Modern Anti-Enlightenment thinking?

I was honestly hoping there were a few genuine tradcaths/ orthodox bois out there, a mate of mine is getting annoyingly obdurate in claiming that all major political ideologies depend on the French Revolution's messages and impact.

There are, see Their society self-perpetuates because anyone who wants modernity simply hops the border into America or takes a job in a NAFTA factory.

Being a luddite and being reactionary are two different things, and I think OP's asking for the latter.

The differences become extremely minute in practice. Rural Mexicans may not be goose-stepping nazis who speak perfect 14/88 Castilian Spain and worship Franco but they will absolutely beat the shit out of any nigger who comes within 500 feet of their community and lynch any one they find trying to rape their women. They also refuse to use any sort of regular bank because banks are jewish and jews killed their savior, jesus christ of nazareth. They'd happily string up the jews like they strung up American-backed fascists if jews had the balls to come down to Mexico.

I don't think you know what a reactionary is.

Most rural villages in Mexico are friendly to outsiders whether they are black or jews until or unless they start to try and change things or act disrespectful. In Guatemala the Maya had a problem with some Orthodox jews and voted to kick them out after they refused to assimilate. They tend to look at outsiders more as a curiosity. I remember in a villlage when people saw a black guy they all started taking pictures like they just saw elf walking down the street. They were very intrigued. People in these villages are usually very friendly but very vigilant of delinquents or outsiders who look suspicious. Basically come in with respect and earn their trust and you'll be ok since they basically police themselves.

youtube.com/watch?v=aYgpysiNDSg

yes, but most Americans don't do that because Americans are fat and stupid

Yea I would not call them reactionaries, they've always been resistant to certain aspects of globalization, but they also consume the parts they need. In Chiapas they used coca cola in their cleansing rituals in church for instance. And with the cartel violence they just became extra paranoid.

Survive the Jive makes excellent videos where he discusses traditionalist thinkers such as Evola, Guenon and others and makes them more accessible for laymen.

Some people, mostly Christians, don't like him since he is a pagan, which can be interesting as he has many videos on Indo-European religion.

youtube.com/user/ThomasRowsell

Attached: stj.jpg (300x256, 9K)

>Outside of the new world? Absolutely. Traditional catholics only exist with functionally illiterate populations, which at this point only exist in rural latin america. Notably these regions include the poorer, shittier parts of rural Mexico that the US shares a land border with in Arizona and New Mexico. Most of these people are outright communists though, since they are ideologically opposed to the industrialization and mass production American (protestant) businesses bring. This is the genesis of the cultural clash that is always causing problems in Mexican society, including their civil war a century ago.
total bullshit poor and hillbillies are all modernists, all tradcatholics ive seen are dedicated people/edgelords
you clearly dont know what you are talking about
t. actual tradcatholic

there's a wide chasm between new age traditionalists like Evola and Guenon and TradCaths, I would say they're even anti-Enlightenment/anti-modern in very different ways.

I'm not talking about American hillbillies, but Mexicans. Even the poorest American city has it's own post office and access to welfare, most rural Mexican towns only have a single government gas station which sells overpriced Diesel.

ill explain

traditionalist catholics are very different from conservative catholics
people in villages are conservative catholics, who take legacy of the enlightenment as introduced by vatican II and later for granted
they are conservatives, but within the modernist paradigm

traditionalist catholics are more like zoroastrians in iran, we are mostly in cities and very few in numbers

vatican 2 didn't change their culture much except cause sermons to be in spanish, a thing only half the priests actually do because everyone there still learns thing orally as paper/pens are expensive. This is very traditionalist, even if they're allowed to do non-traditionalist things by the church. The churches that exist are still laid out as they were originally 2-3 centuries ago. And as they were 2-3 centuries ago, they have no electricity or indoor plumbing.

it doesnt matter that they are traditional or conservative or old fashioned
being a traditionalist catholic - antimodernist - reactionary requires much more than that, it is a completely different paradigm, it is a way of life none of these mdoernist conservatives accept or live by
they accept the mdoernist paradigm and take it for granted as i said,
if you told them our lifestyle they would tell you to go back to the middle ages and laugh at you

>Does anyone seriously argue against the ideas and ideals of the French Revolution

The french revolution was a clusterfuck.

