Why aren't there any serious right wing intellectuals?

>implying academia is the establishment

>Ezra pound
>WB Yeats
>Edmund Burke
>TS Elliot
>Joseph de Maistre
>Honore de Balzac
>Fernando Pessoa
>Giovanni Gentile
>Oswald Spengler
>Martin Heidegger
Shall I continue

atavisionary.com/cathedral/the-cathedral-compilation-page/

>implying they're not

Because academia and intellectualism are cancerous and incestuous and someone has to grow food and build roads

Conservatism is a political philosophy that actually lends itself to pragmatism and usefulness

>implying academia is the establishment
>best known for his critique on liberalism

>Giovanni Gentile
>Serious

stupid

>Third Reich establishment opposes liberalism
whoa!

He's one of the best Hegelian idealists out there.

*blocks your path*

>what is the financial elite

The only way the right has any claims of legitimacy is because they present themselves as the underdog. But they're not.

SHES SO CUTE

>neoliberals and fiscal conservatives are "the right"

thats not true at all

Roger Scruton

Because all conservatives, without exception, are subhuman. They have reptile brains. They see only black and white, fight or flight, right and wrong. They cannot think deeply, cannot identify nuance or subtelty. They are purely subhuman animals. The left should capture, cook, and eat them, same as any fish, flesh, or fowl.

you're mistaking centrist liberalism for leftism again. the actual academia is full of gray "apolitical" liberals and vaguely conservative old dudes that teach exactly what they've always taught except sprinkled with passive-aggressive complaints about how they're not supposed to say X anymore immediately before saying X. the whole reason you get all these tepid controversies about safe spaces on the campus or whatever is because nobody there has any real political views so they just end up arguing about the intricacies of liberal etiquette.

Way to avoid my point completely.

Being right wing amounts to reacting (whoa!) to the liberalism of the west. Your epipheonomonal at best.

Hi there Reddit! You off to see the groundhog?

You sound like you get your information on college from Ben Shapiro videos

>cause the task of intellectuals is to go against the establishment or at least mark a contrast to it
what you're talking about is demagoguery. An intellectual doesn't have a metaphysical purpose. Just a form.

>everything I don’t like is Reddit
Again, reptile brains the lot of em

Nietzsche
Leo Strauss
Carl Schmitt

oh boy you're really really bad at reading people's politics. i'm a raging pinko and your first association is fucking shapiro?

>you're mistaking centrist liberalism for leftism again.

People like Sartre, Foucault, Chomsky, Badiou, Zizek, Guattari, and Kristeva are all linked to the radical left, and many are committed communists. Saying that they're all just liberals with no committment is bullshit.

I'm sure there is plenty you just seem biased

>Hurr Durr everyone I disagree with is a soulless, heartless retard.
Only an echo chamber filled with gold and circle jerking upvotes would conjure up such a meaningless and stupid statement with no substance such as yours.

No, I was unclear. My image is of you scrolling through zuckbook and seeing a Shapiro video about college someone shared. You hatewatch it but because you've never been to college you assume that the professorial class is split into the two groups you described, which seems to be the point of the Shapiro vids.

>WB Yeats
>Intellectual

Lol

B-but there are multiple studies concluding that conservatives are retarded. Are you anti-science?

i don't have a facebook account, i've been to college, i've never actually watched a shapiro video and only know about him from Veeky Forums shitposting and in fact had to google him to make sure i was even thinking of the right person. but please continue imagining things about me. when you picture me, what am i wearing?

can you for one sentence say something that isn't riddled with anachronisms?

Do you not know the definition of anachronism?

edible panties?

the point isn't that these guys aren't leftist but that people like that don't actually run universities in the west today. a guy like zizek does not have any actual authority, he's just making his rounds as an amusing curiosity. the guy with real authority is some politically inactive gray figure who made his career doing statistical analysis of soil samples in relation to malnutrition in the late roman empire or whatever.

Woah watch that edge buddy

Maybe not the universities, but they do run the philosophy/sociology departments, writing the PhD projects and organizing the seminars. That gives them a significant amount of influence.

I’m just trying to make everyone hate each other so there’s a war and I don’t have to work anymore.

Hey kids, wanna learn some economics?

I love Sowell but sometimes he needs to admit that free market economics sometimes has negative effects. Global warming and ecological damage are real.

Intellectuals are edgy cunts, thus they will be revolutionaries or at worst reactionaries.

>all my enemies are subhuman monsters!!1
>they're the ones who can't understand nuance

Have you guys actually not read anything pre-WWII or do you just like to pretend anything written before the left enjoyed complete cultural hegemony doesn't exist?

Correct. I thought that was clear.

What's funny is that there are people who unironically think like this on major reddit subs.

I have never heard him say that free market economics is perfect or that it's always the solution. I have no idea where this comes from. I think he generally views economics as a system of trade offs where we have to decide what policy to pursue based on how much good it does. He supports free market economics because that is what provides the most innovation and lifts the most people out of poverty and he always gives his reasoning for believing it.

