Literature for deradicalization?

Blake. And Thomas Merton.

There's no need to have an ideology if you don't want one.

OP read Notes from Underground trans. Pevear and Volokhonsky. It's a critical condemnation of Humanitarian champagne Socialism that also argues in favor of traditional societal social structures (need for Religion, etc)
It also addresses Social Nihilism

I'm in a similar position if you actually want to talk. Veeky Forums is mostly just going to try and convert you to the left though, there's ironically no board bigger on ideology.

The tl;dr of the solution to your problem is: Don't look for something else to read, stop reading for a while. The answer to the outrage machine and radicalism lies in taking action and building your own life and personality. Sounds lofty but true in my opinion.

>Moderate Capitalist government
heh

>People I like reading: John Stuart Mill, Pat Buchanan, Noam Chomsky, Theodor Adorno, Martin Heidegger.
Blue pilled as fuck

For a board that loves Dostoevsky and Nietzsche it's kinda hard to call Veeky Forums universally Leftist. That slant, where it does exist, is likely owed more to the prevalence of Leftists in academic structures throughout the last 300 years.

...A traditionalist then? Maybe an ancap?
Well, that's less bad in general. Literally just try to see life as it is, no other way to get the ideology out.

>psychoanalytic
pseudoscience
>takedown of the reactionary.
I love to pathologize people who disagree with me!

I would recommend reading Jean Baudrillard. Ignore all of the memes about the matrix and shit, those things are not an accurate representation of his philosophy. It's pretty dense and hard to initially get into at first I won't lie, but if you're familiar with continental philosophy it shouldn't be too bad. Reading him really helped me to understand how things work and what is really going on in the current technologically accelerating society.

Moderation is an asymptotic principle to be strived for, it can't be permanently attained or permanently lost. That the government we live in today is leaning away from Moderation is not a condemnation of moderation in itself.

Moderation is subjective, if you lived under traditionalism what you call moderation would be considered extreme left, dummy.
Striving for moderation is literally impossible.

What do you mean abandon all civic involvement?
What affects you affects your family which affects your community and so on. it's all stacked together. The user offered really good advice.
Start from the source(yourself) and branch out from there(your family, your neighborhood, etc.)

But history shows that gradual, incremental political change without rocking the boat too much actually delivers better results on average than going for radical change. Going for radical change tends to cause mass death and sometimes totalitarianism. If you really care about humanity, gradual change makes sense.

Ellison's Invisible Man

Good luck unironically praising Nietzsche here without getting shouted down and bombarded with shitty memes or anecdotes about his supposed failing at life.

*sips starbucks*

Forget politics. Go into science. In the modern world, politics is the guy riding shotgun in a car driven by scientific progress. Scientific progress brings about technological progress. Technological progress causes mass economic changes. Then politics reacts to the economic changes. That's how the last few hundred years have gone (maybe all human history, even). If you want the most amount of influence possible on the future, go into science. The big question facing us is how we can use science for good without being destroyed by its creation of new destructive capabilities.

Much better sip starbucks in a nice modern Western nation than live in some commie or fascist shithole created by people who wanted radical change.

tell that to the slaves who make your starbucks and don't care whether they live or die anymore

>and you get to keep your Starbucks.
Well...thank god for that.
>Elon Musk posthumanism
Er, well, thank the material that god gave us to work with...?
>New Republican cyborg managerial class is a permanent ossified layer dominating all of late post-liquid capitalist "humanity" until time itself comes to an end.

Well now, that's just silly...though, for some reason, I'm erect. Oh wait, that's right, that always happens to me when I die a little inside.

>I decided to get off the /pol/ train.
Good!
>I'm not interested in being bluepilled, but /pol/ is a type of bluepill in itself.
Forget this bluepill/redpill nonsense. The world is more complex than being awake or being asleep. People generally have good intentions, even if their political praxis leads to unwanted outcomes.
>I think it's really starting to impair my quality of life because I'd binge too much and it'd make me depressed.

This actually doesn't sound related to /pol/ or politics but more generally being too isolated and consuming too much media. Take up a hobby that gets you away from the internet. Frisbee, bird watching, hiking, dance classes, photography (not the instagram variety, the kind where you get film developed), billiards, painting, whatever.

