Right-Wing philosophy general

meant for

>identifying with right or left wing

Oh, and OP, if you want a reactionary, traditionalist work, try Father Seraphim Rose's "Nihilism"

>welcome: AnCaps

AnCaps should hate all of those things though.

>It is of course impossible to believe in both with equal sincerity and fervor, and in fact no one has ever done so. Constitutional monarchs like Louis Philippe thought to do so by professing to rule "by the Grace of God and the will of the people"--a formula whose two terms annul each other, a fact as equally evident to the Anarchist [5] as to the Monarchist.

>"The falseness of an opinion," said Nietzsche, "is not for us any objection to it.... The question is, how far an opinion is life-furthering, life-preserving...." [15] When such pragmatism begins, Nihilism passes into the Vitalist stage, which may be defined as the elimination of truth as the criterion of human action, and the substitution of a new standard: the "life-giving," the "vital"; it is the final divorce of life from truth.

>Vitalism is a more advanced kind of Realism; sharing the latter's narrow view of reality and its concern to reduce everything higher to the lowest possible terms, Vitalism carries the Realist intention one step further. Where Realism tries to reestablish an absolute truth from below, Vitalism expresses the failure of this project in the face of the more "realistic" awareness that there is no absolute here below, that the only unchanging principle in this world is change itself Realism reduces the supernatural to the natural, the Revealed to the rational, truth to objectivity; Vitalism goes further and reduces everything to subjective experience and sensation. The world that seemed so solid, the truth that seemed so secure to the Realist, dissolve in the Vitalist view of things; the mind has no more place to rest, everything is swallowed up in movement and action.

>The logic of unbelief leads inexorably to the Abyss; he who will not return to the truth must follow error to its end. So does humanism, too, after having contracted the Realist infection, succumb to the Vitalist germ. Of this fact there is no better indication than the "dynamic" standards that have come to occupy an increasingly large place in formal criticism of art and literature, and even in discussions of religion, philosophy, and science. There are no qualities more prized in any of these fields today than those of being "original," "experimental," or "exciting"; the question of truth, if it is raised at all, is more and more forced into the background and replaced by subjective criteria: "integrity," "authenticity," "individuality."

>Such an approach is an open invitation to obscurantism, not to mention charlatanry; and if the latter may be dismissed as a temptation for the Vitalist that has not become the rule, it is by no means possible to ignore the increasingly blatant obscurantism which the Vitalist temperament tolerates and even encourages. It becomes ever more difficult in the contemporary intellectual climate to engage in rational discussion with Vitalist apologists. If one, for example, inquires into the meaning of a contemporary work of art, he will be told that it has no " meaning," that it is "pure art" and can only be "felt," and that if the critic does not "feel" it properly he has no right to comment on it. The attempt to introduce any standard of criticism, even of the most elementary and technical sort, is countered by the claim that old standards cannot be applied to the new art, that they are "static," "dogmatic," or simply "out-of-date," and that art today can be judged only in terms of its success in fulfilling its own unique intentions. If the critic sees a morbid or inhuman intent behind a work of art, the apology is that it is an accurate reflection of the "spirit of the age," and it is implied that a man is naive if he believes that art should be more than that. The latter argument is, of course, the favorite one of every avant-garde today, whether literary, philosophical, or "religious." For men weary of truth it is enough that a thing "is," and that it is "new" and "exciting."

>These are, perhaps, understandable reactions to the overly literary and utilitarian approach of Liberalism and Realism to realms like art and religion which use a language quite unlike the prosaic language of science and business; to criticize them effectively, surely, one must understand their language and know what it is they are trying to say. But what is equally clear is that they are trying to say something: everything man does has a meaning, and every serious artist and thinker is trying to communicate something in his work. If it be proclaimed there is no meaning, or that there is only the desire to express the "spirit of the age," or that there is no desire to communicate at all--why, these too are meanings, and very ominous ones, which the competent critic will surely notice. Unfortunately, but very significantly, the task of criticism today has been virtually identified with that of apology; the role of the critic is generally seen to be no more than that of explaining, for the uninstructed multitudes, the latest "inspiration" of the "creative genius." [16] Thus passive "receptivity" takes the place of active intelligence, and "success"--the success of the "genius" in expressing his intention, no matter what the nature of that intention--replaces excellence. By the new standards Hitler too was "successful," until the "spirit of the age" proved him " wrong"; and the avant-garde and its humanist "fellow-travellers" have no argument whatever against Bolshevism today, unless it be that, unlike National Socialism, which was "expressionistic" and "exciting," it is completely prosaic and Realistic.

