Why has the Right-Wing Intellegenstia become so shit?

>because political liberty isn't as relevant as it once was anymore

The sentiment of every authoritarian personality. Just because it doesn't seem relevant to you doesn't mean it isn't relevant.

I mean, part of the reason the West is powerful and rich is because of it's individual liberty, but you're free to deny that at your peril.

>Moldbug
NrX are autistic Bronys of the right.

What are you talking about Milo is based

The real answer is that conservatism is part of right-wing politics and right-wingers gain power and positions of influence while lefties waste all their time on theory and academia

He's literally the Wal-Mart version of right-wing.

>Why has the Right-Wing Intellegenstia become so shit?
Compared to what op? Compared to the left wing intelligentsia? You're fooling no one op.

There are a bunch of scetchy frenchmen like benoist and fayee (Anarchofuturism is batshit insane russiacucked crap tho) who are active now.

Also that dugin in russia, but he is creepy at best instead of profound.
Concerning the 60s, you still have Ernst Jünger being alife and that guy was so good, even the left today has to respect him at least even if they hate him.

Then there is Hitchens and his brother.

I didn't say it wasn't relevant.

I just said the means to feed and house yourself are more relevant today than political liberties are. People's entire livelihoods are up to the whims of how profitable they are to whatever department of whatever corporation they work for.

oh peter...

These things have always been true you materialist sperg.

The collective student debt in America is something like 1.4 trillion dollars, which means that people are more educated than they have ever been in the history of the world, and education usually translates as higher pay, so I find it interesting that you're talking about getting a livelihood as if we are living in 1840s London.

>proper Conservatives, that believed in freedom and limiting the state

What about Stefan Molyneux?

not an argument

concepts of political liberty were developed when most people still lived on farms and owned their own generational homes in full and made their own shoes and didn't have to worry about being fired from their corporate job and no longer being able to make rent or buy food

>The collective student debt in America is something like 1.4 trillion dollars

>which means that people are more educated than they have ever been in the history of the world
>and education usually translates as higher pay

stop lmao, I'm dying of laughter

Thank Reagan and his allegiance with Jerry Falwell for that.

It seems that ever since that happened, right wingers have been nothing but retarded religious zealots, or Randroids

It is true as a generality. People who have at least a Bachelor's degree will not be coal miners.

>didn't have to worry about being fired from their corporate job and no longer being able to make rent or buy food

And most people in a 1st world country don't have to worry about that either because most of them have comprehensive social welfare safety nets.

Even Social Security in America is worth over a trillion dollars; which is ironic because it's a country that superficially repudiates that sort of thing.

>macyntyre
>Dugin
>John Kekes
>Roger Scrouton
>Benoist
>Charles Taylor
>Sloterdijk

I am sorry you are not up-to-date OP. Just know that Post-modernism has infiltrated all spectres of academia. Egalitarianism is to blame for the lack of respect for being well-read, so ofcourse you won't be getting much conservative scholar figures like Toynbee.

OP here.

How come all the bad posts in this thread are from /pol/?

You are not genuine Conservatives, you never were and you never will be.

>Egalitarianism is to blame for the lack of respect for being well-read

lolno, i'm pretty sure it's because most people who are well-read are simply smug assholes who want to win an argument.

Freedom and limiting the state are both left wing ideals

>right wing
>believes in free markets and a stateless anarchist society

Just admit you don't know what you're talking about.

>Dugin

L M A O

>How come all the bad posts in this thread are from /pol/?

really?
what would you expect from a group that has flunked 9th grade algebra 3 times?

how about John Michael Greer? He's a "moderate Burkean conservative" who writes about a bunch of shit broadly centered around the future of industrial civilization
thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2016/05/a-few-notes-on-burkean-conservatism.html

Right wing and intellectual are practically a contradiction.

It is a fundamentally anti-intellectual movement. The fact you're posting Burke is evidence of this. The one guy people can kind of agree on being sort of intellectual and also a voice for conservatism. That's one in 200+ years followed by some fake mumblings of "the list goes on" when it in fact does not.

Conservativism's problem is that it is by nature an apology for establishment power and order, no matter where it comes from. So by nature it's irrationally romantic as both hard line USSR communists and absolutist monarchists can be equally conservative in their respective societies. Also the status quo power almost always favors irrationality and populist conformity over in depth complex analysis of their own systems to rationally justify themselves. Honest critical analysis on things involving politics and society will therefore always trend liberal/left.

Most popular "conservatism" is vague propaganda meant for mass consumption made by a small elite of "noble" liars.

>actually holds fundamental beliefs of Liberty and restricting the powers of the state?
See, here's the problem. Someone like that would be a leftist. All meaningful civil liberties movements have been such. Conservatives are the people that use the word "liberty" as useful pleasing rhetoric while being in actuality on the side of the guys holding the guns during something like the Kent State shootings.

The only place the right wing have a chance at being intellectual are the few areas where liberals have turned into the new conservatives, championing establishment orthodox belief that promises justice and order if only we give blind conformity while raging against any dangerous cynical examination and critique.