Attached: 543478_875863790300_51905662_36296562_1232990037_n1.jpg (400x354, 44K)

None of them are modernists. Unless you consider pope Francis a modernist of course.

you don't know what a modernsit is
pope francis is a pretty hard modernist, ike all popes after the 60s
islamis is also not necessarily antimodern - islam itself has always had a progressive streak, it is more comparable to protestantism

I dislike the word reactionary because technically what people call reactionaries nowadays are strictly speaking revolutionaries. Same with "conservative". There is nothing left to conserve, just to destroy and rebuild.

true, but what term do you propose we use?

Evola absolutely despised the New Age movements as it is focused on individual spirituality and not grounded in traditionalist rites, order and hierarchy.

Bullshit. There are plenty of traditional catholics in European countries. Here in France we call them "catho-tradis" or "versaillais".

>pope francis is a pretty hard modernist, ike all popes after the 60s

nope.

>Does anyone seriously argue against the ideas and ideals of the French Revolution?

Post-Modernists argue the Enlightenment was bad, and it was racist.

>Does anyone seriously argue against the ideas and ideals of the French Revolution?
What do you think the "postmodernist" movement was?

>Enlightenment Ideas are bad

They are. Napoleon's Idea of equal application of the law was the only good idea to come out of the time period and nobody follows that today (see women, browns, jews) making it a failure.

you have no idea what a modernist is my man

I think of recent home grown strains of American protestantism as being more anti-Modern and more anti-Enlightenment than most varieties of post VII catholic traditionalism..at least until the 1980s when they started bleeding into eachother. Evangelical Christians are pretty anti-Enlightenment:
>nominal democratic processes in church while actual power passes from pastor to his son
>Strong focus on 'practical' knowledge like engineering and away from pure science like astronomy or humanities stuff like the classics
>little concern with internal due process within church
>little concern with law and order more generally in society unless it negatively impacts them
>generalized anti-naturalism
>focus on charismatic individual leadership rather than shared values
>generally against the establishment of public institutions or NGOs that operate based on a code of values rather than puppets of aforementioned charismatic individuals.

That said, even if Evangelicals became a super majority of voters I don't think they would ever knowingly create a theocracy or elect a divinely ordained ruler simply because they are only against Enlightenment ideals while not really having a coherent positive ideology. They have nothing to build. I think there are interesting parallels to eastern Europe/Russia where high levels of corruption and communists destroying past institutions has made generations of people define themselves in terms of being antimodern and antiwest.

It depends on which ideas and ideals of the French Revolution.

You are basically saying things out of your ass. Why in the hell did you write an answer about something you are completely ignorant about?

you can't build a house on rotten foundations

There are very legitimate arguments against the french revolution. I know most history teachers worship it and as such so do most people, but it's healthy to take a step back and think of the death, destruction, tyranny and war that came of it.

I do know some traditional Catholics who despite the revolution and mourn every year the death of Louis XVI, but most people do not really think about it.

Your friends kind of right. You see more than a few anti-enlightenment types on Veeky Forums because its the epicenter of fringe ideologies, but outside the internet even the most conservative traditionalists accepts some basic tenets of enlightenment thought.

The worldview of pre-modern people is as alien to us actual aliens.

Morality is required for a society to function. Laws are enforced morality. The current moral system has evolved organically from what has always been. Religion combines the Traditional ethics and ideals with spirtuality, cosmology, history, mythology and art to form a coherent world-view. Monarchs form a spiritual center and dynasticism ensures that the hereditary traits that formed the country will continue to lead it. Parliamentarianism is inefficient as the representative are unable to think in the long-term. All their actions are quickly undone, so It's futile to attempt to plan a larger picture, which you cannot maintain after your term is over. A certain level of democracy is necessary to prevent tyranny, but not so much as to hinder the Monarch.

>Australians and Serbs
what the hell?

>Poland
>Hungary
>Spain

niggas have you ever read a book

>Monarchs form a spiritual center and dynasticism ensures that the hereditary traits that formed the country will continue to lead it
History has already proven this wrong.

