What is modernity? What do right wingers mean when they criticize modernity?

>A return to an objective religious society i.e. Medieval
Yes and no. Some of them are atheist and would loath having to live in theocracies, even if they like larping as crusaders
>Greek/roman society
Yes and no. Some of them think it was the true height of western civilization and that it's been declining ever since. Others think it was a degeneracy filled shitfest that was destined to fall.

So in the end...
>what do they want?
Not even they know, I'm afraid.

Wanting lower taxes is not the same as hating modernity.
Arguably the left hate modernity more as they consider it inherently sinful, racist trans phobic etc and want to replace it. A conservative wants to keep things as they are, and only change when absolutely necessary.

Modernity can mean many things, which is the root of what caused OP to create the thread, but OP not providing any context means it's a matter of everyone defining what it means to them and what they care to pontificate on what like and dislike about it.

Modernity is a lot of different things, it is interpreted differently by a lot of different people, and the /pol/ people who critique it probably aren't really sure what they're critiquing. People on the right who critique it also have a host of different objectives of their own. Most conservatives are just liberals with a different take on things, they want a 20% tax instead of a 30% tax and x fewer social programs.

I would guess for the /pol/ people who critique it, they probably believe that the idea of rights and liberties defined by the individual rather than by the collective is the flaw of modernity. In the "traditional" middle ages society, which political "modernity" is a reaction against, rights and governance were based on collective institutions, rather than individuals. Ie. towns would have the right that a serf living within their walls for a year and a day would be removed from the feudal system. Instead of it being individuals, possessing natural rights, they prefer this idea of a community (seen as organic and timeless, with the idea that ethnic identities are unchangeable and eternal), which constitutes the basis of rights and governance, rather than the individual being endowed himself right rights, as is the idea after 1789. Probably more direct for most /pol/ites is Jews, who had separate communities with their own laws and their own customs, and weren't allowed into Christian society. It is these group basings which constituted their rights and life, rather than their rights as individual citizens.

Of course, this is probably more complex than a lot thing, and to most modernity mostly means what it is most commonly used as in popular parlance - the state of affairs which exists in 1st world nations, which seen as the height of what is "modern". /pol/ likes some of this and doesn't like others, and Jews, niggers, chinks, and mudslimes coming into the nation is something they dislike, so they critique it as being "modernity."

Modern liberals are not in tune with classical liberals. That is one thing I do not like about modernity.

Most answers in this thread are really bad.
First of all, not all right wingers criticize modernity, not even all far-right people cricitize it. Fascism for example was almost entirely a Modern movement.
Modernity is a Weltanschauung characterized by beliefs like secularism, human rights, freedom as the ability to self-determinate, materialism, the perfectibility of man (closely tied to this is the ability to create the New Man), progress as an inevitable force, and reason as all-powerful and all-reaching.

Sounds more like that you don't like that classical liberals aren't like modern liberals in the current year. Or are say, social democrats less "modern" than classical liberals?

Fascism is more like modernity with a rejection of the values of modernity. There's a reason why they were so explilcit in rejecting the ideals of 1789

>Fascism is more like modernity with a rejection of the values of modernity
No, it follows plenty of values of modernity. Nationalism, totalitarianism, the New Man, fetish for technological progress, the state above all including religion, are all things of modernity.
They're illiberal, sure, but liberalism and modernity aren't the same thing.

I do not like the fact that modern liberals do not hold the same values as, nor the same practices of classical liberals in far too many cases. I would go so far as to say that it is such a trend that they ought to drop the term completely in most cases.

>Sounds more like that you don't like that classical liberals aren't like modern liberals in the current year.

If your opinions are the complete opposite of those who tended to call themselves "liberal", maybe you should call yourself by another name. "Socialists", for example.
Note that in Europe, liberal has the same meaning as classical liberal.

From what I have seen, Europe has the same problem as here, but your social democrats are taken more seriously than here, so there is a stronger presence of those willing to admit that is what they are. You disagree that the concept of social justice and all the ridiculous arguments made under the term of equality isn't an issue among liberals there?

But that has nothing to do with modernity. That's just saying that you don't like liberals. It doesn't have anything to do with modernity.

Those are modernist structures, but fascists were big upon the push to the past, the destruction of modernist culture. Just like at the list of most of what you classify as modern : secularism, human rights, freedom as the ability to self-determine. All of these are rejected by fascist regimes. Fascism is weird because it is simultaneously the height of modernity but an attempt to push society into the past and reject much of what it views as modernity.