That is, anything to do with: race, eugenics, tabula rasa, social identity, and feminism.

>implying the left is any better with their "MUH PRONOUNS IM SO TRIGGERED RIGHT NOW!" and aging old faggot bitching about why his super special and original form of socialism would have been the best is any better

It's a dialectical thing. Since WW2 the people at education departments in the white western countries wanted everyone to be educated, which meant they put value in being educated as being a good thing. But at the same time your societies were swept by post-modernism which doesn't give value to hierarchy of any kind(all narratives are equal) and this contradicts putting value on being educated in the first place.

The students in the soviet block were smarter regarding general knowledge exactly because of keeping the value of education as an important thing in society(imitating the Prussian Education system). Same thing with Japan. Nationalism also is a big tool of getting people to be more well-read on a mass level. In the world of american cultural hegemony, that is not going to happen, since the USA is a country that didn't have Nationalism.

because centuries ago we still had fucking royalists

your "right-wing intellectuals" were far far far to the left

Well you're ignoring the fact that the original goal of the Prussian Education System was to make obedient and nationalistic soldiers.

The question is what you consider "well-read". Reading propaganda for 10 years makes you a propagandist for example, not well-read.

>Even Social Security in America is worth over a trillion dollars
America actually has a ridiculously wide safety net. Larger than most of Europe for sure.

>proper Conservatives, that believed in freedom and limiting the state

kek. It's funny how America is so liberal that even their conservative movement is based in classic liberalism.

True conservatism is Saudi Arabia, OP. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

>The question is what you consider "well-read"
In a well-read society almost everyone has heard of the literature classics of the his continent, knows basic world history(greece>roman empire>post 1492 world in the least) and knows a bit of the hard sciences. I actually think /pol/ is a good thing to happen to anglocucks on Veeky Forums, since the might learn some general knowledge.

>In a well-read society almost everyone has heard of the literature classics of the his continent, knows basic world history(greece>roman empire>post 1492 world in the least) and knows a bit of the hard sciences.
Fucking kek. How old are you? There isn't and has never been a society like this

true conservatism is identifying and conserving the good parts of society, while making sure that changes will cause more benefits than harm, using historical evidence instead of grand ideals and theories

Early 20th century western europe and mid-to-late soviet block, the golden era of the Nation-State.

I do think the mass euphoria in those days was because there were many people who were first generation literate. And those wanted to imitate the upper-class who were still a thing back then. I don't know much about this thing regarding the US, but The Closing of the American Mind did touch upon this subject in great detail. Apparently even the rednecks knew bible on a cultural level.

I'm a reactionary myself and NrX is the biggest collections of autists and spergs I've ever came across. Literally I WANT A CYBERPUNK HIERARCHICAL SOCIETY WHERE AUTISTIC PROGRAMMERS LIKE ME ARE THE ARISTOCRACY AND I WANT TO MAKE ANIMU REAL: the ideology. It frankly fucking disgusts me that these pizza faced fucks get even associated with traditional reaction just because of the name.

And as for Land, he's a guy who worships technology and intelligence to the point of idolatry and literally thinks it's okay if a supreme AI wipes out humanity.

america also has far more people than your average european country.

this

>many people who were first generation literate. And those wanted to imitate the upper-class who were still a thing back then.
I can vouch for this. My grandfather was born in 1913 in rural Croatia and people of his generation were constantly reading and eschewed tv.

>Right wing and intellectual are practically a contradiction.
I am a leftist and feel the same about anarchists, communists and liberals.
Especially the first two are engaged in pipe dreams and questionable or outdated theories.

>America actually has a ridiculously wide safety net. Larger than most of Europe for sure.

>communism
>outdated theory
>implying that we shouldn't move towards utopian society because that's "outdated"
wew lad

If you don't believe in competitive capitalism you don't believe in freedom. Period.

You're the second biggest net spender in the world as a percentage of gdp, which is particularly significant since you've a highest gdp per capita than most other nations.
The US spends a shitload of money on actual handouts, most of the european expenditure is healthcare and pension plans.

so i believe in stateless tribal communism that means i dont believe in freedom

Not the guy you're arguing with but I'm pretty sure that graph is not saying what you think it is saying. If we're talking about government spending, I believe you should only be looking at the dark blue bars representing gross public social expenditure. The light blue, gross private social expenditure, is like private charities, not what is being discussed. Based on that, American public spending is very low, it's only made up by lots of private charity.

No, the light blue is meant to represent private pension plans and private healthcare insurance actually.

So my point still stands. When people talk about a "social safety net" they are talking about government programs, not private insurance

Edmund Burke at the time was a proper whig who were at the time the most-left wing members of parliament.

There are good right wingers, they're not gigantic idiots like mr Edmund "if the population is fine with it, I guess it's cool" Burke

The state took over education as a result of leftist policies.

Whenever the government takes over an industry it fills up with leftists. So there are no right wingers in academia.

Chiang Kai Check, Lee, Salazar, ... didn't need court intellectuals. Typically the right wing doesn't need or care about court intellectuals, if anything they mistrust them.

