/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20065423]

Books about the decline of bourgeois values, the triumph of liberalism and why conservatives always lose culture wars?

[Anonymous No.20065450]

>>20065423
Christopher Lasch

[Anonymous No.20065453]

>>20065423
I recommend reading Kondylis

[Anonymous No.20065455]

>>20065423
Moldbug tho he's a literal bugman himself. The only reason they lose is because they don't use violence. Saved you the time there.

[Anonymous No.20065463]

>>20065455
Though I wager just getting rid of females would do the trick, like in Athens

[Anonymous No.20065464]

>>20065453

[Anonymous No.20065470]

>>20065455
Ah yes my desk nerd brothers, RISE UP! I know you obeyed school teachers to avoid detention but I BELIEVE IN YOU IN THAT YOU CAN! You CAN stand up to armed security guards! Thank you! I'll watch from back here.

[Anonymous No.20065471]

>>20065423
Liberalism is part of "bourgeois values".

[Anonymous No.20065485]

>>20065423
Conservatives always lose because value principles over being effective

[Anonymous No.20065486]

>>20065470
I get you're being facetious but prove me wrong

[Anonymous No.20065495]

>>20065485
That's why I cringe when WNs talk about having to be morally superior to their enemies. Like hitting below the belt once in awhile would do you some good

[Anonymous No.20065517]

>>20065485
Conservatives don't actually have "principles", they just want money at the end of the day. Leftists are the ones with principles who come the closest to carrying the Western Christian tradition that bourgeois values and liberalism were an outgrowth of.

[Anonymous No.20065526]

>>20065423
Read paul gottfried liberalism has been replaced by a managerial state the goal is to create a docile atomized mass of consumer cattle. Ideologies such as lgbt blm feminism are just means to an end

[Anonymous No.20065530]

>>20065495
I'm not sure who says that, they always make fun of white leftists who are overly empathetic

[Anonymous No.20065531]

>>20065517
Who are people refering to itt? Like every day people on the street? Elected politicians? What segment of society are we refering to with generalizations?

[Anonymous No.20065542]

>>20065423
>why conservatives always lose culture wars?
Because conservatism is the antithesis of... basically everything. Things change. They always change. Being a big whiny baby about how everything is different now is always going to lose out no matter what.

[Anonymous No.20065546]

>>20065455
>The only reason they lose is because they don't use violence

That's one piece in the jigsaw puzzle, but like most things there is no monocausal explanation.

The "left" or liberalism has basically won every single culture war since the French revolution. Democracy, freedom and equality are almost universally accepted, even by politicians of the right.

Blacks used to be enslaved. Now there's BLM, black history month, affirmative action, the right wing party in the US, the Republicans pride themselves in being the party of Lincoln and accuse democrats of being the real racists.

Women used to be unable to vote, they were the property of their fathers, then their husbands, martial rape used to be legal. Now every developed nation has some kind of department designed to enforce equality. The education system and the media are fiercely feminist. Even right wing parties would never dare to question female voting rights.

Homosexuality used to be outlawed, now its legal and they're getting ever more rights and representation in society.

Immigrants and foreign races used to be discriminated against, now they are celebrated and white people do their best to make up for their racist past.

The political right opposed all these emancipations, then they gradually came to accept them. And this can't just be explained away with "it's because they didn't use violence"

I think you get my point.

[Anonymous No.20065575]

Oh okay this is an american left right political paradigm thread filled with psueds. Okay.

[Anonymous No.20065579]

>>20065526
has two very good books that cover everything happening now but were written twenty years ago: After Liberalism, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt. The vocabulary used today has shifted quite a bit, liberalism is "our democracy" and multiculturalism is now "diversity and inclusion," but US political culture has been recycling those same ideas over and over for years. Has started to come under extreme stress but may resolve itself, e.g. so-called woke capital, which even if openly denigrated by progressives, is obviously a cushy employment lifeline and a brilliant way for the state and corporations to employ their nominal opponents both as gatekeepers and as theatrics

[Anonymous No.20065594]

>>20065546
Most of this is bullshit. You do realize that right? Not even ideologically incorrect, but fundamentally ahistorical. There are general history charts everywhere, you should skim through them. I also recommend reading the Fields sisters (Racecraft).

[Anonymous No.20065599]

>>20065517
>Conservatives don't actually have "principles", they just want money at the end of the day.

Either a /pol/tard or a communist. You're strawmaning conservatism and I say that as a non-conservative.

[Anonymous No.20065630]

>>20065526
I like Gottfried and the managerial state seems like a convincing thesis, but I don't see how this new ideology is iliberal. Liberalism is about freeing man from anything he didn't chose, like his tribe, nation, race, religion, culture, hell even his sex. That this creates an atomized society full of emancipated individuals is obvious.

[Anonymous No.20065633]

>>20065546
Everything you are complaining about is capital acquiring more inputs and consumers. Capitalism in the most developed western countries has turned their labor markets inside out to find more meat; it's easier to do this than to go abroad with gunboats. It needs to 'liberate' more people from human reproduction to keep reproducing itself. Conservatives are just an allergic reaction that gets selected against and crushed every so often. When a conservative suggests we caulk up the ratholes or he is threatening the entire reproductive system of capital.

[Anonymous No.20065661]

>>20065633
I like Kondylis take that conservatism is basically the worldview of the nobility from the middle ages which is completely at odds with egalitarian modernity. That's one big reason conservatives always lose to liberals. Conservatism basically died when the European nobility disappeared, all that's left is small crumbs of it and it has acquiesced so much to liberalism, which is why the far right who hate on conservatism calling it liberalism in slow motion have a point.

[Anonymous No.20065680]

>>20065594
You yet have to make a point.
>>20065471
Why then has the bourgeoisie practically disappeared but liberalism is triumphant?

[Anonymous No.20065696]

>>20065633
>>20065661
What is the enlightenment to you, exactly? Have you ever actually read Rousseau or Voltaire? Read Filmer, then read Lock. Read Diderot, in conjuncrion with Melzer's Philosophy Between the Lines. Burke isn't the first to articulate what you're calling conservatism.

[Anonymous No.20065697]

>>20065661
That sounds very European. In the US conservatism has no connection to the old monarchies and is historically hostile to the idea of a strong executive (so-called tyranny). Though that is starting to change as control of the government is increasingly being understood as important rather than as something that should be crippled and shrunken to reduce interference with markets (that's the older form of US conservatism), and conservatives have been increasingly tactical in making court appointments (judges have life-terms and overrule executives and legislators, who may be lost in elections, increasingly like as demographics become unfavorable to conservatives)

[Anonymous No.20065716]

>>20065599
Conservatives want a traditional Capitalism. But Capitalism does only give a shit about profit, Capital accumulation.
Thus when tradition hinders Capitalism, and it's accumulation, Capitalism crush it.

