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

[Deleted member]

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.

Teetotalism was conservative, and so were a lot of the early feminists. They wanted to reinvigorate morality in society.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Teetotalism was conservative, and so were a lot of the early feminists. They wanted to reinvigorate morality in society.

wasin't our proudest moment.

 

[Marduk]

Teetotalism was conservative, and so were a lot of the early feminists. They wanted to reinvigorate morality in society.

So do today's ones, in their own way. They do sling moral judgements eagerly left and right, can't deny that. The proverbial devil is in the details though, and the important detail here is WHICH moral standards. Are they historically traditional moral standards, or something they or someone else came up with recently, or something that was a small minority's standard in the past?

For one it is hard to claim that American Colonies, or USA itself, were founded by a society that was known for being teetotalers, and as such people trying to reinvigorate morality would be obviously attempting to bring those standards back.

 

[Deleted member]

So do today's ones, in their own way. The proverbial devil is in the details though, and the important detail here is WHICH moral standards. Are they historically traditional moral standards, or something they or someone else came up with recently, or something that was a small minority's standard in the past?

For one it is hard to claim that American Colonies, or USA itself, were founded by a society that was known for being teetotalers, and as such people trying to reinvigorate morality would be obviously attempting to bring those standards back.

Well, teetotalism was the identified reversion to deal with moral decay. And it was strongly linked with Christianity.

 

[Marduk]

Well, teetotalism was the identified reversion to deal with moral decay.

Exactly, it was a moral innovation, meant to lead to new, better morality, creating an excellent parallel to the current feminist movement, who is even more aggressively pushing a much bigger set of far more radical moral innovations. Innovations that do even have some roots in few parts of not so distant history, especially around history of marxist\socialist movements, but that doesn't make them general tradition though.

And it was strongly linked with Christianity.

Again, back to technicalities.
If we want to be specific, it was strongly linked to certain branches of Protestantism. And not particularly dominant ones in the past either, considering the US Founding Father's own attitudes towards alcohol. And if you go further into Western tradition, you get Catholicism, which isn't exactly hot on the idea either.

 

[LifeisTiresome]

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

I already did here:

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

Though I only talked about what I talked about cause you guys brought it up.

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.

Agreed.

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

Well, teetotalism was the identified reversion to deal with moral decay. And it was strongly linked with Christianity.

You mean the religion where the founder/god literally transmutes water to wine, so that people can keep on partying at a wedding. Or where the symbolic blood of god is wine? It sounds like it was strongly linked to elements of Christianity who for some reason think wine means "unfremented grape juice."

 

[Prince Ire]

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.

I very much question the idea that women's sufferage has anything to do with the loss of traditionalism. Heck, in the 19th century women's suffrage was actually a right wing cause in places like France and Mexico and was opposed by the liberals, because women in those places were on average more religious and conservative than men and so would vote for right wing parties over left wing ones.

 

[Aldarion]

Personally, I am Dark Enlightenment / Neoreactionary type. While I do support democracy to an extent, I see and define democracy primarily in terms of freedom, which more specifically means a) influence of people onto governmental decisions and b) decentralization. Basically, it is democratic to have monarchy if people want monarchy (and as a system of government, I see monarchy as superior to democracy, as well as more democratic - I won't go into why unless prompted, as it'd be a wall o' text). Regarding functional democracy, I see it in terms of subsidiarity: problems should be solved at the lowest level at which they can be solved. Essentially, Holy Roman Empire was more democratic than the EU or modern-day US, because it was more decentralized.

 

[Deleted member]

Personally, I am Dark Enlightenment / Neoreactionary type. While I do support democracy to an extent, I see and define democracy primarily in terms of freedom, which more specifically means a) influence of people onto governmental decisions and b) decentralization. Basically, it is democratic to have monarchy if people want monarchy (and as a system of government, I see monarchy as superior to democracy, as well as more democratic - I won't go into why unless prompted, as it'd be a wall o' text). Regarding functional democracy, I see it in terms of subsidiarity: problems should be solved at the lowest level at which they can be solved. Essentially, Holy Roman Empire was more democratic than the EU or modern-day US, because it was more decentralized.

