997780

>>16997722
liberal capitalist economics are conservative in america because its the status quo

>> No.16997781

>>16997069
Starship Troopers by Heinlein
Centurion by John Ringo
Freehold by Michael Z. Williamson
Industrial society and it's future by "Uncle" Ted Kaczynski

I'm not going to vouch for quality but you will definitely understand

>> No.16997812

>entire thread
>no Paul Gottfried recommendation

Paul Gottfried has several books on the history of the conservative movement, including its betrayal and coopting by the neocons. He was an insider and is a close friend of Pat Buchanan. He's also a great scholar and lucid writer and all the books are short and sweet.

The essays of Gottfried, Buchanan, Samuel Francis, and Mel Bradford might be good starting places.

>>16997102
These are okay for the libertarian part of conservatism, which has legitimate overlap with the paleoconservative side, but has also been coopted and used as a snare for legitimate ideological conservatives by the neocons. Basically, people who are sick of liberal bullshit tend to be hoodwinked into thinking that principled libertarianism is its natural antithesis, and that principled libertarian is one major element of Republican party conservatism. But one can be a libertarian and still see the Republicans/neocons for the neoliberals/crypto-liberals they are.

Besides, most of the classic libertarian thinkers were far more subtle than "state bad, monopolies magically dissolve if you get rid of regulation." But neocons use this low-level meme libertarianism as a way of collecting dissidents who would otherwise drift farther right, into some legitimate conservative thought. It's very clever.

>> No.16997822

>>16997770
who the hell didn't already know this shit

>> No.16997824

>>16997812
Okay. That's a cool theory. I was just answering OP's question. Your books don't really have much to do with American conservatism, but whatever question you're answering is also cool!

>> No.16997877

>>16997824
Are you being all "haha whoooa-kay buddy ;) whatever you say *rolls eyes* cool 'opinion' lmao" because you think I was rebuking you? Even if I was rebuking you, or being a prick myself (I wasn't, I think you misread my post), being butthurt about it would still be poor form. If someone is a dick to you, there are better ways to handle it than being snarky like a woman on social media.

Anyway to reinforce my point in >>16997812 I highly recommend Gottfried's overviews as a starting point. He has a rare synoptic rather than one-dimensionally partisan perspective on the development of conservatism in postwar America, he's far more erudite than the average American politician writing about his own movement (a serious blindspot of the American tradition which is usually very on-the-ground and lacking historical perspective), but he also has skin in the game, since he is and was an insider and deeply invested personally. He's like the Thucydides of the movement: exiled from participation as a general in the war, he wrote its history instead. He will introduce you to all the thinkers mentioned above and more, and helpfully situate them in the development, or in his view arrested development of conservatism.

In the long run he's probably done more to sow the seeds of genuine conservatism than anyone else by keeping the tradition alive. Like >>16997489 says about Buchanan, which is also true.

>>16997672
Wow, it's an early 2000s liberal. I thought you guys died out when you experienced the subsequent two decades and aged and grew with the rest of us. It's amazing you've been frozen in time like this for our edification. All of politics boils down to letting minorities and gays live their preferred lifestyles in peace! Vote for the nice young hip candidate who lets gays be gay! Vote for the BLUE team!

>> No.16997895

>>16997877
>Wow, it's an early 2000s liberal. I thought you guys died out when you experienced the subsequent two decades and aged and grew with the rest of us. It's amazing you've been frozen in time like this for our edification. All of politics boils down to letting minorities and gays live their preferred lifestyles in peace! Vote for the nice young hip candidate who lets gays be gay! Vote for the BLUE team!

Are you being all "haha whoooa-kay buddy ;) whatever you say *rolls eyes* cool 'opinion' lmao" because you think I was rebuking you? Even if I was rebuking you, or being a prick myself (I wasn't, I think you misread my post), being butthurt about it would still be poor form. If someone is a dick to you, there are better ways to handle it than being snarky like a woman on social media.

>> No.16997898

>>16997877
I honestly don't think the writers you're talking about (particularly people like Samuel Francis) have literally anything to do with mainstream American conservatism. Whether you like them or not, they're not answering the question. They're answering the question, "books to understand *your* concept of conservatism." Pat Buchanan is not the mainstream conservative movement in America. White-nationalism and the alt-right is not the same as mainstream conservatism.
Sorry if I came off passive-aggressive. I just think that your post was an off-topic ramble with bad recommendations that didn't have to do with the actual topic of the thread.