[Anonymous No.20065751]

>>20065423
Because we are on the side of justice science equality and love because we are on the side of truth.Marginalized folks have every reason to trust progressive bourgeoisie and managerial strata over fascist white settlers who want them dead.we have every right to deplatform fascists and reactionaries and class reductionists and science deniers and ensure safety for marginalized and vulnerable members of our communities. We have every right to demand the destigmatization and normalization of sex work, mental health, fat positivity, pornography, drug use, decolonization prison abolition police abolition family abolition the sexual enmancipation of children and an end to white supremacy and the gender binary.

Instead of pandering to the most backward secrors of the working class we should lead the way along with the most advanced ones, black and indigenous people, and queer/ trans sex workers. Sex workers 2gnot the straight male labour aristokkkracy who are at the vanguard of the proletarian movement, women and queer people taking the means of production into their own hands by refusing to perform unpaid sexual and emotional labor for white men. The real class struggle is not in factories but in womens bodies. Sexwork is a threat to patriarchy the capitalist system itself it is radically queer because it goes against the idea that sex is for the reproduction of the nuclear family and the patriarchal ideology of romantic love. Its a means for workers to take the means of production into their own hands here and now to abolish the distinction between the private sphere and the public, between work and pleasure and self expression. To break down the walls of lily white christian suburbia into a brave new world of pleasure rebellion and freedom. Yes it is true what they say about us queer postmodern neomarxists We are gonna groom all your daughters to be whores and your sons to be nympho trans sexworkers.

[Anonymous No.20065761]

>>20065542
The funny thing is that even the most hardcore progressives are conservative about things they care about

Have you ever wondered why revolutionaries always become conservative once they gain power? They don't want to lose it

[Anonymous No.20065790]

When right wingers complain about the decline in the acceptance / popularity of their worldview leftists always say that what is left and right changes over time. They're not wrong but what they conveniently omit to mention is that that shift only ever goes in one direction: the left.

This can be best observed by looking at heroes of the left. For example Karl Marx wrote things that by modern standards would be considered racist and antisemitic. Hannah Arendt was racist too. Things that were previously considered radical left proposals are now considered common sensical and self evident like abolishing slavery, giving the women the right to vote, democracy and anybody who questions these things is literally Hitler.

On the other hand, things that were considered common sensical and self evident yesterday are now considered far right.

For example the german right wing party AfD is considered far right and racist but they basically have the same ideology as the conservative CDU party in the 90s. In the 80s the CDU had a campaign "kids instead of Indians" (it rhymes in german), these days not even the AfD would dare to use such a slogan. Elder statesman and social democrat Helmut Schmidt's comments about immigration, if uttered today would be considered far right and he would be surveilled by intelligence agencies for extremism.

Why that is happening? I can't really explain. But that it is happening and that nobody talks about it bothers me.

[Anonymous No.20065802]

>>20065790
The funny thing is, if these leftists who say "well, what's left and right changes over time, now liberalism is in power, deal with it" were in a thought experiment transported back into the third Reich and complained about living under a far right regime, they wouldn't shut up and accept that if some right winger told them "well you know what's left and right changes over time, now nazism is in power, deal with it".

[Anonymous No.20065823]

>>20065761
yes of course. that's a function of progress. If conservatism stayed the same, there wouldn't be anything new to be progressive about. the goalposts are always moving.

[Anonymous No.20065828]

>>20065790
>Why that is happening?
WW2 happened, both major victors at the end of WW2 (US/USSR) heavily promote the cult of WW2 which implicitly makes pre-WW2 right-wing thought a precursor to Nazism, and thus, evil.

[Anonymous No.20065844]

>>20065751
Liberalism is triumphant now but it won't be triumphant forever. Climate change and illiberal regimes in China, Russia and so on question the Anglo Saxon liberal world order. From inside the west liberalism is much more under threat from the left than the right. Roughly speaking, there are two parts of the left. The left that believes in enlightenment values like Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson and so on. Individualism, social democracy, rationalism. Then there's the postmodern, intersectional woke left who think that science and empiricism are white inventions.


The very fact that people like Jordan Peterson are considered right wing shows how much the west has shifted to the left. Peterson defends liberalism and the enlightenment, he despises totalitarianism, the far left and far right, admires Solshenyzin, he is a color blind staunch individualist.

[Anonymous No.20065845]

>>20065790
No one cares to uphold a primordial idea of left or right, except losers. It is entirely relative to who you are fighting over limited resources with

[Anonymous No.20065884]

>>20065844
>From inside the west liberalism is much more under threat from the left than the right. Roughly speaking, there are two parts of the left. The left that believes in enlightenment values like Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson and so on. Individualism, social democracy, rationalism. Then there's the postmodern, intersectional woke left who think that science and empiricism are white inventions.
A lot of "postmodern woke leftism" can be arrived at by looking at classical Conservative thought but defending the ascriptive Victim as opposed to the nobility, aristocracy or Church

[Anonymous No.20065891]

pl

[Anonymous No.20065894]

>>20065823
That's the worst thing about progressives, they don't actually have an end goal, if they got all their demands met they would just find something else to bitch about until the whole system falls apart

[Anonymous No.20065897]

>>20065423

[Anonymous No.20065899]

>>20065546
>>20065680
Lets take a look at this point
>Women used to be unable to vote, they were the property of their fathers, then their husbands, martial rape used to be legal.
Everybody used to be unable to vote. Franchisement for taxpayers is a 19th century conceit (in Britain, Reform Act 1832). Women got the vote in 1918 (UK) and 1920 (US). Coverture is overstated and generally wasn't even applicable to the typical tenant; besides which, European literati/scholars have been advocating the talents of women since the 13th century (including many successful and celebrated female authors of their given periods). There's a great book on the topic of early female scholarship by Margaret P. Hannay (Silent but for the Word). Ever heard of the Treaty of Cambrai? The first person to be called a Scientist in print was a woman (Mary Somerville) for fucks sake. Women held enormous political sway as rulers and as courtesans. It's a bit disingenuous to suggest that women collectively have suffered under men in some illiberal fashion. It's just not the case. Your other examples can be similarly criticized. I don't even disagree with your premise, but what you've stated is generally ahistorical.