This problem of subsidiarity is a great one. We should be far more concerned with localism than the particular form of government at the highest levels, as long as that’s kept under control.

 

[LifeisTiresome]

I very much question the idea that women's sufferage has anything to do with the loss of traditionalism. Heck, in the 19th century women's suffrage was actually a right wing cause in places like France and Mexico and was opposed by the liberals, because women in those places were on average more religious and conservative than men and so would vote for right wing parties over left wing ones.

Not to derail this thread but Feminism of the very very past whether what you say is true or not is not relevant.

This is what Feminism is now:

Women's studies is an academic field that draws on feminist and interdisciplinary methods in order to place women’s lives and experiences at the center of study, while examining social and cultural constructs of gender; systems of privilege and oppression; and the relationships between power and gender as they intersect with other identities and social locations such as race, sexual orientation, socio-economic class, and disability.[1]

Popular concepts that are related to the field of women's studies include feminist theory, standpoint theory, intersectionality, multiculturalism, transnational feminism, social justice, affect studies, agency, bio-politics, materialism's, and embodiment.[2]Research practices and methodologies associated with women's studies include ethnography, autoethnography, focus groups, surveys, community-based research, discourse analysis, and reading practices associated with critical theory, post-structuralism, and queer theory.[3] The field researches and critiques different societal norms of gender, race, class, sexuality, and other social inequalities.

Women's studies is related to the fields of gender studies, feminist studies, and sexuality studies, and more broadly related to the fields of cultural studies, ethnic studies, and African-American studies.[4]

This also includes Queer studies also.

Anyway, OP said we should move on and I suggest we do that.

 

[Deleted member 88]

@LifeisTiresome dude you are absolutely obsessed with feminism. I don’t disagree with what you say, literally almost never. But this is not the intended thread for that. Again, please stop derailing or I will have to ask the mods to intervene.

 

[LifeisTiresome]

@LifeisTiresome dude you are absolutely obsessed with feminism. I don’t disagree with what you say, literally almost never. But this is not the intended thread for that. Again, please stop derailing or I will have to ask the mods to intervene.

Jesus Christ, its not my intention. I just told Prince Ire that we should move on after making a point that whatever something was in the past is of no relevance to how it is now. Why am I being blamed when other people still continue the discussion?

I'm sorry. Fine, I will just keep my mouth shut then. Better yet. I will leave the thread to keep the peace. Again, sorry.

 

[Deleted member]

I very much question the idea that women's sufferage has anything to do with the loss of traditionalism. Heck, in the 19th century women's suffrage was actually a right wing cause in places like France and Mexico and was opposed by the liberals, because women in those places were on average more religious and conservative than men and so would vote for right wing parties over left wing ones.

Leftists understood that the distaff vote was one for traditionalism, stability, family, hearth, monarchy—and that is why they first opposed it and then put so much effort into subverting women. But in the 2020 election Trump gained in all categories of voters except white males—only white males betrayed him. In fact, women are no friends of instability and the left’s new obsession with attacking “Karen” could actually backfire spectacularly.

Women are the religious ones in society, who provide the moral fabric of the nation. In fact, women usually only vote for leftists because neoliberal economic policy is extremely unattractive to women’s nature and that’s why national conservatism is such a great threat to the left which a neoliberal right can never offer. Feminism is just limited to a minority of socially activated academics.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Women are much more susceptible to peer pressure, and if the left controls the mechanisms of peer pressure they control women’s attitudes or at least can influence them greatly.

We see this with all the empty headed white women supporting BLM.

 

[Free-Stater 101]

I disagree with libertarians onsome key issues, but with regard to big business, I think that they have generally been more willing to set themselves at odds with big business than the mainstream of the GOP. Since libertarians would oppose so many of the programs and regulations which benefit the super-rich at the expense of everybody else.