Listen to the mainstream media casually, stuff like NPR news updates or BBC newshour. Just listen to a little bit, get a sense of what mainstream people believe, try to understand why they believe it. Realize that it isn't a matter of them being bluepilled sleepers, that its just one of many positions that are perfectly reasonable to have.

That doesn't conflict with what I just said

The blackpill is the only interesting one.

Defensible Space - Oscar Newman
I guess Robin Dunbar too.

What slaves exactly

I was in your same situation, then I read War & Peace. Tolstoi made me a better person.

>The world is more complex than being awake or being asleep. People generally have good intentions, even if their political praxis leads to unwanted outcomes.

Your average person has good intentions. Those in the higher echelons in power are cynically "redpilled", or they're brainwashed beyond belief, and I don't think I can ever forget that. Power seems to attract the worst kinds of people.

>Listen to the mainstream media casually, stuff like NPR news updates or BBC newshour. Just listen to a little bit, get a sense of what mainstream people believe, try to understand why they believe it. Realize that it isn't a matter of them being bluepilled sleepers, that its just one of many positions that are perfectly reasonable to have.

Even NPR has become scorched earth within the past two years. They don't represent the views of the average person in the sense that they're average people collecting information about the average belief systems of the population. They're controlled distributors of information with heavy bias thanks to finances and ideology. I don't care if I get rid of /pol/, the non-ideological cynicism of all media outlets and the knowledge that most opinions out there have been manufactured for discussion will never go away.

You should read Stirner if you wish to rise above the nonsense. Otherwise, you can try to find some meaningfulness amongst the romping swine.

>tell that to the slaves who make your starbucks and don't care whether they live or die anymore

I love when people pretend to have the capacity to "care" for abstract entities such as "slaves who make your starbucks". How about caring for beans that got roasted too. And the land that was used. How about we extend compassion to everything in existence all at once, then calm ourselves down and realise we're incapable of rational compassion altogether.

Also, I don't believe anything other than the truth that if you burn me with hot coffee, I will sue.

Probably referring to a wageslave LOL. But most are just college students who, again, would rather live in a nice western democracy than a commie or fascist shithole where academia is repressed. Plus with the added benefit of working to get some money to pay off that tuition/student loan debt or for some luxury shit.

The people who do 2-3 jobs and barely manage to pay rent and cover day to day expenses.

A buhddist monk had this issue he brought to his master once he learned the buhddist mysteries.
His masters reply.
"A broken mirror doesnt reflect in the same way again"

Once you take the red pill there is no going back.

You can only seek a new perspective.

Psychoanalysis is more a literary critical theory /phenomenological /existentialist practise than it is a scientific one. Desu.

>Buchanan
>Chomsky

Are you MPD?

I would suggest F.A. Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty. I started off conservative, moved libertarian, and then moved more lefty as I got more education and got out into the real word. However, Hayek's social thought always will stick with me. Unlike Ayn Rand, he is actually a moral person and argues classical liberalism from a moral perspective. He asks the far left to stop and think what makes the world work and what could go wrong if we throw a revolutionary monkey wrench into it. The world is complicated, no one knows everything, and spontaneous order with a respect for basic property rights just might be the best way. He wasn't against all welfare or government participation in healthcare, he just wanted us to respect the market and what it has provided us. In my opinion, neoliberalism along the lines of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair followed Hayek's lessons the most. He's conservative in the sense that he recognizes no generation can start from scratch, and we have to accept some of the hard-earned wisdom of the past without completely understanding it.

>MPD

No. I don't think Chomsky's views on power/media and Buchanan's views on demographic change are incompatible. Two pieces of the puzzle.

>In my opinion, neoliberalism along the lines of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair followed Hayek's lessons the most

Thank you for making the most persuasive argument to NEVER read Hayek ever.

Does Veeky Forums hate the Horseshoe Theory as much as /pol/ does?