Pessoa wasn’t right wing at all. He was an anarchist

It all shattered after World War II, the bar lowered. There is a deliberateness and adhesion to craft in prewar fiction that I deeply miss.

/r/politics and /r/politicalhumor are catastrophes. The weird thing is I’m pretty center and anti-Trump, and yet when I try to point out how obviously flawed/misleading this or that headline is, I’m swiftly downvoted and told to heil Hitler and all that

>race is a social construct
>political ideology isn't

psychologytoday quoting shitlib is definitely the lowest tier of the political left

Who said race is a social construct? Surely it wasn’t me ...

So you think race is biological?

But of course our conception of race is grounded in biology ...

I agree with you, but there are plenty of people on the left who do not believe this to be the case.

I'm a molecular biologist, though, not a sociologist or philosopher, so biological classification of races isn't as controversial in my field.

There are plenty, they just don't write racist rants, or about white genocide, which probably stretches your definition of right wing

Add Cicero to that.

Is it true that, and I quote, “the study of complete genomes from different parts of the world has shown ... there is not a single absolute genetic difference”? - Svante Paabo

Because regardless of how liberal one is, that seems plainly impossible.

...

>unironically browsing reddit

Wew laddy

*teleport behind you*
hehe, nothing personal

Deciding whether or not something is left or right depends on a universally agreed upon political spectrum, which despite that political compass thing isn't really the case. So
>neoliberals and fiscal conservatives are "the right"
Fiscal conservatives are def "right wing" in that their only options for political allegiance tend to fall within right wing parties like the GOP or Libertarians. Neoliberals aren't nessecarily "the right." Many neoliberals are right wing, but not all. The only thing known for sure is that neolibs aren't leftist. They're further to the right. Argue however long you want, but they are either centrist or right. Center-right leaning.

>not experiencing everything all of the time
Be gone Mortal

>Is it true that, and I quote, “the study of complete genomes from different parts of the world has shown ... there is not a single absolute genetic difference”? - Svante Paabo

There is not one "caucasian mutation", and there isn't one "African mutation". But there are polymorphisms that are related to being caucasian and there are those that are related to being African, and although you cannot pinpoint one individual polymorphism on a particular race, you can form clusters of polymorphisms that together form a statistically distinct cluster of people.

For my work it's mostly the functual effects. In pharmacology and immunology, race is just seen as something we have to account for in our tests because it affects the biochemistry of the cell. Enzyme kinetics aren't really a social construct.

There's a lot of intellectuals who are conservative or apolitical. There just happens to be a big overepresentation of left wing """intellectuals and intellectual theory""" due to Jewish influence.

Thomas Sowell replies to a lot of comments and answers many questions from his readers. Unlike his mentor Milton Friedman, who would often begin his answers with "well, let's compare the free market to the alternative...", Sowell gets very defensive and tries to justify free market positions by denying its negative side effects. He says that waste isn't a problem, for instance, and that there's enough space for much bigger landfills in North America. Friedman instead, who was an adviser to Ronald Regan, knows how to compromise properly, and would say "if it becomes a problem we could tax companies for producing waste".

web.archive.org/web/20180202171802/http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20180129/106822/HMTG-115-IG00-20180129-SD001.pdf

>enzyme kenetics aren’t really a social construct
Careful, you could lose your job for that kind of cultural insensitivity.

>Pessoa was an anarchist
*Ardent nationalist and staunch anti-egalitarian. Where did you hear he was an anarchist from? He had whole world dedicated to hoping that Portugal would have a new era as a dominant super power in his neopagan writings.

He just disliked monarchism and the Catholic Church, he was by no means and anarchist

Actually the opposite is true. There are well established racial differences in some key liver enzymes and if we ignore those then people will either be given the wrong dose or the wrong medicine, which could cost lives.

>Yeats
>Not intellectual
But hurt englishfag detected

Are you copying that from some blog? You're essentially just repeating yourself when a simple citation would do. Show me where Sowell says the free market is perfect or that it's the solution to everything.

>whole world
*Works

So then to say “race is a product of biology” isn’t inaccurate or racist?

Am I redpilled?

An argument that waste isn't a problem is not an assertion that that free market economics is perfect. It's an assertion that waste isn't a problem.

I'll take that as a compliment, because I literally just typed it out. I haven't read any Sowell in a while, I used to be a subscriber of his column and I often found him trying to deny criticism rather than addressing it. Maybe have a look at his response to environmental problems...

It's not a compliment. It looks like it was copy pasted because it didn't answer anything and repeated what you said earlier. What does environmental shit have to do with anything? You said he thinks the free market is perfect and the solution to everything. Give your reason for believing that instead of simply restating your opinion.

Pessoa scholars will disagree, but you can continue believing your dubious /pol/ shit

Dude, how are you not getting this.

You said he "views economics as a system of trade offs", I've told you why he doesn't.