[Anonymous No.20065969]

>>20065894
You're misunderstanding. Progressivism is a reaction to the status quo. If their goals are met, they become the new conservatives because the world in now inline with their beliefs, and new progressives step in with new ideologies.

Nowadays "progressives" is used (wrongly) as synonymous with "champagne activists" people who don't actually have a goal or an ideal- they just want to bitch and virtue signal. They're a blight for both sides, because they just muddy the water and make it harder for anything to get done, one way or the other.

[Anonymous No.20066201]

>>20065761
That's a point Hobsbawm always made.
>radicals start left
>appeal to moderates to gain traction
>shift right once in power

[Anonymous No.20066300]

>>20065423
>decline of bourgeois values
I assume you mean high European culture because there's no shortage on how that broke down.

>the triumph of liberalism and why conservatives always lose culture wars
Not true at all. Look into the transition from Weimar Germany transitioned to Nazi Germany/Adenauer era conservativism.

>>20065844
You're trolling but Peterson definitely isn't a liberal since he doesn't believe he's fallible. Either you legitimately don't understand how individual consciousness can support authoritarianism or are just playing dumb since you bring up a Russian nationalist and ultra orthodox christian like Solzhenitsyn who was pretty explicit on rejecting political liberalism

[Anonymous No.20066379]

>>20065455
>conservative
>endemic of decline
>faggot
>let's follow him

[Anonymous No.20067533]

>>20065542
What about alligators? Conservatives need to learn from this beast.

[Anonymous No.20067549]

>>20065542
The inevitability of change doesn't mean that you have to accept any specific instance of change.

[Anonymous No.20067559]

The single best book on why "conservatism" never gelled into an actual ideology or cultural movement is Samuel Francis, Beautiful Losers.

Also essential are Gottfried's books on the history of the conservative movement. Don't be daunted, they are short and easy to read and you can have a good lay of the land relatively quickly.

If you want to know the essence of Burkean conservatism and its limits, read Pocock's essay on Burke, but you will probably have to read something of his on the Harringtonian tradition and the ancient constitution tradition as well as you can understand how Burke pragmatically synthesizes them. There are extreme limits to Burkean conservatism and it is not by any means a self-evident philosophy. Also, major "conservative" figures are often gatekeepers. Kirk was a genuine idealist but naive and limited, but someone like Peter Viereck (jr.) is literally an OSS/CIA with Freemason sympathies, the Straussians are a dead end too.

[Anonymous No.20067563]

Until right-wingers realize that the United States is the biggest problem for them, they will fail.

Every single right-winger needs to be anti-American. The triumph of liberal democracy and social liberalism is directly correlated with the United States' rise. It all springs from the Declaration and the Constitution. The English Civil War is a starting point as well, but nothing has so completely crystalized the leftward drift of the world like the Declaration of Independence.

"American conservatism" is and always has been a joke. The United States is fundamentally and inescapably a left-wing country. It has always opposed the King and the Church, the two pillars of the Right. It always WILL oppose them. There is no turning the world towards the Right as long as the United States is what it is. As long as America in its present form continues to exist, and continues to spread its ideas around the world, the Left will continue to win and the Right will continue to lose.

If you are right-wing, the United States is the problem. It is THE problem, and it is a problem that demands a solution.

[Anonymous No.20067583]

This paradigm won't last after Islam emerges as the leading ideology after the end of the US-China conflict.

[Anonymous No.20067584]

>>20067563
Based
The world won't heal until America falls

[Anonymous No.20067594]

https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/why-is-everything-liberal
https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/woke-institutions-is-just-civil-rights
TL;DR: "Woke" people are extremely intolerant of anything that goes against their worldview, and are willing to die on every hill. Most cultural conservatives will keep drinking Coke and watching the NFL no matter how many "woke" things they do; "woke" people would never tolerate Coke publicly saying gay marriage or abortion is immoral.
Civil rights law is a skeleton key that consistently gives progressive NGOs an automatic victory.
In the USA, the combination of these two things created the current situation. The intolerance of progressives, like the moral majoritarian evangelicals before them, gets them easy concessions from the private world. Civil rights law makes culturally conservative lawfare impossible. Once a court declares gives a new group protected status or that something is discrimination against one of these protected groups, upholding some new progressive orthodoxy becomes mandatory in order to comply with the law.
However, I should point out that this guy is a cynical minarchist who thinks the solution is mass deregulation and privatization so that conservatives can live traditionally without interference and the NGO world collapses without pork. He downplays the importance of things like ESG investing which would still enforce hegemonic "wokeness" if the federal government lost the power necessary to do this itself.

[Anonymous No.20067606]

>>20067563
That's not true, read Lasch's Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy and read about Jeffersonian democracy. The founding fathers' principles were compatible with fascism (in emergency cases), America is a European Christian republic founded on Machiavellian principles and a mixed constitution, with the overall presupposition that the ethnos underlying the republic is its core and engine, so a mixed constitution is SUFFICIENT for its normal functioning.

That is the secret that has been lost in America since Straussians and other un-American and non-American propagandists like the "New York intellectuals" (proto-neocon ex-trotskyists) began to push the "propositional nation" thesis, i.e. that America goes back to a form of Lockean social contract theory that Locke himself never actually held, and not to classical republicanism.

America is a democracy in the sense of a republic, NOT in the sense of a mass democracy. Britain had a lot of problems in the 18th and 19th centuries, but it was fundamentally an ethnic republic (constitutional monarchy with the monarch reduced to an "reigning without ruling" and administrative function). What really happened to destroy both Britain and the United States was the rise of "machine" politics, which is intertwined with the rise of money politics. This in turn gave rise to the Anglo-American establishment.

Read Weber's Politics as a Vocation for example, where he talks about the nature of British politics changing from a genuine representative system to a machine system around the time of Gladstone. Analogous developments took place in the USA in the late 19th century, in developments decried by the Adams brothers for example. As both states began to be controlled by alien "transatlantic" elites, late bourgeois technocrats, they also changed the ruling class ethos of both states to be "liberal" in the modern derogatory sense of the term, i.e. post-ethnic and post-republican.

The Brits abolished the requirements of taking a Christian oath which led to the rapid infiltration of Jews in the political class, almost all millionaires connected with the Rothschilds and Montagus and the rest of the Anglo-Jewish banking oligarchy. The USA had extremely strict immigration laws until the 1965 immigration act which was pushed by mostly Jewish interests and opened the floodgates to unskilled immigration, conveniently overlapping with the neoliberal and neocon goal of turning the USA into a propositional nation, in which citizenship means simply residence.