>But perhaps most revealing of the infection of humanism by Vitalism is the strange axiom, romantic and skeptical at the same time, that the "love of truth" is never-ending because it can never be fulfilled, that the whole of life is a constant search for something there is no hope of finding, a constant movement that never can--nor should--know a place of rest. The sophisticated humanist can be very eloquent in describing this, the new first principle of scholarly and scientific research, as an acknowledgement of the "provisional" nature of all knowledge, as a reflection of the never-satisfied, ever-curious human mind, or as part of the mysterious process of "evolution" or "progress"; but the significance of the attitude is dear. It is the last attempt of the unbeliever to hide his abandonment of truth behind a cloud of noble rhetoric, and, more positively, it is at the same time the exaltation of petty curiosity to the place once occupied by the genuine love of truth. Now it is quite true to say that curiosity, exactly like its analogue, lust, never ends and is never satisfied; but man was made for something more than this. He was made to rise, above curiosity and lust, to love, and through love to the attainment of truth. This is an elementary truth of human nature, and it requires, perhaps, a certain simplicity to grasp it. The intellectual trifling of contemporary humanism is as far from such simplicity as it is from truth.

>Christian Reconstructionism
-Gary North(the most prolific writer on the subject)
-Rushdoony
garynorth.com/freebooks/sidefrm2.htm
americanvision.org/10858/christian-reconstruction-reading-list/

>Reformed :
Calvin(On Civil Government Institutions)
lonang.com/library/reference/1536-jc/

>Catholicism :
Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

Why do you do this?

Because he thinks those are really penetrating criticisms.

OP asked for right-wing works, so I recommended one and provided some excerpts for him to judge.

Ghibelline masterrace reporting in

Hohenstaufen 4ever

Yeah, do you have some sort of issue with people making a thread about political philosophies they feel an affinity with?

They had rule by "judges" not by the levite priesthood. The Judges like Gidon and Shimshon were often warriors.

Judges only had political power in the sense that judges today do.

They were nothing like judges today. They lead the people against their enemies in time of trouble, and they settled disputes. My point is they weren't a theocracy since the levite priesthood weren't in charge. Do you object still?

"Long-haired freaky people need not apply"

There like judges plus generals. They had nothing like political power beyond that.

The priesthood was effectively in charge, since at that time the Sanhedrin, which would have functioned like a parliament, was probably entirely clerical.

At that time the sanhedrin probably did not exist in any 1st century Jew would recognize

According to the Biblical account which is what I'm going off of the Judges were in charge not the priests. Stop making stuff up.

>Muh Monarchy
>CS Lewis
Why are Brits such cucks?

The first Sanhedrin was convened under Moses.(Numbers 11:16)

cringe thread

>Is there even any philosophy behind theocracy in general?
Is this a serious question?

Off the top of my head:
- Imperial Japanese Ultranationalism for the Emperor as God-king
- Various Buddhist currents, notably Tibet
- Taoist currents that led to the Yellow Turban Rebellion and the Celestial Masters in ancient China
- Mormon Theodemocracy
- Martinist Synarchy (specifically d'Alveydre's moonbat version)
- Various Orthodox churches

That's not even counting the far-right Christian movements like theonomists/dominionists in the US and the Catholic fringe in most of Europe.

As for Jews, Rabbinical Judaism is theocratic as fuck.

I read his book on Genesis. Tried talking about it with some Orthodox types, they all laughed in my face.

That guy isn't very well received, it seems, in the Orthodox world. It's like if you read Gordon H. Clark and started talking about him with Presbyterians.

No, he's extremely well received among traditionalist Orthodox, many of who venerate him as a saint with icons painted by monks (to become canonized a saint in Orthodoxy is not like Catholicism, it's bottom-up, when enough people recognize someone as a saint and enough icons are made, then person is ratified as such).

He's controversial mainly because he espoused ariel toll houses (which he didn't make up, it's an idea that has been present in the Church for a long time), based on his reading of the Church Fathers.

>AnCaps should hate all of those things though.
Nope.Ancaps seem a stateless capitalist order.Monarchism and theocracies are good ways in keeping a cohesive society without a state.The main enemies to ANcaps are degenerates,that promote unsustainable life styes,like singlemotherhood.

>cringe thread

>seem
seek

>monarchs have political authority but that's not a state

Evolian master race reporting in.

Why don't you ask him to clarify instead of mocking him, you dick.

Hi power may come from loyalty itself,not force.Giving money to someone due loyalty is something that Ancaps dont oppose

Please do not pretend to understand politics until you are old enough to vote.

>Hi
His

How is the king's successor chosen in this anarcho-capitalist kingdom of yours?

>Please do not pretend to understand politics until you are old enough to vote.

Why would you give money to a king if he doesn't do anything in your stateless utopia?

That's not monarchist. Monarchy means duty. That's just mon...eleemosune, or something..

And more generally, why would hyphenated capitalists support the oldest and most wasteful form of rent-seeking known to man?

>How is the king's successor chosen in this anarcho-capitalist kingdom of yours?
Said society would determine it,.Ancap is not true anarchy,even Rothbard said so,it is just decentralization pushed to an individual level.As long as the monarchy doesnt impose itself through force on its members it would respect ancap principles

>Said society would determine it
By what, popular vote?

> monarchy doesnt impose itself through force on its member
Then what exactly is the archy?

Realistically, the king could impose force on a dissenting faction if said king has the support of the people.