Let's look at an example. In laissez faire economics there is zero intervention, so businesses can dump as much toxic waste as they can. On the other side of the spectrum, a liberal party might want to put a stop to this. Now many libertarians will actually concede that toxic waste is a problem, but will argue a case for the free market by saying "it's better to allow the waste to continue than for the economy to collapse" or something along those lines.

Got it? Now Sowell, unlike many "consequentialist" libertarians, will simply tell you that waste isn't a problem. This isn't the only thing he has denied exists in the free market. He denied that it's possible for people to not receive adequate medical treatment too.

>I'm not going to cite anything so fuck off to /pol/
>Tfw pessoa scholars agree with me

]Also like Yeats, Pessoa was a man of the Right who opposed modern liberalism and egalitarianism. He described the ideal state as an “aristocratic republic” governed by an elite based on merit (rather than birth)

José Barreto, “‘History of a Dictatorship’: An Unfinished Political Essay by the Young Fernando Pessoa,” trans., Mario Pereira. In Patricio Ferrari & Jerónimo Pizarro, eds., Fernando Pessoa as English Reader and Writer (Dartmouth, MA: Tagus Press, 2015): 132.

Here is pessoa himself

Let us apply to the organism called the state the general law of life. Which are the elements (composing the cells) of this organism? Obviously the people, that is, the individuals composing the nation. Which is then, in the state, the force that integrates, which is the force that disintegrates? There is an exact analogy—how could there not be, since both are living “bodies”?—with the individual organism. Thus, in the state, obviously, the disintegrating force is that which makes the people many—their number—and the integrating force is that which makes them one, a people—the unification of sentiments, of character brought about by identity of race, of climate, of history, etc.

Fernando Pessoa, The Transformation Book, eds., Nuno Ribeiro and Claudia Souza (New York: Contra Mundum Press, 2014), 12-13.

Dont know much about him, rec me some Scruton lit

I'll ignore the unsupported assertion that laissez faire economics allows for absolutely no government intervention and just point the contradiction in your own post. You say Thomas Sowell doesn't view economics as a system of tradeoffs but then you say he holds the position of it being better to allow the waste to continue than for the economy to collapse. Does that not sound like a judgement call based on tradeoffs? Assuming you're quoting him accurately, he's saying that it's better to let certain waste happen since it's positive benefits it gives the economy outweigh the negative effects of the waste.

That's not a crazy position when you consider things like water purification. There's no such thing as pure water in the real world. There's always some trace amounts of waste or chemicals inside that are not worth filtering out since they don't cause any trouble. This is an instance where where it would be worth leaving that waste in the water rather than spending money lots of money to clean it. It's a judgement based on an evaluation of tradeoffs.

All of this is beside the point. You asserted that he believes the free market is always the solution to everything but when asked why you believe that all you've done was change the subject. Him believing that waste is not a problem, even if that's his actual position and not some poorly understood strawman, it's not an assertion that the free market is perfect.

A Political Philosophy: Arguments for Conservatism (2006)
How to Be a Conservative (2014)

>you say he holds the position of it being better to allow the waste to continue than for the economy to collapse
You're skimming. I said MOST LIBERTARIANS would say that, not Sowell. Sowell WOULD NOT say that.

>You asserted that he believes the free market is always the solution to everything but when asked why you believe that all you've done was change the subject
You are very hard to talk to. You misread my post then accused me of changing the subject. I literally can't explain this any more clearly without sounding condescending. As a libertarian myself I hold the same positions as Sowell but at least I can admit there exists a trade-off, Sowell doesn't, he will deny any negative side-effects. Read the last sentence of my last post.

Of course he didn't state "the free market is perfect" but he implies it all the time--all I'm saying is be careful with him because he's very biased.

Um no sweaty, there is only one race, the human race. Get it right, honey buns :)))

I'm glad you can finally admit that you were wrong to say he believes the free market is perfect. That's the problem I had with your post. You said that was his position and when I asked why you believed that you started talking about environmental shit.

In order to say that something is not worth worrying about you have to recognize that it exists. You have to recognize that there is a negative effect to waste in order to say that the negative effects or waste aren't outweighed by the positive effects on the economy. That is an evaluation of tradeoffs. You're contradicting yourself by saying Sowell doesn't believe tradeoffs exist and then saying that Sowell holds the position that waste isn't worth worrying about.

The conservative has no capacity for new ideas or thought that challenges his well-defined boundaries and morals. This can of course be a good thing as it makes for a man of great fortitude and morality, often with a deep spiritual life.
However, when it comes to the realm of intellectuals the conservative cannot compete with the liberal. The conservative's world is based on hard facts and tradition while the liberal actively seeks to question those accepted narratives.

How was Balzac right-wing exactly? He satirized the establishment but that's doesn't make one right wing.

You must be trolling. Pessoa described himself as a conservative.

He had right-wing heteronyms so simple minds think this means he also was.