It's not America that's to blame, America as defined by the Constitution and the Founders is not America as it became dominated by "machine" politics, lobbyists, the proto-deep state and then the actual modern deep state after WW2, and as it is defined by Straussians and their neocon pets who can't even read Locke properly. Fight these people, not America itself, and fight them by helping return America to its original nonimperialist essence.

[Anonymous No.20067616]

>>20067606
>Jefferson thought the formal features of the American system would work, and they did work till the time of general Grant but the condition of their working was that inside them there should be a de facto government composed of sincere men willing the national good. When the men of their understanding, and when the nucleus of the national mind hasn’t the moral force to translate knowledge into action I don’t believe it matters a damn what legal forms or what administrative forms there are in a government. The nation will get the staggers.

>Jefferson thought the live men would beat out the cat’s-paws. The fascist hate of demi-liberal governments is based on the empiric observation that in many cases, they don’t and have not.

>How does the Jeffersonian answer the fascist in a.d. 1933, 157 of American independence, 144 of the republic, XI of the era fascista?
>This is not to say I “advocate” fascism in and for America, or that I think fascism is possible in America without Mussolini
>I think the American system de jure is probably quite good enough, if there were only 500 men with guts and the sense to USE it, or even with the capacity for answering letters, or printing a paper.
>And ANY means are the right means which will remagnetize the will and the knowledge.
Ezra Pound

[Anonymous No.20067829]

>>20067606
>>20067616
This is a false, deluded premise.
The American Constitution and founding ideology is one of an arch-liberal radical golem machine state in itself. When the founding fathers declare the rights of man to be self-evident, but own slaves, the abolitionist accusation of hypocrisy is ironclad and the entire project is fated to undergo cataclysmic change sooner or later.
When you cite the transformation of the representative state into the machine state, a rad-lib will simply accuse you of bigotry and favoring the privileged majority instead of following the principles of the society, which would be arguably correct... The machine state is one where all its constituents follow the interest of the law and liberal society even at massive personal or demographic cost, without compromise, but that's implicit in the cultural background of the whole society. Liberal values are defined by adherence to the vague, infinitely extensible social contract more than any kind of freedom, because it's a tendency grown out of the proto-puritan clerical baronial tendencies of the English civic society.
That tendency of English civic society has been undermining holistic sensibility in the name of radical idealism since the reign of the Tudors, and this must be accounted for at some point. In other words, the machine state is the rational conclusion of trends that had emerged in Anglo culture and were already evident in the Constitution as written.
The whole thing is rotten to the core and that's why Anglo conservatism is completely sterile and worthless.

[Anonymous No.20067833]

>>20065680
The bourgeoisie is literally ascendant.

[Anonymous No.20067850]

>>20065423
Dugin talks about this. He doesn't talk about bourgeois values declining because they haven't. Liberalism is bourgeois values.

[Anonymous No.20067908]

>>20067559
Thank you Mr Fuentes

[Anonymous No.20067912]

>>20065423
The Torah

[Anonymous No.20068044]

[Anonymous No.20068048]

>>20068044
Chesterton should properly be considered a reactionary, not a conservative.

And it should be noted that while conservatives have no victories to their name, reactionaries have a few.

[Anonymous No.20068060]

>>20065423
Just read Moldbug.

[Anonymous No.20068067]

>>20065495
It's what makes us morally superior and that will make us win in the end. Liberals (and many republicans belong here as well) have no shame in lying and stealing, but conservatives are desperate to prove to everyone we aren't bigots.

[Anonymous No.20068075]

>>20065761
conquest's laws pilled

[Anonymous No.20068077]

Weren't the bourgeoise basically by definition liberals?

[Anonymous No.20068090]

>>20068077
Yes. Right vs left is a myth. It's slow tracked left vs fast tracked left.

[Anonymous No.20068126]

>>20065716
Agreed but this refutes "they only want money". The political right critiqued capitalism before Marx was even born.

[Anonymous No.20068175]

>>20065899
Thanks for the book recommendations. I conced, I don't agree with the modern feminist narrative that women were always victims of the evil patriarchy. But it's undeniable that for centuries men had more rights than women. Yes, universal suffrage is historically pretty new, but female suffrage is even newer, in places like Switzerland it only exists since the 70s and in some places since the 90s. Just a few decades ago men could more easily get away with abusing women, now there's a metoo campaign waged against every man who made an inappropriate comment. Feminism is stronger than ever before. In my country used to be the law that women couldn't chose their profession, their husbands had to agree. Women used to banned from entering universities, now there are more female than male graduates. I could go on and on, the point is, the patriarchy is in a weak state and women have more rights and a higher social status than ever before.

[Anonymous No.20068181]

>>20065517
Leftists are just people who want to legalize sex reassignment surgery for minors.

[Anonymous No.20068191]

>>20067563
This is the commie campism talking point and a psyop. Literally retards like you advocate suicide for the country so that America's enemies replace them. The biggest problem are people like you. You create unnecessary confusion by undermine American confident. We need a reckoning with degenerates like you.

[Anonymous No.20068195]

>>20066300
How about people have a vast array of opinions and you can like some of their ideas without subscribing to all of them? Peterson doesn't like Solshenyzin for his nationalism but for his critique of the inhumanity of the Gulag system and the soviet union. He gave hundreds of lectures warning of the temptation of totalitarian ideology, fascism and communism, meaning he is a centrist.

Didn't Solshenyzin write a supposedly antisemitic two volume book "200 years together"? The far right thinks Peterson is a fraud and a shill for Jewish interests because he didn't answer a question on that book because he hadn't read it.

[Anonymous No.20068198]

>>20065716
Why do psueds say "tradition" like a buzzword. What does this mean? What's stopping you from living a traditional life style?

[Anonymous No.20068202]

>>20065845
That's a cynical and dishonest argument. What you're saying is essentially this "society has shifted ever more to the left, but I like this and want to obfuscate this so I will accuse anyone who dares to notice and criticize this development of ascribing to outdated ideas".

Well, what if you were transported into some far right regime and you complained about it and then someone came and said "well guess what idiot, times change and what was previously considered unacceptable extremism is now common sense, get on with it". Would you suck it up? No? Then why do you expect people like me to just accept that the left becomes ever more powerful?