>> No.16997928

>>16997898
What is the mainstream conservative movement in America, the business RINOs who couldn't even maintain their hegemony the instant a... Buchanan simulacrum populist mobilised MARs in using exactly the strategy outlined by Sam Francis? The RINOs who are now terrified (and on record as such) of being seen to disdain the new populist wave of Republican voters, because courting this demographic is now an even broader and more significant sine qua non than courting 2A'ers or evangelicals?

Well, if we're being brutally honest with one another, I think you have a myopic ground-level view of conservatism that is constructed to keep people like you thinking that the 1980s is forever. The 1980s consensus was a phony victory, packaged and sold as a great and final victory for conservatism.

Your vision of "mainstream" conservatism can't win anymore, it couldn't even win as of 20 years ago. All of its leaders are in bed with high-profile Democrats and have policies and values virtually indistinguishable from them. Don't get me wrong, I would have defended the ultimate correctness of the paleocon critique of your astroturf "mainstream" 20-30 years ago as well, but now I don't even have to defend its ultimate correctness, because it is now manifestly empirically correct. RINOs are dead.

Your mention of white nationalism and the alt-right boogeyman is suspicious. I never mentioned that, except maybe by mentioning Francis, who did tend toward ethnic politics at the end of his career. Whether you like that element of conservatism or not, it's currently back on the table precisely because of the failures of so-called mainstream conservatism.

>> No.16997939

>>16997741
yea and trump hired him retard. i love how people claim Trump is against bankers when Steve Bannon and Mnuchin literally were the elite

>> No.16997948

>>16997939
No one said Trump is against bankers. You were the one crying about Goldman Sachs when they support BLM, LGTBQIA+, DACA, abortion, and every other cause you believe in, so I just don't see why you're bitching about it.

>> No.16997959

>>16997928
One point you’re missing—Josh Hawley and Tom Cotton and Trump Junior aren’t going to give this “populist” groundswell what they want, because they don’t actually believe in it. Have you watched the tech hearings? Neither party or any neutered wing within them actually gives a shit about the big implications, it’s just another venue for grandstanding

>> No.16997966

>>16997928
>what is the mainstream conservative movement in America
The people in the house and senate. I feel like I'm going insane reading your writings. The definition of "the mainstream political conservative" is "the mainstream politicians who are considered conservative."
The "new populist wave" of people like Josh Hawley claim to have the same intellectual tradition (such as Russell Kirk) as the people I'm talking about, not Paul Gottfried.
>your vision of mainstream conservatism can't win
I don't care. That's not what we're debating. We're not talking about who's more effective. We're talking about who is the mainstream leader of the political movement. My guys are much more mainstream than yours.
>RINOs are dead
Ironically, nearly every single Republican in both houses of congress are "RINOs" according to you. They make up 90% of the party.
>mentioning the alt-right is suspicious
You openly mentioned literal alt-righters and borderline white nationalists and said they were mainstream conservatives. Clearly, that's wrong and displays you don't know what you're talking about.
Also, what are you suspicious of?

You're not involving yourself in the actual discussion. What we're talking about is "who represents the current brand that a majority of powerful conservatives believe in." Your response is, "well, let's talk about who can win." I don't care; this isn't pol. We're just recommendations for this anon so he can know which books to read to learn about the modern mainstream conservative movement. We aren't arguing about the future of the Republican Party.

>> No.16997967

>>16997959
The most interesting thing about the tech hearings to me was that Bezos seemed like the only guy who had a clue how is own company worked.

>> No.16997969

>>16997966
*giving recommendations

>> No.16997973

>>16997948
Did that guy even say he was a liberal? Seems like you’re looking for a way to ignore that there’s more or less a bipartisan consensus when it comes to major areas of economic policy

>> No.16997978

>>16997973
Yes, there is a basic consensus about how a modern economy should be run.

>> No.16998005

>>16997959
yea cause they server corporate interests. the only reason they're having the hearings is to placate Trump supporters. Jim Jordan is literally funded by Google

>> No.16998015

>>16997069
I wouldn't worry with it. Conservatism is dead. Neoliberal imperialism is all you get to choose from. It's kind of like hiw every product at Walmart benefits the same few shareholders amd executives. The governments the same. Very narrow and minor differences. They claim different social policy but guess what....they never act on it, it's just a ploy, political theater, kayfabe ;)

>> No.16998020

>>16997150
Based. Lmao

>> No.16998058

>>16997959
Absolutely, I have no faith in any of these morons. Trump was valuable just because nobody knew what the hell to do with him, which made him a blank slate for the frustrated white middle class. Was Caesar a genuine popularis? Who knows, but he sure stuck it to the optimates regardless.

