Ideology, Theory, Praxis-Options for the Right, their benefits, demerits, and comparative value.

[Deleted member 88]

@Lord Sovereign, @Fallout-Man101, @JagerIV, @Navarro, and whoever else wants to join.

To prevent the derail of the election thread, I decided I'd create this thread to discuss ideology, and our options as it were.

-Generic conservativism
-Paleoconservativism
-Libertarianism, in its right variants
-Traditionalism, and its subvariants, monarchism, ecclesiarchy, and so on.
Reactionary thought,
And revolutionary traditionalism-that is, if we are so blunt, fascism.

What ideology, is the best choice in the future, what doesn't work, what we want to work, but know in our hearts never will, what will best defeat the left, own the libs, and provide a healthy, sane society.

Feel free to bring in books, your favorite theorists and so on.

Let the right wing conspiracy find its Theory!

 

[Free-Stater 101]

What ideology, is the best choice in the future? What doesn't work?

You are asking for trouble with this question.

 

[Deleted member 88]

I'm hoping it generates productive discussion, which is why I made the thread.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

As someone who believes that Britain can only be truly healed and restored to greatness by reversing course, Traditionalism suits my purposes best. I'm not a Neoreactionary as I think taking the vote away from women is a bit of a heavy handed punishment for the moral failures of feminism. Neither am I a Fascist, as I think an overmighty state has played a huge role in how we've ended up in our current mess, and Fascism is pro big-government.

So yeah, essentially British/English Traditionalism suits me. Besides, the most important part of the culture war is instilling traditional values in the general public, and conservatism doesn't seem up to the task there.

You are asking for trouble with this question.

Should make for a fun thread then!

 

[Deleted member 88]

Traditionalism suits my purposes best. I'm not a Neoreactionary as I think taking the vote away from women is a bit of a heavy handed punishment for the moral failures of feminism. Neither am I a Fascist, as I think an overmighty state has played a huge role in how we've ended up in our current mess, and Fascism is pro big-government.

Question is, women voting helped lead to the loss of Tradition, and you'd need a big government to implement the changes you want implemented. Or at least a government that operates in a heavy handed way.

Taking away women's right to vote, seems to me to be less punishment(though it would definitely be, and a deserved one at that), and more a way to restore a proper social order, with delineated spheres.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Question is, women voting helped lead to the loss of Tradition, and you'd need a big government to implement the changes you want implemented. Or at least a government that operates in a heavy handed way.

No it didn't. The Working Class, blinkered by promises of equality and a new tomorrow, voted in Socialism which inevitably lead to the bloating of the state. If anything the female vote has remained quite conservative over the years. And whatever harm you think "women" did to our traditions, the World Wars did ten fold, with Soviet subversion being the final nail in the coffin.

Taking away women's right to vote, seems to me to be less punishment(though it would definitely be, and a deserved one at that), and more a way to restore a proper social order, with delineated spheres.

...collective punishment for the moral failings of a few? Can't say I can condone that. It's not British at all.

 

[Free-Stater 101]

For the U.S. Libertarianism, mixed with several of the above school's of political though and Bismark realpolitik pragmatism and the dropping of a few of the philosophy's worst excesses (anarcho-capitalist) seems to be the direction to head.

Of the above philosophies I will discount Monarchism immediately, not that I have a problem with it, but the U.S. has never had, nor really felt inclined to them and I fundamentally disagree in it on such principle.

 

[LifeisTiresome]

moral failures of feminism.

Did Feminism fail in its morals truly though? I have mentioned before about a feminist in the 1970s and what she advocated for.

I think you are blinkered by liberalism and its so called morality.

I went on a long rant about liberalism and its so called morals and beliefs.

Frankly, I believe that liberalism and the left pushed for said morals to shame and weaken whoever they were targeting so that they will fall and then they will take over and oppress the now fallen oppressor.

Does this mean we are trapped in a cycle of one must keep your boot on anothers neck forever less they then turn around to stamp down on your neck forever? Quite possible.

 

[LifeisTiresome]

Anyway, @Lord Invictus

This thread could possibly be entertaining.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Did Feminism fail in its morals truly though?

It became morally abhorrent over time at the very least.

I think you are blinkered by liberalism and its so called morality.

What is Classical English Liberalism but an evolution of the old Saxon philosophy? Britain is a liberal land by her very nature, so as a British Traditionalist I embrace liberty as part of the package. Thusly we can see that the morality which has "blinkered me", seems to have been functioning relatively fine for nearly a thousand years until the radical leftists decided they wanted to save the world. Therein lies the problem, the radicals ran wild during the 20th century, enabled by the World Wars and the USSR.

This is why I put such great emphasis on setting the clock back to 1913 in some aspects. To a world without radicalism and rampant utopianism.

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

I am a classical republican, and a moderate right-winger, and interested in third way economics.

I really think we need to look towards classical models of governance and political philosophy and apply them to our current circumstances. We need to return to bonding our society together through justice and civic friendship. We need to bring back civic virtue and look towards why we form a society in the first place. We also need to remember why we went for a particular form of mixed government as our way of governing modern society- the very grounds for mixing itself.

Also, we need to remember what the wise teachers said about regime degradation and revolution. It is clear that we have factional infighting, the elite have grown dissatisfied with their share and have decided to plot against the many, in an attempt to subvert the republic and make it a oligarchy, while the many are picking up on this and fighting either to preserve the regime and restore it to its proper balance, or since the elites have broken their deal to enforce a pure democracy.