[Anonymous No.20068210]

>>20065790
>Why that is happening? I can't really explain. But that it is happening and that nobody talks about it bothers me.
I know it's pleb-ish to send a youtube link, but watch every single video from the first one to the last if you want to get it. He systematizes Moldbug very well:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCL6o-qAYl7lU5bSQcIPKHLQ/videos
This one is a good introduction as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6LUjUbikkk

[Anonymous No.20068239]

>>20067850
Opposition to gay marriage and premarital sex, christian virtues, decorum, nuclear family. Things like that are bourgeois values and gay marriage is legal, premarital sed is common place, people don't go to church anymore, nihilism triumphed, the nuclear family is hollowed out, birthrates are low, alternatives to the traditional family are ever more popular. The bourgeoisie only exists in the minds of the anti bourgeoisie from the left and right because they need a bad guy for their political narrative.

[Anonymous No.20068465]

>>20067559
One important reason why conservatives lose in my opinion is that they are less partisan than liberals. They follow the rules even if the rules don't favor their group. Whereas the left views the constitution as something created by racist, white supremacist slaveholders and thus something that can be trampled over without any feelings of guilt. However, conservative often are these boring, philistine rule followers. For example, Trump had many chances to cross the Rubicon, delay the election, invoke the insurrection act, refuse to conceed, declare martial law and so on but almost all conservatives had the mindset "we have to follow the established set of laws, even if it means that Democrats will win", but liberals have the mindset "Who cares if we do a little bit of election fraud if it means we can prevent literally Hitler from getting another 4 years in office?".

You even sometimes hear conservatives make the point "LOL, liberals can only win by cheating". Maybe that's what Sam Francis meant by beautiful losers, conservatives would rather be virtuous, following the laws but losing, than cheating, disregarding the rules but winning.

[Anonymous No.20068572]

>>20067549
of course it doesn't. it just means you're going to lose whether you like it or not, one way or another.

[Anonymous No.20068595]

Conservatives always win because every Liberal will retroactively become a Conservative. Jesus Christ, George Washington, Dostoevsky, Karl Marx and FDR were all considered "liberal" at one point in time and now they are all considered conservatives. Eventually people like AOC and Ihlan Omar will retroactively become conservatives too.

[Anonymous No.20068620]

>>20065423
"Conservatives" lose culture wars because they don't actually care about those things because culture war issues are actually class war issues, meaning if a CEO of a Fortune 500 company is black instead of white or gay instead of straight, the bourgeoisie still win.

[Anonymous No.20068633]

>>20068620
By that logic do liberals win either? Every culture war in the last few centuries has been organized and had directly benefited capitalists.

[Anonymous No.20068643]

>>20068633
Point I'm trying to make is that liberals and conservatives vehemently disagreeing on something is a red herring. Whatever policies either party supports benefits the class they are a part of anyway.

Take Trump for example, when he was in office he reduced taxes for people who made 100k or more a year, which directly benefitted every single blue-check retard liberal on Twitter who spent the entire term of his presidency pretending he was the second coming of Hitler.

[Anonymous No.20068659]

These threads are so demoralizing. How can we ever make genuine progress in the world when retards like OP genuinely don’t even understand what liberalism is? Conservatives ARE liberals. Start from there and you’ll realize that “culture wars” and “political spectrums” are really just different facets of liberalism engaging in rhetorical propaganda to compete for power. The system is the same.

[Anonymous No.20068661]

>>20068643
Yeah, I get that, I'm just saying that activists and protesters don't really influence history. At the end of the day it comes down to what the bankers and industrialists want.

[Anonymous No.20068675]

>>20068659
You are of course correct, but there is an argument to be made that there's a class difference between a very woke progressive college educated professional managerial class person working for an NGO who votes Democrat, and a socially conservative kulak small business owner who sells pumpkin pies, roast chicken and votes Republican.

There really is a class coalition in the United States right now between Big Tech, NGOs and the woke progressive Democrats on the one side, and heartland workers, small business owners, real estate capitalists(and other primary industry national capitalists) and the Republicans on the other side.

[Anonymous No.20068711]

>>20068675
True and good points. I think big real estate will be liberal from now on though, after the covid regime gave Blackrock so many minor landlords market share by force.

OP I know you're just a fag but if someone else actually wants a book on this moldbug's Open Letter addresses it in detail.

[Anonymous No.20068718]

>>20065969
I'd recommend reading a history book. Nothing of this is true, in America anyway. It's like saying FDR's government was full of conservatives because it was in power...meanwhile they expanded government tenfold. It's a retarded word game, you're not a real liberal or conservative if the reality doesn't conform to the theory...well how convenient, too bad it's the theory that doesn't conform to the reality.

[Anonymous No.20068719]

Peter Hitchens

[Anonymous No.20068734]

>>20067850
>. He doesn't talk about bourgeois values declining because they haven't. Liberalism is bourgeois values.
Shitlibs != liberalism.

Today's so called liberals believe in nothing and have no principles whatsoever, they're the same people screaming for Russian blood because earlier when they were screaming for Nazi blood it turned out it didn't exist, so their rulers reoriented and recreated their demands. The liberals are todays are just pet monkeys of the ruling class who conform to every new insipid agenda with such alacrity they seem like invertebrates on crack.

People down down on 'liberalism' precisely because they are hollowed out, it's a retreat no a defense.

[Anonymous No.20068739]

>>20068711
>I think big real estate will be liberal from now on though, after the covid regime gave Blackrock so many minor landlords market share by force.

Probably yea.

[Anonymous No.20068740]

>>20068719
The inferior Hitch? No thanks, bitch.

[Anonymous No.20068742]

>>20068734
Liberals have always been opportunistic anon, that doesn't mean they aren't liberals at heart, it just means that they have read Carl Schmitt and know what to do in a crisis.

[Anonymous No.20068758]

>>20068742
How can that be when these 'opportunities' are total confutations of these so called core principles? Americans are a prime example of this, how can you purport they actually believe and adhere to notions of human rights and democracies when they happily topple foreign governments by any means necessary with the pretext of law and order, and have done so since the Monroe Doctrine to the War on Terror to the 2014 coup de ta in Ukraine? I don't know how you can claim they have any sincere beliefs when they act in blatant defiance of these ideals in 'defense of them' as pretexts for jingoism and profit.

[Anonymous No.20068771]

>>20068758
>how can you purport they actually believe and adhere to notions of human rights and democracies when they happily topple foreign governments by any means necessary
I don't. That being said most Americans don't think about anything and just listen to what the TV tells them.