I like classical liberalism. I do not like modern liberalism due to their execution of their platform, which I see as an exploitation used to advance identity politics for minorities specifically. It is not about true equality anymore, but rather their own sense of justice, which is skewed.

I think it's better classified as another another version of modernity. It's clearly not reactionary.

>What is modernity? What do right wingers mean when they criticize modernity?
Anything that comes from the ''Enlightenment'' and French Revolution.

Right-wingers are the conservatives. So they are by definition, criticizing modernity. They are an extension of Amish people. Highly religious, anti-science, anti-technological progress, anti-government pushing industries, anti-societal growth, anti-education, anti-vaccination, anti-globalism, etc.

Oh. Well I mean societies change. What destroys them from within is a complete inability to adapt to change, and I'm not saying all change is good and especially not necesary, but change happens. To keep away all change is to become Sakoku-era Japan where it was completely sealed off from the entire world (though not really) and kept control of its citizens through an iron fist of denying everything outside its borders.

>Fascism is more like modernity with a rejection of the values of modernity. There's a reason why they were so explilcit in rejecting the ideals of 1789
Yeah, the reason is that fascists are retards with no self-awareness.

>So what do they want?
I want this.

You can't turn back time, you can only make the society you wish to have. However, forcing those who do not want to be part of that society to go elsewhere is wrong, and it's equally wrong when the other side does it too.

Nigger, you realize that it's less about the actual status quo of times past but to reignite the forgotten ideals of that time? Everything within my picture has been deemed "tacky" and "deprecated" by modernity. Torn down and defiled by cultural vandals. The people who destroyed those things in the middle of the last century didn't show any mercy or respect to the past, so why should I towards the world they created and I am forced to live in?

Because that's how history has always worked. The new has always torn down the old to replace it with their own. Why do you think in every culture, in every idealogy, the dictator's statue gets torn down when they're dead?

>Because that's how history has always worked.
Exactly. Iconoclasts deserve nothing but iconoclasm.

Ok, but I think you and I know that a lot of bloodshed is needed to accomplish that, and I'm against that.

Buildings don't bleed, user. All I want is a pure waifu and a nice cozy village. Too bad modern society disagrees.

People generally don't like you tearing down their shit regardless of the time period.

Explain this then.

This ignores that these old buildings, especially the first one (which is a train station), did not have the internal infrastructure in place in order to house modern electrical safety standards. It has nothing to do with aesthetics, it's about function and efficiency, which was all the rage at the time. It's a bit ugly yes, but train stations aren't supposed to be pretty, they're supposed to be a junction point for passenger trains.

The top most likely was blown to shit in the war like Köln Hauptbahnhof (your first picture) was. More modern designs can fit more offices.

>pure waifu

You know its fucking astounding to me how much of right wing and traditionalist thought can be rooted back to the emotional impetus of "waaahh mommy girls dont want to fuck me!"

Well the bottom certainly needs a fresh coat of paint, you can see the wear on it.

>it's about function and efficiency
>but train stations aren't supposed to be pretty
And that's what I mean by modernity. Fuck you.

>The top most likely was blown to shit in the war
Nope. It survived. They tore it down in the 1950s.

>fuck
I don't want to fuck. I want a meaningful relationship. Why are you leftists so obsessed with sex, you hedonistic cunts?

there are clearly more old buildings just down the road. There are still thousands more still jerk off to

Fuck you.

>And that's what I mean by modernity. Fuck you.
You're letting your emotionals control you. The reality is that the first pic was built with funciton in mind as well. The clock tower was there as most people at the time didn't own a pocketwatch. The many arches and domes were based on the fact that an arch can hold a ridiculous amount of weight due to its design, thus making a more structurally sound building. And the many windows there was because the crude electrical engineering of the time meant there was more reliance on natural light. The difference is primarily in aesthetics, to which one appeals to you more either way. Personally I don't care, a bomb that is ugly but blows up a city is far better than one that is aesthetic but can only blow up a facory.

How ironic, applying objectivist architecture to a church

Yeah but the inside looks like something out of old sci-fi aside from the chairs so that's cool.

>You're letting your emotions control you.
Yes, it's called 'romanticism'. You should try it some time, you modernist cunt.