Yes.

only a spineless retard wouldn't

I hate horseshoe theory too. The only useful concept to gain is it highlights how many political movements attempt to seize control of a population, which increases investigation into what the means of control and the centers of power really are. It otherwise wholly underestimates how many valid answers/perspectives there are to problems in the world, how often miscommunications can happen thanks to polar opposite identities, and how much of the current policies seen as "consequences" from valid perspectives are actually constructed by TPTB (think tanks, pundits, politician talking points, etc.).

That's not slavery and their failure to manipulate the Capitalist system is none of my concern; the larger argument that the system itself has failed in its responsibilities could be made but rarely is because contemporary pseudo-revolutionaries are just whiny spoilt children.

Horseshoe Theory is a predictive model, not an observational one. Hating it is like hating the weatherman for giving you a 70% chance of rain instead of just telling you whether or not it's raining.

Looks like successfully attracted some of the 'ummm capitalism is just human nature lmao i have never studied history or anything else' zombies

Let's all point at them and laugh

Slaves? We're all slaves to the laws of physics, man. The modern Western nation state is the best political system that has yet existed, to my knowledge, as far as protecring people from the cruelty of those laws of physics without impinging too much on liberty. Those Starbucks "slaves" have a better chance to become filthy rich than lower class people in almost any society that has ever existed.
Me: was almost broke for years, taught myself how to write software, now middle class, teying to become rich.

Hit us up with some good black pill reading material, brotha man.

Agreed to some extent. What's annoying about /pol/ is that they turn what are some valid, often taboo, insights into reality into a weird nazi-living cult. The red pills don't have to turn you into a fascist. Indeed, fascist society would be much much worse than the society we currently have in the west, for all its problems.

It's accurate, though. Try to argue against it.

It's not really about capitalism, though. It's about not drinking that revolutionary koolaid.

>Agreed to some extent. What's annoying about /pol/ is that they turn what are some valid, often taboo, insights into reality into a weird nazi-living cult.

This. Can't we have a middle-ground? I think I'd rather fall into some compromise between civic nationalism and ethnic nationalism, in the sense that equal opportunity and rights are maintained, but no attempts to subvert national identity are tolerated.

>subvert the national identity
what is the national identity?

For that guy, I'm guessing ethnicity.

>in the sense that equal opportunity and rights are maintained, but no attempts to subvert national identity are tolerated.
That worked great in France, until it didn't.

>>no attempts to subvert national identity are tolerated.

That sounds needlessly authoritarian and rigid. Cultures and national identities should be allowed to evolve and adapt.

> Those in the higher echelons in power are cynically "redpilled"

Bill Clinton praised Charles Murray as being basically correct, for example.

For example, a strong motivator for /pol/'s ethnic nationalism is the fact that many third-world ethnic groups have lower intellectual abilities and are more prone due to violence due to genetic factors. Regardless of what they say on TV, most of the ruling class probably knows this. The reality is that stoking ethnic nationalism is a recipe for disaster that will rile up the masses to the point where order is no longer possible.

Unfortunately, imo US politics has, out of the need to win elections, basically degenerated into race-baiting and counter-baiting (I will take money from racist whiteys to give you benefits and reunite you with your family members from Mexico! vs. I will cut benefits from those leeching blacks and kick out the spics!) as opposed to promoting order and growth.

>Cultures and national identities should be allowed to evolve and adapt.
College liberal as fuck.

>fascist society would be much much worse than the society we currently have in the west, for all its problems

I'm not convinced it would be very different.

Not really, just have enough historical knowledge to realize that the kind of "national identity" the far-right wants to hold onto is a relatively recent invention and has gone through countless changes in the past. That doesn't mean I find, say, Eurabia to be an acceptable outcome, I just don't want to fight against it by condemning our cultures to rigor mortis out of fear of any change.

What your describing is called Hoppean Libertarianism.

>have enough historical knowledge to realize that the kind of "national identity" the far-right wants to hold onto is a relatively recent invention and has gone through countless changes in the past

Your one post away from the Veeky Forums meme that insists national borders were invented in the 1800's, stop.