[Anonymous No.20068804]

Conservatism is for pussies
Fascism is the way forward

[Anonymous No.20068820]

>>20068620
>Conservatives" lose culture wars because they don't actually care about those things

It's pretty much the only thing they care about, some going as far as saying economics are of secondary interest, social issues being the most important.

Democracy vs aristocracy, LGBTQ rights vs heteronormativity, virtue vs decadence, Christianity vs secularism, nihilism, feminism vs the patriarchy, excessive immigration vs restrictive immigration, ethnic / racial diversity vs ethnic / racial homogeneity. etc. They lost every single culture war.

>the bourgeoisie still win.
See
>>20067850

[Anonymous No.20068822]

>>20068198
A society actively hostile to such a thing. Almost every aspect of it is designed to discourage such lifestyles.

[Anonymous No.20068824]

>>20068804
It takes a special kind of stupid to look at a thing you don't like and decide the best way to resist it is to embody the caricaturized enemies it imagines for itself. The very reasons you dislike liberalism are the reasons why you should dislike fascism.

[Anonymous No.20068827]

>>20068758
Imperialism always means rules for thee but not for me anon. Not exclusive to liberalism.

[Anonymous No.20068828]

>>20068198
It's literally too expensive to have children unless you're a redneck or a brown person collecting welfare for a living.

[Anonymous No.20068833]

>>20068827
Actual liberalism is anti-imperialist. You can't believe in human rights while denying them to other people.

[Anonymous No.20068834]

>>20068820
>It's pretty much the only thing they care about

Well when I say "care" what I mean is "consider those who hold differing opinions enemies worthy to be killed". Conservatives might not like abortion because anti-abortion is an identity marker for them, but they certainly aren't willing to torch the country for it to be illegal.

[Anonymous No.20068837]

>>20068833
Absolutely you can. You simply have to define The Other as non-human.

[Anonymous No.20068839]

>>20068824
also hurr when fascism comes to america it will be drapped in an american flag and holding a bible. aren't quotes great and totally meaningful? Churchill don't know shit

[Anonymous No.20068844]

>>20068834
>Conservatives might not like abortion because anti-abortion is an identity marker for them, but they certainly aren't willing to torch the country for it to be illegal.
Generally they are more too comfortable for any sort of large-scale, organized political violence, but individuals on the right certainly commit more and more lethal acts of it around this issue..

[Anonymous No.20068853]

>>20068804
Fascism is petty bourgeoise rage, it represents a failed attempt of escaping their philistine, mediocre world.

>>20068659
OP here. I don't disagree. Conservatives are something like old fashioned liberals. Still doesn't explain why "the right" (which is not limited to conservatism) is losing and the left keeps winning or why the bourgeoisie and their values are slowly disappearing.

>>20068620
The bourgeoisie is an endangered species. They are made up to be this huge, insurmountable force by the far left and far right because they need a boogeyman.

Especially "the left" understands itself as the eternal underdog, speaking truth to power when in reality all of the media, the education system, Hollywood, Silicon Valley etc. are left-liberals and even right wing parties are liberal, and true conservatives and the bourgeoisie have almost been hunted to extinction.

[Anonymous No.20068859]

>>20068837
Schmitt wasn't a liberal.

[Anonymous No.20068861]

>>20068844
>Generally they are more too comfortable for any sort of large-scale, organized political violence

You mean they don't actually consider any of their own political opinions to be matters of grave importance and therefore aren't willing to really fight for them. Which is why they will always play second fiddle to the progressives.

[Anonymous No.20068862]

>>20068839
>anon comes within inches of realizing his ideology is a cruel joke then abouts face
https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1647349097223.webm
so tiresome.

[Anonymous No.20068865]

>>20068859
No, but he was critiquing Actually Existing Liberalism™.

Saying "Actual liberalism doesn't do X" is a meaningless statement, because your facile and naive version of it doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.20068871]

>>20068834
The issue with this perspective is you sort of look at liberals and conservatives (or, left and right) as if they are 50% of the population, respectively. When in reality I think history just favors liberalism. Liberalism is more in tune with human nature. Politicians of the right used to defend slavery and denying women the right to vote, now they have become so meek and mellow all they do is perhaps occasionally mention that blacks commit more crime and that 4th wave feminism is maybe a bit too extreme.

[Anonymous No.20068874]

>>20065423
Liberalism is a bourgeois value.

[Anonymous No.20068881]

>>20068734
The ruling class is made up of liberals. Meaning that liberals aren't useful idiots for the powers that be, they are the powers that be.

[Anonymous No.20068886]

>>20068871
>Politicians of the right used to defend slavery and denying women the right to vote, now they have become so meek and mellow all they do is perhaps occasionally mention that blacks commit more crime and that 4th wave feminism is maybe a bit too extreme.

Yes, politicians of the right really don't care about politics as long as the money keeps rolling. Which is why they in reality are just gatekeeping liberals and not "conservative" in real definition of that word.

[Anonymous No.20068908]

>>20068853
>The bourgeoisie is an endangered species.

Sure but that's because capitalism is the tsunami that sinks all ships and not the wave that lifts all ships. Marx predicted that as new modes of production were invented, groups of people who were previously bourgeois or petit-bourgeois would become proletarianized, and that's happened to an enormous degree the last 30 years because of the invention of the internet.

I mean, journalism alone has experienced a class holocaust, it used to be a respectable profession that carried some modicum of class privilege and now major newspapers are literally begging consumers to please give them 1 dollar a month, laying off thousands of writers.

[Anonymous No.20068914]

>>20068874
>>20068620
A lot of people here seem to think rich people = bourgeoise. That's a bad definition. The new financial ruling class are guys like Zuckberg, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk and so forth, nerds who wear jeans and T-shirts. The very clothes they wear, houses they live in and worldviews they have are anti-bourgeois.

I don't deny that if you look hard enough you can find people who fit into the bourgeoisie category here and there but they (the bourgeoisie) are a shadow of a shadow of a shadow of their former self.

[Anonymous No.20068917]

>>20068881
The ruling class are directly the ones making the decisions to flout liberal principles.

[Anonymous No.20068924]

>>20068914
>The very clothes they wear, houses they live in and worldviews they have are anti-bourgeois.

No, that simply IS what is now bourgeois anon.

[Anonymous No.20068944]

The true battle is old money vs new money

[Anonymous No.20068945]

>the triumph of liberalism

Read pic related.