>>The reality is that the first pic was built with function in mind as well.
>19th century architecture
>function

lol no Also I'm pretty sure that had gas powered lights by the middle of the century.

planet of the apes?

You mean dystopia. Oh yes, let's make everything ugly to remind us how ugly life is. Fuck you.

Oh god it’s even worse then. You are taking your inner vision of the ideal women and projecting it onto a past date we’re you believe you could attain it.

>Yes, it's called 'romanticism'. You should try it some time, you modernist cunt.
Romanticism won't give us a galaxy-spanning empire.

There is literally nothing wrong with idealism. It's not important that it's impossible to fulfill it as long as people strive towards it, but they don't. Hedonism is king. Thanks to feminism and the 1970s. Instead of this free love bullshit you could have simply demanded men to stop thinking with their cocks and be more faithful. The promiscuous person thinks "I am worthwhile, because I am desired". The virtuous mind thinks "I am desired, because I am worthwhile."

Why would I want that, you modernist queer? This obsession with space exploration is largely driven by cold war era brain washing to get more people interested in the space race from a young age.

Your idealism will slowly kill you inside over time and turn to bitterness as you age so good luck with that.

Quite the contrary, it was hedonistic nihilistic modernism that was killing me. I only stopped suffering once I freed my mind from this contemporary cancerous mindset. Life is worth living. Free will exists. Anyone who disagrees should be gassed. Luckily that won't be necessary, since the logical conclusion of such a materialist mindset is suicide anyhow.

I resent modernism because it lied to me about the nature of existence and myself.

>And that's what I mean by modernity. Fuck you.
If you like buildings that light up on fire because of improper housing of electrical wiring I suppose that's fine.

But we really can't afford whole cities going up all the time.

Then why are modern fire proof buildings not built with 19th century aesthetics if it's all about function? Because people stopped caring about beauty. And that's a tragedy.

>Why don't aesthetics remain the same over time?
Gee, I have no idea.

The destruction of beauty and idealism in the 20th century is the most radical change in aesthetics in the history of our civilization.

>20th century.
Oh please.

In the 19th Century, Europeans were dotting their colonies with Western Architecture while constantly deriding local ones as "inferior" even while talking about Aesthetics.

I don't agree with that, but that's besides the point. Forget about colonialism. I'm talking domestic affairs. And yes, 19th century European architecture IS aesthetic.

I'm pretty sure they mean that we live in a world where reason has supplanted emotion and faith as the highest value, which for them means some sort of relativism or nihilism, and they are right in some ways, I personally just think that there are other causes.

World War 1 for example is way more responsible for the downfall of Christianity in the West, than simply a modernistic culture.

WW1 is responsible for that very same modernistic culture, dammit. Everything I love went to shit in 1914 and never came back.

>Why would I want that, you modernist queer?
>why would I want an empire of massive fleets that obliterate the worlds of non-humans from orbit, destroying all xenos in our wake for the glory of humanity
You're lucky you were born to early for the purges, heretic

You're an idiot. And probably 16.

I'm 31, but I believe it is our right to spread humanity as far as it can, to make us the conquerors we were always meant to be. Our petty differences on earth are nothing compared to the truly alien. Even a man who has nothing can still offer his life, for only in death does duty end.

>Quite the contrary, it was hedonistic nihilistic modernism that was killing me.

No, it's sour grapes that is killing you right now. If what you want in a woman is "a meaningful relationship" then you're spoiled for choice right now with the 4 billion+ women on the planet.

women reading newspapers, a dance, and old buildings
You know these exist today?

How many western women want to be a wife? Not many. They want a boy you who'll support their career, not want kids, and be Ok with divorce as soon as she gets bored.

Why don't you guys just band together and build a pure white city/state
No one else would try to stop you, really

>All I want is a pure waifu and a nice cozy village.
So go get it.

>No, it's sour grapes that is killing you right now.
lol I think user was right in saying this.

There are plenty of western women who want to spend their lives being married and raising kids at home while The Man holds it down.

Because Waco

We're never gonna get that anyway, and if we're stuck here, then we might as well have nice looking buildings

There are very few who haven't fallen for the modernist lie. This isn't about "being left alonel either, it's about fundamentally changing society, not living as separate from it.