 

[LifeisTiresome]

It became morally abhorrent over time at the very least.

Quiet possible. I believe that Feminism has not been corrupted at least until now. Its a movement that pushes for what it see's as the interests of its group aka women and to hell with everyone else.

Of course, you had normal corruption like greed and so on. But the current corruption that I'm talking about is the whole trans mess. I find that delicious personally. Trans taking over from Women would be great imo. Feminism losing control over one of its golems.

Here is some info about feminisms corruption over time as you put it:



For your own perusal. Lets move on and talk about ideology and greater politics as is the point of this thread.

What is Classical English Liberalism but an evolution of the old Saxon philosophy? Britain is a liberal land by her very nature, so as a British Traditionalist I embrace liberty as part of the package. Thusly we can see that the morality which has "blinkered me", seems to have been functioning relatively fine for nearly a thousand years until the radical leftists decided they wanted to save the world. Therein lies the problem, the radicals ran wild during the 20th century, enabled by the World Wars and the USSR.

This is why I put such great emphasis on setting the clock back to 1913 in some aspects. To a world without radicalism and rampant utopianism.

Quiet possible. I usually think of liberalism from the 1940s onwards when I speak of it. But I have heard that even in the old days you had liberals who hated the West cause it did not meet up to their moral standards and should act better even if it leads to death and that foreigners acting bad is them just acting as per their nature and should be excused. This was discussed in a video I watched once. No longer can I find it unfortunately.

 

[Deleted member 88]

@LifeisTiresome I must ask you to desist. This is a derail from the stated purpose of the thread.

 

[AnimalNoodles]

there is no conservatism possible because there is nothing left to conserve. So the future of the right must be to develop a right wing progressivism, a vision of a future society drawing inspiration from the past, but rooted in the current realities and dedicated to a vision of a future society.

 

[Deleted member 88]

there is no conservatism possible because there is nothing left to conserve. So the future of the right must be to develop a right wing progressivism, a vision of a future society drawing inspiration from the past, but rooted in the current realities and dedicated to a vision of a future society.

Something more revolutionary then? Something that might evoke the F word perhaps?

 

[AnimalNoodles]

Something more revolutionary then? Something that might evoke the F word perhaps?

It doesnt have to be fascism at all. It does have to be revolutionary in the sense that it forces the dialectic rightward. Standing athwart history yelling "stop" wont work. Time to get behind the wheel and do the driving.

 

[Deleted member]

Question is, women voting helped lead to the loss of Tradition, and you'd need a big government to implement the changes you want implemented. Or at least a government that operates in a heavy handed way.

Taking away women's right to vote, seems to me to be less punishment(though it would definitely be, and a deserved one at that), and more a way to restore a proper social order, with delineated spheres.

That makes a blithe assumption about cause and effect. In fact, modern feminism was invented as a solution to the conservative "threat" to progressive values which woman suffrage represented.

 

[AnimalNoodles]

That makes a blithe assumption about cause and effect. In fact, modern feminism was invented as a solution to the conservative "threat" to progressive values which woman suffrage represented.

Modern feminism is a natural result of modern atomisation and automation. When much of your productive housework is automated and you dont have a dense network of friends and family to socialise with and help you look after the kids, you naurally begin to feel alienated from your life.

 

[Deleted member 88]

First Wave Feminism was bitterly opposed by the conservatives at the time. It succeeded in large part due to the First World War, and the combining of propaganda efforts with Teetotal campaigns.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Personally I'm more of a capitalist than anything, I think all nations are doomed to die so it's up to the individual man to fight for what he himself wants to keep and/or to try and find prosperity in whatever situation he finds himself in (and yes of course this applies to women as well). The way I see it a person who relies Soley on the existence of government to define himself and his standing he has ceased become a person and has rather become an object to be used, abused and tossed aside by whomever is clever enough to pull their strings. (in short he's sold his soul) government itself should not be the sole arbiter and defenition of what a society is and more often than not it causes more problems than it solves, and much like those who seek government for security for freedom have niether, those who look to government willing to trade their individuality for identity have niether. This is probably why I don't get along very well with many of the socially right winged people here. People should be able to remain steadfast and continue as is there due custom regardless of the rest of the world's ever changing views of right and wrong. If you fold in any type of crises, then there is not much to you.

I guess in the end what ticks me off about the right wing is I see an awful lot of what is seemingly virtue signaling. I see the calls of revolution and yet they are little more than empty words. Why do we on the right wait for a god emperor? before it was trump it was Reagan, before it was Regan it was teddy Roosevelt. Where our conservative teachers, where are the conservative myth makers and painters, and technologically minded, where are it's leaders? (Leaders NOT politicians) If we can't even build a house in the land in which we currently stand, what makes us think a revolution is going to do anything besides besides paint the rivers red with blood? I will give the fringe groups of the left credit in ONE thing and one thing only. As morally reprehensible as they are, they at least back their calls of revolution with action some kind of action.

When trump is the most influncial person that conservatives have had in forty years, that's not a problem with the system, that's a problem with us. It used to be our ancestors used to believe in pulling themselves up by their bootstraps and readying the shovel and the plow. Think it's more than time for us to start that again. Especially if we are so darn sure about watching society burn.

Edit: edited a bit in hopes of explaining my point a little bit better. My initial response was very raw and could easily be misunderstood.