Also the problem lies probably more on the fact you simply don't know the guys because they are not talked about much in academia and "established" circles.

I'm thinking of people like Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, Helmut Schoeck, Bertrand de Jouvenel, Voegelin, Leo Strauss, ...

I love all the people, but at some point it becomes tiring. In the end, you are faced with endless variants of collectivists and you just ant to be left the fuck alone.

Also Edmund Burke is second rate. Turgot is the real deal from the 18th century. The fact you chose bloody Burke as your example makes me doubt what you are after. If you want wankery and "intellectualism" you're not going to find much of it in the right wing.

>the archdruid report

go to bed john

>monarchy is better than democracy because I want it to be
Burke is first rate because he's free from retarded communism-tier ideology like that

>Someone like that would be a leftist. All meaningful civil liberties movements have been such.

Where do you live where the "left" has usually been the party against collectivism? Or is it some ebin "intellectual" form of "freedom" you are talking about? Because here it is very clear that it is freedom from others. Our leftists never tried to co-opt the terms freedom, liberty, etc. They openly shill against individualism.

>monarchy is better than democracy because I want it to be
Who are you trying to strawman here?

>right-wing intellectuals

what's wrong with the archdruid report?

Hm, this post might have convinced me that my Conservative nature is actually a sham.

I just looked at that guy's wikipedia, saw something about him criticizing democracy and calling himself a monarchist, and decided to shitpost

The man was from Austria if that's an element about preferring monarchy. Tbh he was minarchist so calling himself monarchist was probably shitposting on his part too.

Really makes you think.

>Individual liberty
>Limiting the state
>Classical conservative

It's possible that you are the retard, OP

Have you ever actually read Burke?

Limited Government is a popular term rooted in Burke

this, and murray rothbard

Or have you considered that the left doesn't allow space for dissenting opinion in academia?

Because conservative thinking has become politically incorrect. The things right-wing thinkers can write about nowadays is a critique of Western society; Western society in and of itself has largely become multicultural and, in extension, has become the biggest problem to contemporary society since it leads to the division of people resulting in the use of identity politics for political parties to gain the vote of the masses. Hence, the most important thing, or more specifically, the most novel thing or most burning subject, right-wing thinkers can write about is how we should move away from multiculturalism and embrace civic nationality once more.

This is obviously very politically incorrect in our society and thus finds little traction with the broader array of academic thinking because no one likes to be branded a racist, especially if that causes you to lose your career and lifelyhood.

Most don't go to college or go to business school or some shit, thus aren't exposed to critical thinking, writing or forming good arguments

Wow, you really thought you were writing something interesting.

>Going to my humanities course does however
Is what you're implying. But guess what: it's bullshit.
Breaking news: in a STEM vs humanities debates the so-called critical thinkers usually resort to emotional appeals and hysterical shaming of the opposition.
Didn't you go to university?

>Hehe if I disqualify what you said by pretending that we don't shun any dissenting views my authoritarian behavior will be ignored
Shygddt

jews

Yeah, that's it, call me a leftist.

Your original post was a boring diatribe.

>that believed in freedom and limiting the state
t.hasn't read Burke.

All intelligentsia has gone to shit.

It wasn't mine, you paranoid twat.
You sound like you're trying to pretend the university and media enviroment isn't extremely hostile.
Have you ever TRIED to voice a dissenting opinion somewhere that wasn't Veeky Forums?
G-sus kid.

He was an old whig.What we usually call classical liberalism. The new whigs were closer to the ideals of the french/american revolution than Burke was

I express those opinions daily in the real world.

Try being less of a queer in real life or surround yourself with better individuals, dork.

Burke isn't second tier.He was just able to beat them at the game that they were playing.Lefties intelectuals are just sophists

>surround yourself with better individuals

That's the point I was trying to make user. Your personal circle of friends, or people who you have these discussions with, is not the world at large

This. It's the same with the left, it used to be about historical dialectics and stuff, at least they made an effort. Nowadays it's about privilege, safe places, and shit. We're in post-politic times I guess.

Man, you're a sheltered son of a bitch.
>My circles aka echochamber represent how academia works

I've expressed incredibly hostile and fringe opinions in Universities and public places before, yes there are some who will be angered but I tend to find most people will converse with you as most people enjoy a good private debate/conversation and most tend to respect you for violently disagreeing with them. It's a breath of fresh air.

Obviously you only see the nutjobs in the media, but who cares about the media lol, they're driven by market forces and how many views they can get to increase their ad revenue. Anyone who takes media footage or attitudes as representative of the public is very retarded. I tend to find most people in daily life or in passing have a capacity for goodness or rationality.

He's right you know

Wow, you really believe that calling someone's opinions boring and uninteresting is a legitimate argument.

Lmao

Read this post, thanks. I went to Uni for 5 years so don't try to dictate to me what academia is like. I doubt you even graduated.

Who said it was an argument? It was a statement with the intent of attacking his stupid diatribe.

Perhaps. It seems like all this "intellegentsia" is bullshit to me.

I don't know if I wouldn't put Henry Ford or Michelin at least on equal footing with the writers I mentioned in the previous post.