The system needs radical structural change, and it has to come too hard and too fast to be absorbed and spat back out as an astroturf form of itself (another 1980s conservative pseudo-consensus). One thing that conservatives are mindful of, but that neocons/neoliberals generally miss due to their love of simplistic "rationality," is the historical and human factor in institutions. Institutions rot, whole generations of men can become rotten to the point that they can't be saved or reformed, because their primary political instinct is corruption. No amount of rational reform is going to fix a system that has become self-referential and free-floating. The only thing to do is sweep them all out and get new people in, quickly enough that the old experts in corruption don't have time to induct the newcomers into corruption as well.

When you don't have a positive presence in politics, start by leveraging things the existing elites hate. They hated Trump.

>>16997966
>They make up 90% of the party.
We're not going to agree on much more than this. I can't make much sense of your position other than that you're a typical political pragmatist who votes Republican and can't see past the next election cycle. By all means, vote Republican, but try to understand the larger historical structures you are a part of as well. They might help you predict the next major shift, for instance, the emergence of a Trump.

Like I said, is the fact that many people see Trump as an echo of the blueprints explicitly laid down by Buchanan and Francis not enough empirical evidence that one should investigate those blueprints and their intellectual background? Even as a RINO, surely you should want to understand why your hegemony was compromised, if only to prevent a repeat in the future?

Most of what I recommended was studying the genesis of the modern consensus and status quo. That's all. OP can make whatever decisions he wants about it. I thought it was myopic to go to Reagan, a puppet, for your introduction to conservatism, when he was actually the final act in a long and messy process. I also thought it was myopic to read a fraction of the literature that has inspired American conservatives since the 1950s, a very specific fraction that is notoriously promoted by the current consensus as if it simply IS conservatism. Hence my recommendation to adopt the genealogical approach, and read the historical account of a dissident conservative who is also a bonafide scholar.

>> No.16998110

>>16998058
>thrusting views upon me which I do not hold
>Many people who are not mainstream conservatives agree with me about what conservatism is
>I'm giving him a large amount of literature that inspired mainstream conservatives...I can't name any who were influenced by this, but they exist!
Man, I'm largely apolitical. I just read political philosophy and want to help OP out with his question.
Okay, it's clear to me that you don't care about answering OP's question. You care about thrusting your own views upon him
>you are putting forth books that argue for the current consensus
Look at the original statement:
>books to understand America's current brand of conservatism
Shocking.
I don't know why you have to thrust politics into this discussion. You're like the Marxists. The best way to understand a political movement is on its own terms. You shouldn't just recommend "Marx" to every single question if you're a Marxist, even if you believe he explained everything.
You're completely worthless in a discussion about anything other than politics because you believe in the complete supremacy of your particular viewpoint over all others as an explanatory tool of literally everything, even that which your viewpoint has little to do with.

>> No.16998141

>>16998110
>The best way to understand a political movement is on its own terms.
Agreed, which is why it's annoying when Buckley pushes the Birchers out of what counts as "mainstream" conservatism, or the related exile of anyone who critiques Israel-first policies, or when Southern Agrarianism is rebranded as white nationalism by neocons and liberals working in tandem, or when modern neocons simply ignore legitimate critics of Straussian imperialism while selectively courting bad ones who don't actually negate the Straussian position, etc.

The central fact of "mainstream" conservatism since the '80s has been the trimming and neutering of conservative self-expression so that it can only exist within a narrow overton window defined by establishment elites, and then you want to tell OP to listen to these establishment elites because they're... the establishment elites. All I told him was to read about how they became the establishment in the first place, so he can decide for himself (as I already said) whether this was fair or unfair.

I genuinely don't see how the rest of what you're saying applies to my own position. Are you a gatekeeper in training or something? Is this in the playbook they give you, "try to brand the opponent as an ideological kook?" Isn't there a play in there that would work better on me, the guy who is saying people should study the history and make up their own minds..?

>> No.16998163

>>16998141
This guy is noided

>> No.16998168
File: 9 KB, 220x220, 1607385205892.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16998168

>>16997069
Das Kapital

>> No.16998174

>>16997542
The only reason for 4chan exists is because of capitalism

>> No.16998178

>>16998141
>the main purpose of conservatism in the past 40 years has been to push one idea of what conservatism is at the expense of other contrary ideas
Agreed. So, if OP wants to learn about that idea, they should read that idea. They shouldn't read Marx to figure out what conservatives reject. They should read what modern conservatives believe, not what old fashioned conservatives from 80, or 800, years ago believed.
This is kind of absurd. You can see that, right?

