Right wing "theory"

Rightists have no theory

And what they do have is like reading babys frist steps into politics. Its pretty cringe. Help me find any worth reading.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism
propertarianism.com/basic-concepts/
propertarianism.com/2014/02/15/on-the-north-sea-peoples/
propertarianism.com/2014/06/21/mises-praxeology-as-the-failure-to-develop-economic-operationalism-yes/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2
dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2704153/How-schizophrenia-shaped-culture-Americans-hear-voices-threatening-Indians-Africans-claim-helpful.html

Traditionalists have a fairly nuanced ontology, though it's entirely subjectivist and Bookchin 's dialectical naturalism tears it to shreds.

The whole of the works by Heidegger, though "Being and Time" most prominently, as well as Nietzsche - both of whose work came to deeply influence the development of modern leftist philosophy (Lacan, Althusser, Badiou, Adorno, Marcuse, Horkheimer, Zizek, Zupancic). To mistake the suture of the various rightist invectives to their theory as a lack of underlying structure is to not afford rightists (in this generality is included liberals and neoliberals) the proper deference they deserve as a force in the material development of the modern world, as shit as it is.

Consider reading Strasser
He knows fuck all about Marxism and his work waa heavily influenced by fear of Communists taking over the world, but he is interesting.

Stop chatting shit m8

yeah, that one was kind of off-kilter, my apologies.

Edmund Burke "Reflections on the Revolution in France"

...

Not that conservative thinkers don't exist, but I can't help but feel that the modern right, both the politically powerful and the the fringe, only play at having intellectual lineage dating back to people like Burke. I don't detect even a trace of his sort of traditionalism in the crude, brick headed warmongering of the republicans or the vulgar Nazis of the alt right. In practice, the right seems to have very little theory. Mostly reaction and resentment with the occasional oddball like Land making interpretation of those forces.

"Mes idées politiques"
"Si le coup de force est possible"
"De Kiel à Tangier"

Peter Sloterdijk.

Take what worked, throw people you don't like into ovens.
Take what didn't work, try to scare the evil banker away with communism.

It's like they are two sides of the same coin.

What I'm getting from this thread is that leftists have no solutions to the problem of anti-whiteness, only deflections to the claim that racial discrimination is unimportant. Funny how that idea vanishes the moment it's black people complaining.
Essentially your response is "shut up whitey" so why would any self-respecting white person asssociate with you?

Wrong thread Holla Forumsyp

Wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't. A ridiculous amount of Holla Forums posts are written up presuming what is said in the thread based on the OP and they regularly include some sort of inference that they've read the replies and are responding to everyone.

Hmm, so what you're saying is Holla Forumsfags are not interested in serious discussion, only in shilling their mantra about whyte genocide?!

...

muh comrade

Is he even full right-wing?

right wing has no theory because they dont need it, they already know right from wrong and as such their ideology revolves around what is instead of what should be because they expect everyone to know/have different ideas about what should be
in essence its not even really an ideology

This is some pure ideology.

When your theory revolves around "natural order" worship it's bound to be fucking shit.

Traditionalists have traditions. Some are oral anecdotes, some are rituals. Read a book OP.

Schmitt

Traditionalists have traditions. Some are oral anecdotes, some are rituals.
So traditions aren't things that tell you what to think and do?

Yes, I think so, but he's such a good thinker that leftist need to reckon with his thought, and rehabilitate it whenever possible.

I agree. The contemporary Right has just about nothing to do with traditionalist conservatism, and it's laughable when they use arguments based on tradition. Right-wing po litica today is explicitly modern and entangled with ideas of enterprenurial capitalism, secularism and individualism. Burkean conservatism is a whole other world.

There are right wing thinkers and philosophers.
The problem is left wingers like to think they are the smartest guy in the room and that makes them morally Superior.

You can see this working out in political elections where the democrats comes off as some out of touch elitist and gets BTFO by the republican thats funny and you would want to have a beer with. leftwingers dont realize its about being the smartest, its about being the coolest.
John kerry, dork.
Al gore, dork.
Mccaine, old dork
Clinton, female dork.
Romeny, capitalist Mormon dork

Bush, cool
trump, cool
obama, cool

Universities are pretty much leftwing brainwashing mills so im not surprised that leftwingers think there is no such thing as rightwing thinkers because university students are morons who accuse even the most basic bitch fox news neocon of being a fascist. The last thing an actual facist would do is watch fox news.

k, I've not read anything by him yet because I'm a super brainlet but I watched a bit of a German philosophy show they had on TV and even if I might disagree with him here and there he's certainly interesting. And Zizek has a weird broship going on with him somehow.

This is what the left doesnt get, the right isnt united. The alt right was littrly bulluing neocons for months and calling them cucks in 2016.
Liberterians, fascists, neocons, they all fight each other all the time.