[Anonymous No.20068955]

>>20065423
>liberalism
>not bourgeoise values
Americans are retarded

[Anonymous No.20068958]

>>20068955
I can't blame them. Americans have been indoctrinated ever since the founding to believe that the freedom ethos of the United States belongs to and benefits the common man the most and not the robber baron.

[Anonymous No.20068987]

[Anonymous No.20069031]

>>20065423
Foundations of the 20th century

[Anonymous No.20069035]

>>20068924
Rich people = bourgeoise

Galaxy brain take

[Anonymous No.20069040]

>>20068917
Like what?

[Anonymous No.20069055]

>>20069040
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_terror#:~:text=The%20phrase%20war%20on%20terror,those%20by%20Russia%20and%20India.

[Anonymous No.20069058]

>>20069035
The galaxy brain take is to believe that 19th century orthodox Marxist definitions are applicable in the 21st century you retard.

[Anonymous No.20069059]

>>20069055
Self-determination is only a virtue in others if it agrees with our virtues (and business interests).

[Anonymous No.20069067]

>>20068572
No it doesn't. There have been many attempts at changing things that failed. You don't know about them because they failed.
There is no such thing as a constant march of change. It's a platitude.

[Anonymous No.20069072]

>>20068914
Nice cope, faggot.

[Anonymous No.20069081]

>>20068908
>Marx predicted
Stopped reading there. You /leftypol/ tourists are giving yourselves in so easily.

[Anonymous No.20069096]

>>20069067
>There is no such thing as a constant march of change.
Yes there is.

[Anonymous No.20069106]

>>20069081
Stop with the identity politics and actually read what I said retard, you might learn something.

[Anonymous No.20069128]

>>20068465
Just say that "leftists cheat"
>>20068886
Republicucks who are ok with gays and support zionist jewish state with every fiber of their beings aren't right.

[Anonymous No.20069145]

>>20069128
>Republicucks who are ok with gays and support zionist jewish state with every fiber of their beings aren't right.

No, to a fascist like you they aren't, but they are definitely the right-wing *of* the establishment.

[Anonymous No.20069179]

>>20069055
I was asking for proof that the ruling class is not liberal and you give me a list of CIA coup d'etats like some fucking tankie.

[Anonymous No.20069180]

>>20069145
So you're calling democrats left-wingers? >fascist like you they aren't
For an every normal right-winger they aren't.

[Anonymous No.20069191]

>>20069180
Literally every single person who self-describes as left votes for the Democrats, so why wouldn't I call Democrats the left?

[Anonymous No.20069194]

>>20069179
>hurr durr the ruling class don't give the orders for the military or CIA or blatantly use political power to serve their buddies political interests
What a moron. Yeah the owner of United Fruit is a hardcore liberal, that's why he had the US government invade Guatemala lmao.

[Anonymous No.20069202]

>>20069194
Not that anon, but being a liberal doesn't mean everyone has individual rights anon. Being a liberal has always meant that only your friends have rights, your enemies don't.

[Anonymous No.20069225]

>>20069202
>being a liberal doesn't mean everyone has individual rights anon
that's exactly what it means retard

[Anonymous No.20069226]

>>20069194
Unironically yes. The head of the CIA is hard at work with sting operations to arrest people who are undeniably on the right. When asked to do something about antifa and the BLM riots, he said they're "just an idea" and can't be pursued. He is a hardcore lefty. And the CIA also continues to overthrow foreign governments on the regular.
Figure out why on your own.

[Anonymous No.20069227]

>>20069106
I only read the first sentence of your jewish drivel so I'll answer that
>Sure but that's because capitalism is the tsunami that sinks all ships and not the wave that lifts all ships.
This is not true. It lifts up the countries that are competent enough on their economies. That's why china, japan, estonia, US, finland, SK, Taiwan, etc. are so rich.
>inb4 muh chyna is GOMMUNIZM
not economically. China was a massive shithole until Mao's death. Deng saved the country with opening their markets and allowing investments. They would be NK-tier without it.
>b-b-but what about India
It was a socialist state that opened their markets much later than China did: In the 90s, hence, the massive poverty.

[Anonymous No.20069245]

>>20069225
That's what it means in theory, but not in practice. If liberals actually treated everyone, even their enemies, the same, liberalism would end.

[Anonymous No.20069248]

>>20069096
No there isn't.

[Anonymous No.20069250]

>>20069227
So not only aren't you incapable of dropping the identity politics for 1 second, you also can't read and respond to what people actually write.

[Anonymous No.20069257]

>>20069245
I've had smarter conversations with a wall. At least the wall is consistent and coherent in its silence.

[Anonymous No.20069260]

>>20069250
>>20069257
Let me be clear: You're gay.

[Anonymous No.20069269]

>>20069257
No you're just stuck in the same place as the average communist in that you think that "real communism hasn't been tried", except you're a lib.

[Anonymous No.20069274]

>>20069250
Which "identity politics" are you talking about? The ones that leftists push everywhere? The ones that Russia, China and the jews propagandize in the West? Or basically every opinion that calls out your jewrat drivel?

[Anonymous No.20069285]

>>20069274
The kind of identity politics where you can't even respond like a normal person to another person's arguments because you think they belong to a category of unpersons you hate.

[Anonymous No.20069292]

>>20069257
I bet you think that gommunizm is when no government or state, or Feminism is when women and men are equal. Well, too bad faggot, the ones that are being practiced nowadays make those definitions meaningless.

[Anonymous No.20069296]

>>20069269
>>20069292
No-one mentioned communism except you.

[Anonymous No.20069299]

>>20069285
I think you would be less retarded if you tried steel manning opposing arguments.
I see lefties do this on the regular, where they decide
>There is no serious thought other than mine
>This guy who disagrees with me? He is actually le bad, and thus nobody disagrees
>Therefore I don't have to consider the possibility I'm wrong

You're unironically doing what you incorrectly believe he's doing. If you steelman other opinions it will really improve the accuracy of your worldview over time.

[Anonymous No.20069306]

>>20069296
>No-one mentioned communism except you.

Saying "These people aren't TRUE liberals because they did X" is literally a fallacy retard.

[Anonymous No.20069314]

>>20069296
No, I'm just giving you an example.

[Anonymous No.20069316]

>>20069299
Anon, I'm not going to argue with someone who responds to my attempt at a serious take with "jewrat garbage" seriously. You people are seriously damaged.

[Anonymous No.20069328]

>>20069285
This is the most normal response I could give to a marxist faggots like you.
>you think they belong to a category of unpersons you hate.
The fucking irony of this post kek.