>> No.16998182

>>16998174
Are you saying capitalism caused Moot to be autistic

>> No.16998191 [DELETED] 

>>16998178
>So, if OP wants to learn about that idea, they should read that idea.
I would amend it to "read about that idea," meaning how it came about, what its original contexts were, and how it came to predominate. Again, I don't understand your opposition to this so I suggest we agree to disagree and stop this.

>> No.16998195

>>16998174
Is that the only way 4chan could have came to exist? I would say the only way it came to exist was due to sacrifices by nameless men working tirelessly mostly unknown to history making small improvements in various technologies until eventually what we have now was created.

>> No.16998198

>>16997069
Most of the "edgy" books /lit/ posts about daily.

>> No.16998199

>>16998178
>So, if OP wants to learn about that idea, they should read that idea.
I would amend it to "read about that idea," meaning how it came about, what its original contexts were, and how it came to predominate, obviously also including reading the texts themselves..* Again, I don't understand your opposition to this so I suggest we agree to disagree and stop this.

* deleted and reposted to add this last bit for clarification

>> No.16998207

>>16998195
And this contradicts his point how?

>> No.16998309

>>16998207
It wasn't supposed to samefag

>> No.16998331

>>16998207

8

>> No.16998365

The Torah

>> No.16998473

>>16997548
Hard to argue against this, in a way. I'm a big Trump supporter, but it's like, performative rebellion against a perceived establishment IS the establishment at this point, so Trump supporters are basically revolutionaries themselves, but still trying to return to more traditional principles. I see there being a difference between principles and methodology. Establishment Republicans have (increasingly eroding) conservative principles and try to implement them with a conservative treatment. Trump supporters have more conservative principles and want to implement them with more revolutionary methods.

>> No.16998798

How do we save conservatism, bros

>> No.16998934

The righteous mind by Jonathan Haidt. Goes into the moral roots of left/right beliefs

>> No.16999051

>>16998798
Divorce cultural conservatism from neocon worship of Capital. The market serves the state, not vice-versa.
Also, abolish lobbying.

>> No.16999512

>>16998174
Moot created 4chin so he could get more Loli porn faget

>> No.16999821

>>16997928
RINO might be dead but paleocons are even deader

>> No.16999907

>>16997165
Retard thinks their side has all the nuance while the other is a monolith. Many such cases.

>> No.16999926

The right is just a dumpster fire filled with randroids, fundies and nazis. Splinter in the eye and all that

>> No.16999927

>>16997102
>the neolib president™ read neolib theory
shocker

>> No.17000762

>>16997076
In that case coloring books would be your best bet.

>> No.17000848

George H Nash's history of American conservatism is still the best work on the topic last I checked
Sowell,Buchanan and Huntington
if you want primary sources on popular conservative positions
Psychoanalysising why people disagree with you is retarded btw

>> No.17000854

>>16999926
>Splinter in the eye
I think you failed to understand the meaning of this saying lmao

>> No.17000878

>>16998934
Haidt is retarded, his work only makes sense if humans reached stone age level and then magically teleported to the 21st century

>> No.17001220

>>17000848
Thank you

>> No.17001232

bros...what if everything is capitalism?

>> No.17001264

>>17000854
I don’t think I did. Righttards have no right to complain about muh blue haired SJWs when their side is filled with literal nazis

>> No.17001309

The Vanishing Tradition by Paul Gottfried
Where the Right Went Wrong by Pat Buchanan
Leviathan and its Enemies by Samuel Francis
The Culture of Critique by Kevin MacDonald
Why Liberalism Failed by Patrick Deenan

Look up those authors, generally.

>> No.17001320

>>16997069
the My Posting Career forum archives, if you can find them

>> No.17001363

>>16997178
Yeah and they're pretty good. Rush and many other conservatives understand that a shared history is one of the primary ingredients that makes a people A people. This is why the right is generally repulsed by the idea of tearing down statues and we see that the left is changing elementary education and being much more critical of our historical figures when they really should be exalting them as heroic. It has the effect of turning people against their own country so Rush makes these books that focus solely on the good, the heroic, and the great because that's kids need at this stage of their learning if they're ever going to grow up and love their country.