And yes, the paleo conservative and traditional wing actually do criticize capitalism for its destruction of traditions and support of mass immigration


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism


Pat Buchanan calls neoconservatism "a globalist, interventionist, open borders ideology."[155] The paleoconservatives argue that the "neocons" are illegitimate interlopers in the conservative movement. In 1986,[156] historian Stephen Tonsor, who rejects the label paleoconservative,[157] said:

It has always struck me as odd, even perverse, that former Marxists have been permitted, yes invited, to play such a leading role in the Conservative movement of the twentieth century. It is splendid when the town whore gets religion and joins the church. Now and then she makes a good choir director, but when she begins to tell the minister what he ought to say in his Sunday sermons, matters have been carried too far.[

German idealists, Schopenhauer, Nietszche, Kierkegaard, DeMaistre, Burke, positivists (Comte, Spencer, Durkheim), traditionalists (Evola and Guenon) and then fascists (Vilfredo Pareto, Giordano Mosca, Mussolini, etc…)
Everything after the 1940s is pure garbage, except the very new wave of new right thinkers, such as Tomislav Sunic and Alain de Benoist, although these ones are sort of a mixed bag.

But that's true.

…and yet, they've become not that different.

Only Herbert Spencer is possibly conservative of these three, and even then, more of a liberal conservative.

i thought you go past the cool phase after high school

at least in Anglo countries, conservatives are just radlibs from years gone by, nowadays. imo, this is due to the obsession over muh Rule of Law. Rule of law of course just means whatever a judge says on a given day, and people in the lawyering profession lean liberal, so perhaps it's unsurprising that they alway accept the liberal frame. They apparently haven't quite figured out that capitalism destroys barriers to profit like traditions. In this sense it's hard to see how neo-reactionaries and the like can really be viewed as reactionary.

I can get why someone would say that MAYBE Comte wasn't a conservative, since he wanted to make society evolve from towards a "positive period", as he called it, but i think his lenghthly paragraphs about how social inaction is the preferrable behavior and how any changes to the social order is ultimately negative would make everyone know he's at least right-wing.
Spencer is the shittiest of them, social-darwinism is a fucking meme. I guess they didn't have the knowledge back then to actually make the distincions nescessary for a decent biological distinction of individuals into groups, but oh well.
And Durkheim was literally the most conservative of all of them, although arguably the least right-wing. He didn't want society to change at all, just wanted it to adopt some other institutional regulations so that it would consolidate the inaction he wanted.

Also right wing =/= conservative.
Most conservative parties in the world right now are left-wing, ironically enough. It's almost like conservatism is a retarded ideology that always gets pushed back by everyone else.
left-wing =/= socialism before you sperg out

Also, the importance of the positivists is mostly historical, since most of their theory is either unescessairly complex. which would only be nescessary on very low-trust societies, or outright retarded.
Their legacy on modern politics is too big for them to be ignored, though.

red Leviathan

*read

Well no shit. They work only on pure feeling and have no plan or idea but only emotion.

Leviathan is literally the ramblings of a cuck who got PTSD after seeing a tyrant getting beheaded.
It literally says that being ruled by a LEVIATHAN, a demon, is preferrable to revolting. It is a level of social inaction that even the positivists would think is excessive.


I literally listed dozens of authors with at least a 6 different political theories, but reading about them would be hard, wouldn't it?

They don't need to, inertia is on their side. Reactionaries are united by having a single goal and a common enemy, while the left can't take a coffee break without splitting into at least 3 new denominations.

Until the public doesn't like them anymore and slowly eat them alive.

Is it really worh of my time to read low_iq subhuman conservative theory?

...

no

xd owned!!!!!!!!!!! gottem!!!!!!

It was not supposed to denegrate you. It has to do with epistemology. Re-read that and reflect about it.

Please show me anything even remotely as well written, precise and wide ranging as this
propertarianism.com/basic-concepts/
propertarianism.com/2014/02/15/on-the-north-sea-peoples/
propertarianism.com/2014/06/21/mises-praxeology-as-the-failure-to-develop-economic-operationalism-yes/

Right off the bat
This is a failure to understand the philosophy of science.

lmao.

Whole page with no refference to meritum and full of pure ex cathedra statements. I used to beleieve that intellectual tratidions of right wingists are more than misinterpreting Marx's and Ricardian theory of value to discredit Ricardo and claim they overthowed Marx, but after reading your links I found it's rather highest level of right wing intellectual archievements.

not an argument, references are in the reading list

He's right, but these days Neocohens don't even bother to hide it anymore.

direct quote from curt doolittle

"I swear it is more important to understand the table of contents so that you understand the author’s basic outline of his argument than it is to go through the book which is largely all the excuses he makes for proposing that argument.