There is a subset of de Tocqueville scholarship which takes on an Anti-Enlightenment mindset. Patrick Deneen is probably the most recognizable name of that bunch, and his most recent book (Why Liberalism Failed) is gaining some traction. Might be worth a read.

There are also the more neopaganistic reactions to the Enlightenment, such as Guenon and Evola, who are taken somewhat seriously in the political theory world. I believe I remember hearing about Steve Bannon having Evola on his shelf, so at the very least it's at least mildly relevant along the periphery of the right wing.

I would also say that Traditionalist Catholicism is definitely not a meme. Even in my own parish (in what I would consider a fairly liberal area), the Tridentine Mass is still deeply respected, and mostly preferred by younger parishioners from early adulthood into their late 20's. ICKSP and SSPX are growing in size and influence, despite their troubled histories (especially the latter). I think they could become a serious faction within the Church, especially if Pope Francis continues to decline in popularity amongst conservatives and a conservative replaces him in turn.

are we going to ignore Neo-Reactionaries/Dark Enlightenment or is that too meme?

I'm still hoping for a Sedevacantist movement that elects an Anti-Pope similar in outlook to Pius XIII in the Young Pope but who the hell am I kidding

Attached: The-Young-Pope.jpg (1000x868, 198K)

The ancestors of all the French aristocrats and commoners who were raped, tortured and murdered during the French Revolution seriously argue against the ideas and ideals of the French Revolution

It's literally the exact opposite, the only people who don't seriously argue against the French Revolution are commies and the French themselves, everyone else considers it to be a barbaric peasant uprising that basically ruined France

Why do Sedevacantists deny that they're basically protestants?

>Neo-Reactionaries
Autistic kike programmers who think autistic kike programmers should be the new nobility in a cyberpunk dystopia? It's the most neckbeard thing ever invented.

julius evola and others of his ilk and no they aren't taken seriously beyond retards on /pol/ who haven't even read him. Heidegger is the most mainstream and he's not really especially popular, tho he is taken more seriously and is considered a philosopher instead of a weirdo larping as a druid or something lol

Julius Evola has been popular long before /pol/. Personally I first read him in the 80s, he was already pretty famous back then.

anyone going against Catholic dogma is basically Protestant since they are protesting the One True Church

you can go in a lot of different directions, whether it's Lutheran or Calvinist or Pentecostal or Anglican or Anglo-Catholic or Anabaptist or Hussite

Traditionalist Catholics, particularly radicals like Sedevacantists, are just in a weird spot cause they oppose the Church as it is from a reactionary angle

Sedevacantism is like the initial position of Martin Luther, too. He wasn't arguing against the institute of the papacy, he just claimed the current pope is illegitimate because he promotes heretical shit like monetary indulgences. Only after getting excummunicated and being shat on by the Church forever did he start to believe the institute of the Pope is itself a bad thing.

>Thinks French revolution was a mistake
You have to go back

That's a pretty common position to take for people who actually studied history.

True, it is, but as you touched on, Luther's opinions/teachings evolved into something quite anti-establishment (in regards to the Church). such is the development of ideas and movements.

from what I understand, early Anglicanism (in the lifetime of Henry VIII) was quite similar to Catholic dogma (Henry disagreed with Luther on a lot of his points) beyond administrative stuff like Fat Hank wanting more personal/national control of religious affairs

>Insert global poker face

Yep. Anglicanism was about power, Lutheranism was about theology (but was also abused by those in power).

>australians
>cucked by the west

Attached: smh fam.jpg (534x300, 32K)

The French revolution was fully justified, you had nobles and clergy leeching off the peasants who had no rights or privilege. The enlightenment was all about individuals rights. It was the vital step out of the dark ages of tyranny

Then has most of the world embraced its ideals?

Attached: 1519738271525.jpg (800x792, 36K)

Only the Western world (Western Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand, etc.)

Anyone who isn't a cuck and wants to perserve his people, culture and life must be against ''Enlightenment'' ideals. The Alt-Right must understand that the alt-lite classical liberals are not their friends in any way, shape, or form.