[Anonymous No.20069336]

>>20069328
The most normal response to an argument about the development of economics and history is that I spread "jewrat garbage"?

You should consider taking meds psycho.

[Anonymous No.20069338]

>>20069306
>Saying "These people aren't TRUE vegetarians because they eat meat is literally a fallacy retard.
lol
hello wall how do you do?

[Anonymous No.20069351]

>>20069338
Vegetarianism isn't an ideology that is different in practice from the theory itself you bad faith arguing loser.

[Anonymous No.20069352]

>>20069316
Why not? Knee-jerking isn't serious thought. What if someone genuinely stupid and unlikable says something true that you hadn't considered?

[Anonymous No.20069359]

>>20069226
It was the head of the FBI who said that, not the CIA. But the fact that they failed to grasp the informal organization of radical leftist movement politics, is fishy. I'm sure they're more than intelligent enough to understand what's going on, so the only reasonable conclusion is that are actively interested in advancing the agenda of the political left.
This can be seen in the way they measure threats. Recent announcements of concern about right-wing terrorism emphasize its potential lethality rather than its threat to the continued existence of society as a whole. In a healthy society, organizations like the FBI would see an anarchist breathing as more harmful and threatening to society than every terrorist attack that has so-far occurred in this century combined. Their refusal to confront such a threat in this way, means that they, whether they intend to or not, are supporting the communist/anarchist movement.
And don't give an article about some anarchist getting arrested for making threats online or something. At this point, the far-left is so deeply entrenched in our social institutions that supporting anything other than their complete and systematic removal from society is showing support for them. Anyone who believes that communists and anarchists can coexist with society in any capacity is a crypto-communist/anachist.

[Anonymous No.20069363]

>>20069352
Read this and tell me that this is demonstrative of something smart. He literally just talks like a Reaganite boomer who hasn't given anything in his life a single thought.>>20069227

[Anonymous No.20069364]

>>20068908
So in a sense technology makes us poorer

[Anonymous No.20069367]

>>20069351
>different in practice from the theory
This is an interesting way to say 'I contradict but deny the contradiction'. For your sake I hope you're at least a woman.

[Anonymous No.20069383]

>>20069367
>This is an interesting way to say 'I contradict but deny the contradiction'.

Anon, if every single plank of liberal ideology has to be manifested in reality for it to count as authentically liberal, then there are no liberals on the planet, and no liberal societies, in fact, fascism and communism have also then never existed.

[Anonymous No.20069384]

>>20069336
>brings up marxist talking points
>"hurr I'm just trying to talk about the history of economics bro"
You really are a tourist, don't you? Too bad for you then, because no one's here stupid enough to convert to marxism.

[Anonymous No.20069402]

>>20069363
How am I wrong, faggot? Free markets and investments made so many societies richer than ever before.

[Anonymous No.20069412]

>>20069402
None of them are remotely relevant to what I said. Marx having an opinion on how societies changes so as to cause larger groups of people to fall from grace and become poor doesn't mean I personally want to live in China or the Soviet Union you fucking dumb goon.

[Anonymous No.20069427]

>>20069364
>So in a sense technology makes us poorer

It's more like technological innovation making previously respected fields of work turn into jobs only fit for low wage immigrants.

[Anonymous No.20069431]

>>20069359
Thanks for the long response, you're right. I'm a regular anarchist and I don't know anyone who thinks anarchist's/commies can coexist with society and isn't at least crypto-anarchist or a commie .

>>20069363
Yes, I sincerely believe what his reaganite boomer post is worth considering. I read it and agree with most of it.

[Anonymous No.20069436]

>>20069427
Idk if farming was ever that respected desu senpai

[Anonymous No.20069457]

>>20069436
Well when society consisted of 80% farmers, they treated eachother with respect.

Do you think a college professor has any respect for a farmer today?

[Anonymous No.20069462]

>>20069367
It really goes to show why any discussion on this website is a hollow endeavor, most posters are actively trying to lower the level of discourse and it's unlikely they even have a reason for being such retards. They've no interest in discussion yet won't shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.20069464]

>>20068874
>an idea that started with roman slaves is a bourgeois value

[Anonymous No.20069468]

>>20069462
The guy isn't even responding to what people are saying to him anon, being a condescending and smug faggot isn't contributing to the discourse.

[Anonymous No.20069496]

[Anonymous No.20069503]

>>20069496

[Anonymous No.20069521]

>>20069248
what do you think change is?

[Anonymous No.20069844]

>>20069225
Read Popper. There's something I call authoritarian liberalism. Invading an iliberal country and forcing liberalism down its throat is not unheard of.

[Anonymous No.20069880]

>>20069462
>nd it's unlikely they even have a reason for being such retards.
It's called being a petulant child, aka 90% of nu-/lit/ following /r/books incursion of 2016.

[Anonymous No.20069954]

>>20065495
because Breivik, Roof, and Tarrant hit above the belt?

[Anonymous No.20070143]

>>20069058
Marx popularized the term but he's far from the only person using it and yes it is applicable to today's world. In fact, if it didn't exist it needed to be invented.

[Anonymous No.20070160]

>>20069503
Student should have slapped her backhanded and said she was hot. She probably would have fucked him.

[Anonymous No.20070198]

>>20068914
That's the literal definition you stupid faggot. They own a stake in the means of production and are beneficiaries from the current system. Marx said society was being divided into two great camps. Not one great camp against muh top 0.1% BS. I saw this graphic that said "all billionaires are fascists", and laughed at that, as if it implies the person who made them was a multi-millionaire. I also saw a new Lexus SUV yesterday with a bumper sticker that said, "TAX THE """""""ULTRA""""""""" RICH". They had to preface rich with ultra-rich because they themselves were obviously rich.

[Anonymous No.20070254]

>>20068711
>Moldbug
Meh. I was thinking of a serious book by a historian or philosopher, not a collection of blogposts, even though I generally like Moldbug.

[Anonymous No.20070277]

>>20068834
>Conservatives might not like abortion because anti-abortion is an identity marker for them, but they certainly aren't willing to torch the country for it to be illegal.

That's not what some of the pro-lifers I've met think.

[Anonymous No.20070342]

>>20068191
I'm not anti-American because I'm a communist, I'm anti-American because I'm a monarchist. Down with democracy, long live the king.

[Anonymous No.20070392]

>>20068633
Liberals aren't capitalists? Since when?