Read a bunch of Amazon reviews that have high ratings. Then read the Table of contents, pick a chapter."

he just skims reviews of books lmfao

You're on Holla Forums lad, everything short of GAS THE PORKIES CLASS WAR NOW is considered "defending capitalism"

If you haven't read Nietzsche what the fuck are you doing here?

lol

Nietzsche was literally a reactionary though.

if only

Based on what? The shit published when he was paralytic?

That's where mass media and the welfare State come in. They mollify workers and give Porky even more leeway. Meaning, material conditions will have to get even worse than they were during Victorian England until the Russian Revolution before workers finally rise up.

The "good" news is, the environmental apocalypse will quite likely create those hellish conditions. We'll finally have a revolution. Too bad all we will inherit is a barren planet, while a handful of porkies escape to Mars.

not an argument

DUDE DASEIN LMAO

brainlet detected

for your own sake, lurk more.

leftism is the veneration of materialism, rightism is the veneration of immaterialism. of course they're not going to get along.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2

We're still decades away from a potentially successful Mars colonisation. Not to mention that the cost in resources to do so is probably more expensive than making a post-warming Earth reasonably habitable for humanity.

Though I suppose it would be funny knowing that the porky billionaires on Mars would inevitably turn on each other - or would be overthrown by the caste of drones they brought with them, when said drones realise that the billionaires provide nothing of value regarding the operation of the Mars colony

...

Julius Evola for trad stuff

Rothbard, Hoppe, and Locke for libertarian leaning stuff

I'm a mutualist now but I used to be really far right so I know it definitely does exist.

Democraps aren't leftists lmfao.

Rightists have no theory >.>.

If so, I'd like to keep it that way.

Some of us have religion and that suffices much more than you could imagine.

Agreed. Good idea!

Name one political theory that hasn't crashed and burned as soon as it came into contact with the real world. As an alternative name one political theory that stands up to peer review. Political Hypotheses are a bunch pseudo-scientific drivel.

...

Most non-scientific ""'"""theory""""" is empty and inapplicable in its unspecificity. Claiming a group has no """""theory""""" hardly constitutes a relevant argument or decree. It's just a vague word.

The absolute state of this board.

Not sure what you mean by that.

Determinate being is a fairly good point to understand to enter into contact with the realm of the subject as affect of the symbolic, the Lacanian theory of the subject and the developments on it, including the modern inclination of Zizek, Badiou, Zupancic, Chiesa, Schuster, etc. towards the re-creation of a universality independent of the antagonism and negativity of the subject of capital. In that way, understanding at least the point about language as the horizon of history is critical, it is one of the foundational pieces for the idea of a language unable to express unfreedom and unthought, precisely because it is situated as one of the irreducible structures of capital. Reading the dude does not make you beholden to his ideas.


Was mainly just going for addressing the common reading of Neitzsche, which I admitted was not due diligence to the direct theoretical contributions he made to the foundations of an extra-clinical Marxian tendency in Lacanian Psychoanalysis. also pls no bully, I read ;_;

Ok, fgt! If you are right, then a certain political POV is a deviation from the human norm. And how the deviation manifests is determined by culture.

E.g. dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2704153/How-schizophrenia-shaped-culture-Americans-hear-voices-threatening-Indians-Africans-claim-helpful.html

And so on…

The explanation is probably that western society focuses more on the individual. But nervertheless, there's lowest common denominators for all with schizophrenia.

So if "rightism" is a mental deviancy, there's no reason to dick around with trade unions, political parties, think tanks and image boards. No need at all to rally any masses or anything. Just deal with them and leave me out of it, please.

Holy shit they finally opened a book.

That's not how references work, you have to pair whatever substantive claim you make that does not follow from your priors with a footnote that details where the grounding for the claim can be found. Just saying, read all these things, it's in there, leaves the door wide open for unproven assertions.

Why do leftists glorify continental philosophy so much, the guy was a fucking nazi yet most of the nuanced readings on him (or Nietzsche) are from leftists (Deuleuze, Derrida..)
how does obscurantist shit like this help our cause, all we've managed to do is alienate the commons from philosophy by making it inaccessible with all the jargon.

only good answer ITT, and the sad thing is that Schmitt was mostly influential on leftist conty's such as Zizek, even though some like Derrida hated him.

In the vaticuck sense?

Are you a retard, or joking?

The fact that you have said that instantly proves you are completely in the thrall of an ideology.

Not only do I think you haven't read Comte or Durkheim, but you don't understand what "right-wing" means. It DOES NOT mean simply "defense of the status quo." Right-wingers since the beginning, from Burke and Maistre, were often critical of the status quo and "establishment elites" etc. Furthermore, right-wingers will often endorse radical changes and upheavals in order to achieve their ideal society. This has been true across time and place. This is why people like Bismarck were often described as "conservative revolutionaries" or "radical conservatives" etc.

