Putting together a reading list for traditionalists and classical conservatives if you care to contribute

I would agree with Russell Kirk that he is essential reading for the classical conservative, but also that he absolutely isn't one in regard to his love of individualism (the issue that divided Kirk and Buckley)

Any more continental suggestions? I am, as you can see, almost exclusively familiar with the Anglo-American school of traditionalism

Leo Strauss

See this is the issue with identifying as "Conservative", there's absolutely nothing at all in Conservatism as a label with suggests you should be for or against individualism or really any other single particular value or notion. Such fucking horseshit

A proper lay of action is in having a commitment to the Western Project as a whole, and such a commitment has nothing to do with conserving, a passive womanly activity. Its an active creative ongoing mission. We are flying towards the God damn stars beyond the thresholds of what all the Earth can bear and you're hurriedly covering yourself in your own excrement.

I don't see how individualism is incompatible with classical conservatism as long as one sees one's family as an extension of and inseperable from that individuality. But really Thoreau is a little off the mark; I am just eager to tie conservatism to its environmentalist tradition. Or maybe to save environmental conservation from the freudo-marxist hacks.

Wew lad all this metaphysical nonsense. You sound like a child. And evola is a fag.

Something on Perennial Philosophy
I'm not too sure about a good introductory text, I'll post one later

I shit on Evola. I take my position from the German Idealists. Metaphysics are everything

You aren't wrong, I think, conservativism is notoriously hard to label and suffers from the big tent problem.

I just don't see the point in inventing metaphysics when we have the truth laid out for us in Christian scripture.

Begone, Revolt Against is one of the greatest books ever written. It is masterful in every way

The scriptures are ours to manifest the good but this requires struggle and faithful effort. It is mans lot to understand as God understands not merely to reciece the Truth but to fulfill the Truth

Uzdavinys is really good in identifying Perennial aspects of Platonism.

remove nationalist and pro-christian garbage. The western canon itself is all the traditional stuff you could ever want.

Individualism is completely incompatible with classical conservatism because classical conservatism is opposed to nominaliam; Thatcher is a fundamental departure from one-nationism. But he ia surely worthwhile for all classical conservatives, as is the liberal Tocqueville. Both were major influences on Russell Kirk.

>remove nationalist and pro-christian garbage.
>The western canon itself is all the traditional stuff you could ever want.
I'm getting conflicting statements.

Stewardship Theology

Solo fide to the end. It is almost like taoism. We are connected to God by a network of nerves but when you go to touch one it squirms out of the way. I guess i was wrong to say your metaphysics are nonsense, we cannot live without them. Only it is extremely doubtful whether we could comprehend them. The light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not understood it.

>because classical conservatism is opposed to nominaliam

Says fucking who?

There are women in the Western canon. That makes it liberal as such. It is absolutely imperative to all conservative systems to have women remain non-engaged in art and literature. As fedora as it sounds, we need women back in the kitchen, and every conservative realizes this

Perennial Philosophy doesn't belong here because it is subversive to Christianity

Everything Post-Socratic is bad.
-t. Nietzsche

>Veeky Forums attempting to falseflag /pol/ again
Oh boy here we go.

What about prisca theologia?

I disagree completely. For example, Joan of Arc. For another example, Hildegard Von Bingen.

>abstract concepts are permanent and are not subject to and a result of cultural, temporal, and spatial circumstances of a people

Good for menanons and femanons.

>not wanting to defend adaptive values cause it's 2016+1

A "conservatif" as Chaucer used it, is an armed protector.

Traditionalism as a label, is certainly anti-individualist. Conservativism always was until Thatcher and Buckley etc. Classical conservatism refers to conservative thought as the school prior to this. If you think it is meaningless or arbitrary, I invite you to read The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot, by Russell Kirk, which shows that classical conservatism is a coherent school of thought shared by many thinkers.

Richard Weaver

Not really
And even if it was, it's still something conservatives/traditionalists should read because it's one of the schools of thought in it
Just because you read something doesn't mean you have to believe it and follow it
You can't deny that it is a conservative/traditionalist movement simply because you don't like it

So long as it doesn't dismiss Christ as the uunique and full revelation. Even pseudo Christians (Hegel, Santaya, Richard Weaver, Scruton) is the traditionalist movement all see Christianity as the unique zenith of religion

Haven't read anything by him, I'll check him out, thanks!

You don't understand. Perennial traditionalism is not traditional conservatism, period. They are referred to as "traditionalism" but there is clearly a massive difference between upholding actual tradition and inventing one (as Evola does, who even manufactures his own mythos).