>Why would you give money to a king if he doesn't do anything in your stateless utopia?
People would give him money to do services.ancaps are against the iniciation of force.The monarchy would have as many competences as the people that agree upon want.
>why would hyphenated capitalists support the oldest and most wasteful form of rent-seeking known to man?
Why not? Monarchies are stable generally.Capitalism has done well under monarchies.

>By what, popular vote?
Not always.

>Capitalism has done well under monarchies.
Only where the business class usurped power through parliament or the like.

Then by what?

>Only where the business class usurped power through parliament or the like.
Not really.Some monarchies just embraced capitalism like the UAE

By support/loyalty.People can choose to adhere to the king's principles or not.

>Realistically, the king could impose force on a dissenting faction if said king has the support of the people.
He could try.Then again violence always exists.That is why there is competition and alternatives to the king.

Then they aren't a monarch anymore than a transsexual guy is a woman.

You realize many historians dont believe the exodus even happened, let alone that the bible is an accurate account of the live of Moses, right?

>Then they aren't a monarch
Why? Castille worked on a similar principle through most of its time.It would just be replacing the feudal lords for small monarchies without a central state to join them together.During the middle ages,peasants owned land in Castille and they could choose their affiliation,regardless of the distance of the lord.Something similar could happen under an ancap society

One of the most apt critiques of the modern right I've read. Slightly dated, but if you want to know why the conservative movement in America seems so vapid and empty these days, you owe it to yourself to read this one. The author was one of the many right-wing figures that the American conservative/Republican movement loves to throw off the bus in its never-ending quest for relevance and inanity.

"Dude, what?"

is a question

moreover it asks for clarification

The exception rather than the rule

Apparently the image didn't upload. I don't know why.

>The exception rather than the rule
We really dont know it,due the English and french revolution.

Those are oil-based monarchies rather than agriculture-based monarchies.

WHat did he say?

"Choose your affiliation" is not monarchy.

>Those are oil-based monarchies rather than agriculture-based monarchies.
And?Besides,some emirates do not rely on oil anymore

We know it because the business class didn't like the taxes and patents monarchy needed to support itself (including governance). Middle Eastern monarchs support themselves through oil and don't need to tax.

No, they rely entirely on oil. If they had no oil. those monarchies would all face civil war within a month.

>Constrannyfaggot
>caring about the truth

>Middle Eastern monarchs support themselves through oil and don't need to tax.
No true anymore.

The oil sector is just 1% of the economy of some places like Dubai

I'm not a tranny what on earth are you talking about

If they didn't have oil, the taxes they do have would go through the roof, and they wouldn't be able to keep so many people on the dole either.

Dubai is one city, I'm talking about state-wide.

>If they didn't have oil, the taxes they do have would go through the roof, and they wouldn't be able to keep so many people on the dole either.
They just need an small VAT to sustain the wealthiest emirates like Dubai.

Dubai isn't the rest of the country, and would get rekt if a civil war happened.

There are multiple emirs in the UAE,Even then,Franco achieved to maintain Spain without direct or indirect taxes,just through small indirect taxes

That American conservatism is the invention (and continual re-invention) of journalists, political sloganeers, and media hacks. They have no base, no religious institution, no ancien regime to restore, and their ideology rests on a continually shifting and redefined idea of "values" that has no solid basis in a firm natural order.

Basically the right all over the world.And the left for that matter

>AnCaps
>philosophy

Do we consider basing an entire ideology on circular arguments "philosophy" now?

>Monarchism and theocracies are good ways in keeping a cohesive society without a state
>The main enemies to ANcaps are degenerates,that promote unsustainable life styes,like singlemotherhood.

And they told me AnCaps weren't all uneducated children.

No much income tax, but there was a fairly high corporate tax. There was also the issue of the country not having much to tax after the civil war.

>ctrl+f
>arguments
>0/0

>but there was a fairly high corporate tax
As far as I know,corporate taxes were usually smaller than they are currently.Some state run companies,brought great part of the revenue I think

What kind of seems interesting to me is how people willingly label themselves as "reactionary" or "neoreactionary". How can you be proud to backwards? Being disappointed with how things are run is understandable, but to return to the status quo of an age already gone is insane. Like literally insane. As in we should put all reactionaries in mental asylums.

Haha just kidding they should just be hanged, it's cheaper.

>How can you be proud to backwards?
Because they disagree with the concept of progress.

What kind of seems interesting to me is how people willingly label themselves as "progressive" or "liberal". How can you be proud to forwards? Being disappointed with how things are run is understandable, but to move to the status quo of an age ahead is insane. Like literally insane. As in we should put all progressives in mental asylums.

Haha just kidding they should just be hanged, it's cheaper.

>ALL CHANGE IS GOOD, NEVER OPPOSE CHANGE
You're my bitch now. I don't care whether you like it or not. There is no possible change that can be in a wrong direction. Embrace change and suck my dick faggot.

lmao

Hey, this is the guy you responded to. I actually welcome this positive development. I love sucking dicks. I'm so progressive.

Why are ancaps allowed by not libertarians?

Daily reminder that being classical liberal/Libertarian is essentially reactionary today.

I am one and I get equal amounts of shit from both leftists and conservatives.