Attached: The death of the West.png (1262x2094, 952K)

My culture and life is the Enlightenment ideals though as they have been drastically improved by it, people who don't adhere to them are not my people, a culture that rejects them is not my culture. I don't care for a culture that oppresses me. I am white but am I not preserving anything with your oppressive cult, in fact I am losing everything that makes life good, and I don't want that. I'm a very average person, what applies to me likely applies to others. That's why you people while always be a fringe.

The objectively best world. I don't want to be like lesser shitholes.

People who have studied history agree that the French Revolution was good though, since it ended tyranny and abuse of power at the hands of people who didn't deserve it and installed various ways to prevent rulers from abusing their power and keep them in check.

>My culture and life is the Enlightenment ideals though as they have been drastically improved by it
I don't give a fuck. I don't give an atom of a fuck. Your cancerous values and ideology are the exact reason why the West and whites are being overrun. Western civilization didn't start during the French Revolution and the ''Enlightenment''. It existed long before that and will continue to exist long after your values and ideals are gone. The current zeitgeist that was set up by the French Revolution will go whether you like it or not.

So you hate freedom of speech? The right to bare arms? Those are enlightenment ideals...

>Western civilization didn't start during the French Revolution and the ''Enlightenment"

Western civilization did in fact start with the French Revolution and the Enlightenment, as before that there was no "West" but merely a bunch of monarchs playing war with each other
with the lives and property of the people like they didn't matter. Why would they have mattered after all? It doesn't matter if you're white, you're not a noble so you are still expendable. You have literally no rights, retard. And it was OK to team up with muslims if it suited the monarch's whims like the Franco-Turkish alliance whrn the French king gave the OK to Ottoman sultan to invade eastern Europe. So much for preserving whites eh? You are calling for a regression and anything that will bring that about will be another Dark Age people will fight to get out of as quick as possible.

>So you hate freedom of speech?
In an absolute sense? yes. I wouldn't let a commie, or Islamist, or a Social Justice warrior spout their hogwash in my country. They will get deported, every last one.

>The right to bare arms?
The right to bare arms existed long before that. Medieval peasants were always armed with some sort of weapon and walked freely armed. They didn't 911 to come to their aid if a bandit entered their house.

Peasants had no rights,they were property, and good luck fighting off a knight with your rake

>Medieval peasants were always armed with some sort of weapon and walked freely armed.
>being this deluded

If it makes you feel any better, the Islamists will most likely get rid of freedom of speech once they take over your country.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world

Your ideals are not Western civilization, you fuckwit. The medieval monarchs didn't let savage feral subhumans in their countries in the name of ''liberty'', ''equality'' and ''progress''. The same cancerous values you subscribe to.

Not if we get rid of the cucked values of the ''Enlightenment'' and put something that actually cares about preserving White people.

>The right to bare arms existed long before that.

WRONG

Only nobles could bare arms in the Middle Ages.
Peasants were not armed with weapons, they used farming tools as weapons during revolts. Revolts that got suppressed in blood because how dare those filthy plebs claim rights for themselves! If a bandit entered their house they were done, and if a noble entered their house demanding their things and women they were done too, as they had no right to themselves. Wonderful uh?

>I wouldn't let a commie or a Social Justice warrior spout their hogwash in my country

Islamists are foreigners indeed, but the rest?
It's not your country, it's their country too. You won't have a country with half the population and all the women gone.

While I agree with your general semtimemt, I don't think its ever been correct to define Western Civilization as requiring every single nation and culture in it to cooperate. And even if it was, the French Revolution really didn't change that element. That's like saying Chinese Civilization didn't exist until Qin Shi Huangdi unified the states, and it must have similarly ceased existing every time a dynasty fell apart.

>dude money lmao

>WRONG
Typing ''Wrong'' in capslock doesn't prove me wrong.

mythicscribes.com/community/threads/weapons-used-by-lower-middle-class-peasants-in-the-middle-ages.1250/

>Islamists are foreigners indeed, but the rest?
It's not your country, it's their country too. You won't have a country with half the population and all the women gone.

I don't care if they are foreigners, or not. Their ideologies are anti-me and anti-white. They need to go, every last one, by force if must. Their are plenty of White Islamists.