That's Jonathan Haidt's take on the emerging progressive left. He might be becoming Peterson-level memey, but he has a point in differentiating between the more common (neo)liberal left and illiberal progressives. While there are still many differences between a classical liberal and a more modern liberal they do have a lot more in common with each other than illiberal progressives. That said, I do think one of the most important aspect that dictates of classical liberalism (economic freedom) is becoming less prevalent among modern American liberals. In terms of social values I think, in general, modern liberals still identify with classical liberal ideals. Though, like we see in places like Europe, those seem to be eroding as well.

Honestly, I still think there are lots of people who adhere to many parts of classical liberalism. You can find them in the US on both the left and right and I'd wager that if you sampled educated voters they'd make up the majority. That said, the days of true liberalism are long gone. Co-opted by social democracies and influenced by progressive and reactionary philosophies.

>Why don't you guys just band together and build a pure white city/state
Let’s just be honest, it would be a NEET-infested sausage-fest.

>No one else would try to stop you, really
I don’t know, there’s a good chance a white ethnostate wouldn’t be self-sufficient, and almost every other country in the world would put economic sanctions on it. Plus, if they’re stupid and start committing genocide on/ethnically cleansing minorities, they’ll get their asses kicked by a massive coalition of countries.

Good. Liberals is gay. It's time to return to real societies informed by the wisdom of the ages, prejudice, and prudence.

I'm trying. When I was a teenager all I wanted was to loose my virginity and feel the pleasure of sexual intercourse because that's what I felt is what I had to do in order for society to accept me.

Why do you assume I'm alt-kike? Screw white people, I want traditionalism. Traditionalism with niggers > modernism with whites.

Yes, the state of modern women is to be a clubbing trash thot or a married materialist whore with little to no value of family outside of viewing it as a status symbol. They view getting married and doing the shit typical modern married couples do as being a part of a preordained timeline of their lives, rather than out of true love and care for their partner/children.

I do. Most women do. Please leave /pol/ and whatever major city you live in.

But you already have access to your fantasies on the internet

Modernity is about substance rather than people.
Think
>Weed instead of conversation
>Food instead of love
>Sex instead of relationship

Depression exists as a mechanism in mammals to prevent the socially inept from breeding. Not being able to bond, they turn to substance to substitute the elation one gets from social contact.

Progress is a depressed idea; they sacrifice love for the sake of survival; and since progress doesn't satisfy, we continue the progressive loop. The idea of a "Happy impoverished family" destroys that paradigm.

With tradition, everything is instilled with a sense of "personality", because a brick (for example) was laid by a real person. Concrete commie blocks, automated farms, prostitution, a shot of heroine; its progress to them, but hell for us, because we know it wont satisfy.

>people criticize things they dislike

da fuck? they don't...they hate on the left-wing for being post-modern.

>Depression exists as a mechanism in mammals to prevent the socially inept from breeding

[oi cunt wehrd ya git that 1?]

Nice post user

>Most right wingers (other than Ted Kaczynski)

Ted isn't a right-winger you brainlet, he thought both sides of the spectrum were retarded and ignored root causes of problems in society to treat the symptoms.

Bump

checked

Regular Veeky Forums threads from lazy failures whining about modernity would suggest otherwise.

Depression exists; and if it leads animals to their death, then it ought to not exist.
Richard Dawkins once hypothesized that homosexuality could have been transmitted genetically, even by a heterosexual organism, simply because living in a society with a gay gene could be beneficial in some way.
If depression exists, then likewise, it only exists because natural selection has deemed it worthy of a surviving specie.

All mammals get depression, and many will become lethargic and kill themselves.

Point is, its sensible to assume (with 0 evidence to the contrary) that depression is a mechanism that prevents the socially inept from breeding.

Modernity is an austere, pessimistic nihilism

youtu.be/TXoq_H9BrTE

Bump

Right wingers just follow pop culture and social media queues.

>What do right wingers mean when they criticize modernity?
Specifically, which right wingers are you talking about?

cringe

>vaporwave faggotry
Good job ruining a nice picture with your shitty memes, faggot.

You know this picture is actually "degenerate," during the time, right?
>npr.org/sections/npr-history-dept/2015/05/26/409126557/when-petting-parties-scandalized-the-nation

>To some social observers, petting parties of the 1920s were a natural, post-First World War outgrowth of a repressed society. To others, the out-in-the-open hug-and-kissfests were blinking neon signposts on the Road to Perdition.

Teens weren't supposed to be touching each other.