My main issue with libertarians is immigration, which if allowed unabated would undermine the very goals that libertarians espouse. Other than that, they’re better than the GOP, and even so only after Trump influenced the party.

Not that it matters, they aren’t really a significant factor in modern US politics.

I personally am okay with government going after the corporations, as long as it's strictly about maintaining healthy economic markets and a decent balance between workers and employers. The reason many Libertarians appose government I economics isn't because they fear what I just listed, more than government doing acts of social justice/redistribution of wealth.

An example of government intervention that was warranted and just was the break up of Standard Oil a monopoly which proved detrimental to economic growth and yet, the government didn't steal Rockefeller's wealth, rather they broke up his company into competing companies which he still owned and his wealth grew even further from their as a result.

Social redistribution has no place in a government as once you are there, you cease to be a society of equals, but a society of majority trumps all.

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

@Aldarion I am actually interested in that whole idea of decentralization to the smallest possible level things can feasibly be done as well.I support people being able to deal with the own affairs and having higher levels of government to provision things that cannot be done by lower levels.

So, though it seems we are ideologically different, we have overlap and can agree on many things. I wonder for reference what would you call someone who wants to return to Enlightenment values and then use that to develop, say an alternative modernity that never was? Because, I have wondered about that. I think the problem with modernity is that we have taken a few wrong turns and that Classical Republicanism should have been more dominant, and that classical liberalism needed more of an inbuilt respect for tradition, move forward while respecting the past.

 

[Aldarion]

@Aldarion I am actually interested in that whole idea of decentralization to the smallest possible level things can feasibly be done as well.I support people being able to deal with the own affairs and having higher levels of government to provision things that cannot be done by lower levels.

So, though it seems we are ideologically different, we have overlap and can agree on many things. I wonder for reference what would you call someone who wants to return to Enlightenment values and then use that to develop, say an alternative modernity that never was? Because, I have wondered about that. I think the problem with modernity is that we have taken a few wrong turns and that Classical Republicanism should have been more dominant, and that classical liberalism needed more of an inbuilt respect for tradition, move forward while respecting the past.

I don't know. Frankly, I think Enlightenment values are part of the problem. Or, rather, the continued application of the same. Enlightenment started questioning traditional authority; and while questioning of authority is not a bad thing to an extent, normal process of degradation/extremization led to the modern day situation where all tradition is rejected and replaced by globalism/materialism/social activism and so on.

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

I don't know. Frankly, I think Enlightenment values are part of the problem. Or, rather, the continued application of the same. Enlightenment started questioning traditional authority; and while questioning of authority is not a bad thing to an extent, normal process of degradation/extremization led to the modern day situation where all tradition is rejected and replaced by globalism/materialism/social activism and so on.

I don't disagree, but I think what needed to happen was a replacement for traditional authority that was found lacking, reformation of what can be reformed and a reconciliation with it. I am thinking that the Enlightenment went wrong, because it was replacing and/or tearing down without replacement, deconstruction without enough rebuilding, etc; when what was needed was synthesis bringing together the old and new and keeping the old base of tradition intact, only adding on topic of it, adding to it, and only replacing when it is warranted. I hope I am making sense.

 

[Aldarion]

I don't disagree, but I think what needed to happen was a replacement for traditional authority that was found lacking, reformation of what can be reformed and a reconciliation with it. I am thinking that the Enlightenment went wrong, because it was replacing and/or tearing down without replacement, deconstruction without enough rebuilding, etc; when what was needed was synthesis bringing together the old and new and keeping the old base of tradition intact, only adding on topic of it, adding to it, and only replacing when it is warranted. I hope I am making sense.

You are making a lot of sense. That is actually what I meant by "questioning authority is not bad to an extent". But what happened was that old authority was demolished, and new authorities introduced - and now those are as unquestionable as ones before, and anyone questioning them is declared a heretic.