Western civilization ENDED with the French revolution. Equality is anti-western.

saudi muslim here.
i'm enjoying your delicious tears and your autistic rants at seeing your civilization collapse before your eyes, knowing that you cannot do anything to stop the inevitable doom of your people, try as you might.
please do continue.

White people brought on the Enlightenment. White people will bring on the Enlightenment 2.0 rather than live under tyranny.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Europe
The Enlightenment is a defining part of Western culture and white people's culture, ignorant retard.

>The medieval monarchs didn't let savage feral subhumans in their countries
Yeah they just made allegiances with them while abusing their own people themselves. I wonder why people don't want to go back to that.

Also, i don't care if it's their country too. Social justice warrior and communists are the bane of the white race. I utterly refuse to tolerate these cunts in my country. They need to disappear.

You know, i despise you and your ilk with a passion that cannot be contained, but i have to respect you. At least you wouldn't tolerate liberals in your country and let them invite people who despise you and everything you believe in.

Are you American Or just uneducated? Peasants weren't only allowed but REQUIRED to be armed. It wasn't a right, it was a duty, because most kingdoms back then didn't have a legitimate professional standing army.

>White people brought on the Enlightenment. White people will bring on the Enlightenment 2.0 rather than live under tyranny.
Then white brought their doom on themselves, they must fix it themselves.

>The Enlightenment is a defining part of Western culture and white people's culture, ignorant retard.
It might be a part in the modern West, but it's not it. Zeitgeists come and go.
>Yeah they just made allegiances with them while abusing their own people themselves. I wonder why people don't want to go back to that.
A trillion times better than letting them in your country and let them replace your people.

The Enlightenment is a fundamental part of Western civilization though. These nutcases cannot accept that, and cannot the Enlightenment came about because the situation was completely unstainable before.
See .

>mythicscribes.com
>"The art of Fantasy Storytelling"

Jesus fucking christ.

>I don't care if they are foreigners or not
So you are against white people?

>Their ideologies are anti-me
No. Your ideologies are anti-me and therefore anti-white.

>They need to go
You need to go, bud. You're the one that's threatening white people's lives here.

>Their are plenty of White Islamists.
You sound like one yourself.

(You)

Attached: Scotland Act.jpg (613x578, 276K)

Nothing to fix except people like you though. And you still keep ignoring that the Enlightenment was a reaction to the rampant murder and abuse at the hands of religious crazies and nobles which you're so eager to return to.

>A trillion times better
Fuck off abuser. Your brand of abuse is not better than another brand of abuse, you're equally shit.

>So you are against white people?
Not at all. Everything i do, everything i say, everything i think is in the interest of white people.

>Your ideologies are anti-me
Sure.

>and therefore anti-white.
lol, no. Wanting to deport subhumans and liberals like you is anything, but anti_white.

>You sound like one yourself.
*Yawn* pathetic horseshoe theory.

Other regions have done it too

[spoiler]And yes socialism/communism and fascism is for better or worse a product of French Revolution[/spoiler]

Why does the Alt-Right/Far-Right actually hate Islamists? I mean, look at all they have in common
>hate liberals
>hate feminists
>hate SJWs
>hate LGBT
>hate Jews
>hate globalists
>hate Wall Street/Big Finance
>very conservative
>very patriarchal
>big on guns
>big on family
>big on tradition
>militaristic
>nationalistic
>authoritarian

>you still keep ignoring that the Enlightenment was a reaction to the rampant murder and abuse at the hands of religious crazies and nobles which you're so eager to return to.
I don't give a toss. Those ''religious crazies'' and nobles didn't try replace the white race over bullshit ideals like ''equality'', ''liberty'' and ''progress''.

>Fuck off abuser. Your brand of abuse is not better than another brand of abuse, you're equally shit.
Not at all. My abuse is against ''people'' who are unworthy of the title ''human'' and liberals like you who threaten the white race.

>Why does Barcelona hate Real Madrid? I mean, they're both football clubs in Spain

Do Islamists hate big finance? Ones in the gulf and Saudi Arabia certainly don't.