In clear and dispassionate terms...

>In clear and dispassionate terms, Hawley examines localists who exhibit equal skepticism toward big business and big government, paleoconservatives who look to the distant past for guidance and wish to turn back the clock, radical libertarians who are not content to be junior partners in the conservative movement, and various strains of white supremacy and the radical right in America.

Other urls found in this thread:

pastebin.com/uMtuv0F2
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Is there anything you want to discuss? Otherwise, take this elsewhere

I don't understand what this board is attempting to discuss

Thanks, George.

>actual conservatives aren't content to be cucked by big business
Shocker dude

I'm just bringing to light an interesting book.
Can you think of others like it?

It's just a primer on different strains of right-wing thought. Read literally any of the primary sources discussed in the book

- ''The Great Purge: The Deformation of the Conservative Movement'' by Paul Gottfried, et al.

- ''The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy'' by Murray Friedman

- ''Running Commentary: The Contentious Magazine that Transformed the Jewish Left into the Neoconservative Right'' by Benjamin Balint

- ''Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency'' by Patrick J. Buchanan

- ''The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel'' by Stephen J. Sniegoski, Paul Gottfried, et al.

- ''Who Stole Conservatism?: Capitalism and the Disappearance of Traditional Conservatism'' by Mario R. DiNunzio

- ''Conservatives Against Capitalism: From the Industrial Revolution to Globalization'' by Peter Kolozi

>tfw localist socialist

Conservation and capitalism were always incompatible

Thank you

How do you keep the universalist impulse of socialism in check?

spooks

who has that impulse? not me

this

socialism != marx

but marx=socialist

> no one ever thought of themselves as socialist before marx

there's two kinds of people this dumb, /pol/tards and marxists

>paleoconservatives who look to the distant past for guidance and wish to turn back the clock
This isn't what paleoconservative means. The word was coined as an antonym of neoconservative and basically means "classical liberal" i.e. the worldview of the Founding Fathers.

Here's a reading list you might like: pastebin.com/uMtuv0F2

Libertarians are closer to classical liberals than paleocons. Paleocons are basically a mild, American version of European conservatism

Anytime someone starts comparing their political views favorably to the Founding Fathers, I know their views are trash and should be ignored.

To be fair the founding fathers themselves were fucking dumbshits compared to European thinkers of the time.

oh yeah, absolutely no marxist know about pre-marxist socialists. Never ever were Blanquism, or Anarchism, or the theories of Proudhon and the mutualists, or Moses Hoses as adressed in the Manifesto. Never ever were criticisms of the sensualists uttered, and they never ever fused a criticism of Baboeuf and early socialists. And Engels didn't write a line about Müntzer and the peasant movement, criticizing them.
Non marxist socialists are just shit, buried in history. Stop trying to distinguish yourself from, and float above, the concrete lines which currently divide the political field.