People who have a "conservative" temperament (in the strict dictionary sense of the word) often end up drifting towards the center or liberalism, e.g. Peter Viereck (supported FDR) and Andrew Sullivan (supported Obama).

You guys need to drop whatever you're doing and read this book. Burkean conservatism is not what you think it is and the modern right is very much in line with Burkean conservatism.

"Theory" in general is trash though.
There's a reason this shit only lives in academia.

not going through it again

lol

God, Americans are fucking pigs.
Not even a stem-fag would be this vulgar, all disciplines stem directly from theory.

If you are implying that theory means the same thing in the sciences and humanities than I have a bridge to sell you.

And the readings of him that I make reference to, those that develop what would become the basis for the critique of quite literally all facets of the subject of capital. No one is attempting to rehabilitate his reputation by affording it some credence above others.
I'd rather like to say that the conflicting figure of a man like Žižek, the funnyman/proto-stalinist divide has not only attracted a great number to critical philosophy in its extremely eclectic nature, but has shown itself, along with the contributions of those like Badiou and Althusser, have created a new means of everyday critique, one far more accessible to the everyman. That said, without a universalist movement, we do no more than examine the contours of our prison.


I was referring to the rightists who hold the views, but skip that part of the sentence at your leisure.

Look at this pleb

It literally does. For example, for science to even work you have to adopt some attitude of positivism or materialism. You must subscribe to the principle of identity and to absolute externality, without these your experimental results mean literally nothing.

Which is not to say that astronomic theory concerns itself with how intergalatic systems of oppression are erasing colored matter.

Fuck of with your motte-and-bailey.

Read, you filthy American swine.

The problem with that image is that you don’t see our theory because we don’t need to talk about it.
Seeing as our economic systems is already use everywhere.

Evolution is just a theory too, you know.

This is actually very true, the neutral in this case exists itself as un-objective with regards to the system as a means of measurement, it is neutral in its incorporation into the dominant hegemonic ideal

Evolution is a theory and you must adopt a number of practical, theoretical axioms to believe in it. This does not change the fact that evolution is the best explanatory model, the fact that it is tremendously useful, nor that it is functionally true. However, that does not change the former, that you perform a significant leap of faith putting your trust in the theoretical axioms evolutionary theory stands on. If you have a problem understanding this you're probably handicapped, tbh.

Could you shut up about Americans, it's fucking irritating as hell for me to hear you constantly fucking bitch about them, and I'm European

I see you have already found the fault in your everything is just a theory anyway line of reasoning used to defend the delirious rantings that constitute theory in far-left jargon.

...

Though, in all honesty, you're right. It feels as though, of late, there's just constant, undifferentiated animosity towards Americans

;)

No. Without theoretical examination into the nature of knowledge, ontology, epistemology, etc, as well as various modes of logic, science would not exist, nor any other practical discipline. Humans do not come pre-installed with this shit.

This

Because Americans are pigs, have no culture and ruined the fucking world.

This.

Yeah man that's the only thing that matters, the cultural relevance.

...

I'd tell you to fuck off, nigger.

I still don't see how meta-analysis being a necessity for science gives credence to leftist "theory", especially since marxism rejects meta-analysis.

That's debatable but I would say leftist theory is important because it's literally where the movement comes from. Lenin was profoundly influenced by Marx and so on and so on. Without left theory at the foundations of our movements there would be no real movement, just a mob.

it one hundred percent does not, considering that the principal work in Capital is examining and dissecting the positive presuppositions of the economics of capitalism

...

And with left-theory at the head of your movements you have mobs lead by disgruntled dickwavers locked in an essay contest.

That's not meta-analysis, just like a biologist examining and dissecting the mating dynamics of frogs isn't applying meta-analysis to biology. Your post indicates exactly what I mean with marxism rejecting meta-analysis.

this

This is heresy.

God shut the fuck up already

why are you acting like that wouldn't be good, you fucking bourg shilling idiot

With Capital, I was not referring to the practices of the system, but rather that of its ideological vivisection, which was developed by innumerable of his contemporaries in an idealist fashion. What you're advancing is the sort of vulgar materialism that seems to ascribe no more value or power to foundational theory or philosophy than that rhetoric, and do correct me if I'm wrong there, but that burdens you with the suspicion of sophistry, rendering you ironically much more akin to the capitalist and its derivations than a communist

I never said that cultural relevance was the only thing that matters. It is, however, the only thing that gives context to the writing and by ignoring the time and place of the writing you are doomed to misunderstand it. Nothing ever written exists in a vacuum.


But that's the core issue. It's built on ideas that might work in the future, not action that has worked before.

...

...

...

...

...