Add Democracy and Leadership by Irving Babbitt, The American Republic by Orestes Brownson, Notes Towards the Definition of Culture by Elliott, and Quest for Community by Robert Nisbet

Perennial philosophy a la guenon or schuon doesn't invent any tradition though? They consider a proper perennial to be one who follows and upholds a tradition with orthodoxy (it's more nuanced than that, but good enough)
So you could be a perennial christian, who would uphold christianity, believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and in the trinity, etc
You have to follow an orthodoxy to be a perennial as I understand it.

I haven't read evola personally, but I know that other perennials would be hesitant to call evola a perennial. There has been debate on it. From what I've read on it, he seems to have that label because he talked with Guenon in his early life, but then they diverged later. I don't know how well he upholds the perennial philosophy as I know it.

Revisionist horseshit. You mean to tell me the people in Chaucer's day who believed writing in the English language was degenerate and supported an Absolute Monarchy are the same "coherent" school of thought of Edmund Burke who sympathetically supported the goals of the French and America revolutions?
There is no Conservative, its an arbitrary position derived as a sympthom of any given society not an actual active agent.

Evola is a magical idealist.

Hmmmm.....

...

>spook for a spook
>spooks of spooking
>spooks
>spooks on the spook in spook
>spooks have spooks
>spook and the the spook of spooky spook
>Spook mcspook's Spook
>spooks
>the spook
>the spooky spook;from spook to spook

Do I need to go on?

Ooh, all good choices

No, I mean your conception of "conservation" is different than Burke's

Guy was a subversive heretic with his sophiology. Especially to me since I am an Orthodox Christian

>anything not supported by the most radical nominalism is a figment!
*yawn*

>lament for a nation

I feel like non-leafs wouldn't care. Though it does a good job of distinguishing the difference between "republicanism" and "conservatism".

If you're looking for a good leaf writer William Gairdner's books tend to have broader appeal despite the focus on Canada. "The War Against the Family" was quite popular back in the 90's and "The Trouble with Canada... Still " is unsurprisingly applicable to most western nations. In fact his book title was taken from a book called "The Trouble with France". "The Great Divide" tries to explain the left/right dichotomy. His books are rightly described as screeds but I personally enjoy him quite a bit.

>sophiology
Mmmmmmm yassss
>orthodox
Respect. Catholic myself. You're telling me not to read Sergei Bulgakov?

I want all unironic stirnerites to leave this board and never come back, now.

Thanks

He was definitely a crypto-Catholic so you might like him. I personally don't

I believe a lot that is peddled as conservatism in the Anglosphere, even so-called traditionalist conservatism, is just liberalism. The belief in natural law, the role of principles and values and the search for universal models of society.

I'm more interested in what I call "Euroconservatism". The strain of conservative thought native to Continental Europe that puts a greater emphasis on the historicity of humanity, on anti-universalism, the organic character of society and its laws, and, above all, the primacy of the political sphere over the cultural, ideological, and, may God forbid me for uttering this word, economics.

Unfortunately, I spent a lot of time on Anglo-conservatism, so only now I'm discovering European authors like Carl Schmitt, Reinhart Koselleck, Augusto del Noce, Panagiotis Kondylis, Eric Voegelin, or even Paul Gottfried, who is American but very different from other American conservatives.

Read reactionary modernism you faggots

Nice taste but I'd add some left-wing thinkers like Rousseau. He has a bad rap as a kind of naive lefty but a lot of want conservatives, fascists, marxists base their civil society on comes out of Rousseau's Social Contract. It certainly influenced Schmitt's Nomos of the Earth. Rousseau is one of the rare thinkers who understood the double meaning of nomos.

Heidegger
Hegel

I'm getting the impression that conservatives have a lot more to gain by reading certain left-wing authors than by regurgitating the platitudes of a Russell Kirk.

Guys like Foucault are the 20th century heirs of Joseph de Maistre, with their resistance to universalism and rationalism. No wonder he liked Carl Schmitt and Martin Heidegger so much. Some authors have realized that, but most so-called conservatives still prefer to celebrate universalist progressive liberals like Alan Sokal instead because of their criticism of French theory.

I wish I was smart enough to create "Right Foucauldianism". I believe that's an intellectual movement waiting to happen.

I think there's a bit of right Foucauldianism in Agamben's biopolitics but then it very quickly goes left, partly via Benjamin. My problem with a right Foucault is that I don't think he is strong enough. However this might apply for those on the left.

What of the Slaughter-dyke?