>> No.17001988

>>17001320
>tfw still have an account but haven't visited in months
Are they going full sycophant over Trump and plan-trusting about how he's going to still win? They wrote some good stuff but were getting too wrapped up in his 'greatness'.

>> No.17001993

>>17001988
No idea, I havent been able to lurk since the paywall went up and now I dont even know the new URL if there is one. The old one's shut down.

>> No.17001999

>>16998473
What conservative principles?

>> No.17002009

>>17001988
the only way he could win at this point is some kind of coup. if the SC decides somehow to back him the permagov will explode

>> No.17002135

>>17002009
Everything is fluid at this point, everything is uncertain because the status quo has broken down and by definition nobody is an authority on how to restore it (because that would be part of the status quo that broke down). The only thing to do now is wait for the next big historical moment that establishes a new status quo. That requires knowing how all the powers involved will act, which requires intuition.

The deep state is one major power obviously, but so is the Trump base. Right now the deep state types want the base to go back to sleep and meld into a new harmless form of Republicanism with some mild populism spice 4 years down the road. Trump's job isn't necessarily to win the election, in fact it might even be better if he doesn't. His job is to stop the deep state and lobbyist types from regaining their footing, and regaining the ability to steer and channel political discourse into harmless things that don't unseat themselves. He doesn't need to do anything except delay that, because every moment they're not in control, other potential forces are unmooring and even gaining autonomy. Normal political forces like middle class discontent are finding expression (however crude) that would normally be channeled safely into some BS issue of the day.

The only way Trump could have lost was to concede for the sake of acting "presidential," a scam virtue of a scam system, the rejection of which was his entire raison d'etre to begin with. Look what happened to Bernie, he kneeled and he was absorbed by the system he used to be a rallying point for opposition to. All the forces he was channeling and tapping into are now disconnected from him, dispersed, seeking other vehicles. The deep state wants to keep them dispersed and channel them into astroturf.

As long as Trump established his movement as the opposition he did the job he needed to do. He has planted it in the average voter's mind that the system is his enemy, not the Dem faction within the system. He also established charismatic populism as the cure for corruption, not always a perfect solution but certainly better than gradualism at this point.

SCOTUS knows all this. Even though they likely won't start a civil war, they are playing a very dangerous game either way. They can't be too dismissive or they will only cement the Trump base more. A lot of that damage is already done by this suit, which gives legitimacy to Trump's claims, which is why it's infuriating the media who have tried freezing it out and focusing on Sydney Powell shit like a QAnon conspiracy to discredit it.

You can't beat the media and military-industrial complex at their own game, but you can create a new field they don't control. That's what this is about.

>> No.17002190
File: 215 KB, 640x640, FEF78B75-E871-4356-9CF7-F0DA59D99C4A.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17002190

>>16997126
>Trump
>Nationalist
Lol

>> No.17002229

>>17002135
intredasting analysis, I don't know myself. I know the alphaglofriends have all sorts of ops nobody really knows about and are entangled with state and dnc and foreign countries and the banks and megacorps, etc. I have no idea what any of these faggots actually say to each other though or how the money and power works. I especially don't know why they were so obsessed with this election when they'd be back in 4 years anyway. Something clearly going on there.

The pentagon appears to be on Trump's side which is interesting.

>> No.17002342

>>17002229
I think you're right that it's an indication of their concern. Also look at how frankly unstrategic their choice of candidates was, Hillary and Biden. My strong suspicion is that not all the parts of the machine have ever interacted perfectly with eachother, but this wasn't a problem when they were in charge, so they got lazy and forgot about bridging the gaps, while the gaps got even larger. Then a new challenger rises all at once, and they find that the old machinery for circling the wagons against an external foe is creaky and imperfect.

I have a feeling the unholy alliance involves a lot of "oh for fuck's sake" moments when, for example, Hillary or Joe do something retarded, and everybody else has to scramble to cover for it. In a perfect world, they'd all know their roles and act as one, but Hillary and Joe are not just actors, they are arrogant out of touch dynasts and have to be courted and placated. This enrages the truly cynical politicos and the useful idiot progressives, who also don't like eachother. It's a constant juggling act.

That's why it's important to keep them on the defensive and internally divided, and to deny them their habitual means of thought control (deplatforming etc), which will further enrage them and provoke them into overplaying their hand. Keep this rhythm going and you will start to see some shit.

>> No.17003227

>ctrl+f
>israel
>3 hits
it's israel