Hey user, i would recommend something in the leaning of Thoreau and similar social critic/internal development. Maybe try classic right wing thought while studying greek philosophy and literature. It will probably change you for the best

Accepting Middle Easterners isn't bad per se, the issue is that European countries are failing to discriminate. Selecting intelligent, successful people can be good for economic growth, and people of differing ethnicities can be integrated into European/American societies more successfully than others (say, east Asian countries) because they are less prone to tribalism. This is an advantage of said societies. The problem is that when you take an arbitrary cross-section of people from those countries, due to being unwilling to enforce borders or discriminate between people, you will end up with a large contingent of people who are unintelligent, devoutly religious, and hold backwards views. This will lead them to have poor levels of achievement in society and build resentment. Unfortunately, it seems Europeans are unwilling to discriminate here, whether out of guilt over Nazi collaborationism, desire to reduce native wages, humanitarian impulses, or what, I don't know.

But demographic change absolutely is a problem in the West. And if you accepted that once I don't think you can ever really forget it. There is no reason why white people should become a minority in their own countries.

I realized it comes across like as authoritarian, but I view the attempts to systematically change the demographics of the United States as far more authoritarian in nature. It doesn't need to be anything but "all immigrants must meet very high standards", "enforce the borders, no illegal immigrants", and "do not incentivize globalization... it should only happen because of economic pressures, not because Wall Street wants the wholesale destruction of American industry".

I have no problem with the diversity that we've had in the United States in around... 1960, minus the obvious discrimination. Mostly white population, sizable African-American population (they've been a part of the USA for 100s of years, can't deny them opportunity or identity), small assortment other well-adjusted minorities. Minimized multiculturalism allows for a cohesive national identity and prevents the fragmentation and exploitation that we're currently seeing today, with the welfare state sustained by identity politics, with the massive importation of Mexicans to serve as cheap labor and drive down wages, with globalization destroying the earning potentials of the American middle class, and the budget struggling to keep up with a permanent underclass of wage slaves who literally cannot be sustained on the McJobs that are left in the wake of globalism.

I really have no other way to describe it. It's not ideological as it is just stating the facts that wealth and power is being siphoned at every corner thanks to "attempts to subvert national identity". I'm not talking about having degeneracy police, I'm talking about stopping corporations from playing God a la the culture industry in order to rig the market, increasing their profits at the expense of everybody else, including small businesses and honest businesses.

Sure. I'd just rather talk about it as a sociologist rather than a racist. I don't have anything wrong against 80% white, 12% black, 8% other, like we had in the 1960s. I don't want corporations to get away with fostering division to increase profits and control, which seems so obvious to me with my background in both Marxism and conservatism, but sounds like Stormfront material to anybody else. I genuinely want us all to get along and reach our full potentials... I just don't want this multiculturalism shit to develop because it always comes with a sinister agenda attached that's far too complicated to explicate in all of its emotional, economic, political, and social consequences.

>likes reading Heidegger
lmao

>I view the attempts to systematically change the demographics of the United States as far more authoritarian in nature
It's not authoritarian, It amounts to: It would be racist and immoral to enforce our border with Mexico.

>do not incentivize globalization... it should only happen because of economic pressures, not because Wall Street wants the wholesale destruction of American industry
People with mediocre intelligence in rich countries, who are only suited for manual labor, assess their own market value to be far higher than the global marketplaces' assessment. Preserving jobs for such people will require increasingly heavy protectionism in the long run.

>the welfare state sustained by identity politics
It isn't sustained by identity politics, and the welfare state extends well beyond transfer payments to minorities. See: the military. Imagine if America brought most of its troops home tomorrow. What would they do for a living?

>wealth and power is being siphoned at every corner thanks to "attempts to subvert national identity"
capitalism subverts the national identity because it does not care about it.

I do sort of agree with what you are saying, but the logical endpoint of it is Socialism in One Country, not 1960s America.

Globalization isn't destroying the us middle class. Growing foreign competition and technological change are, but resisting globalization wouldn't make those go away.

This sounds reasonable, but is still a bit short-sighted IMO. If you heavily restrict migration, raise the cost of labor, etc. the only thing you achieve is that you incentivize corporations to double down on automation. The halcyon days of well-paying, stable jobs for blue-collar workers are over, possibly for ever. We need to come up with a new societal model to deal with this.

You don't know the first thing about economics. next.

>The halcyon days of well-paying, stable jobs for blue-collar workers are over, possibly for ever. We need to come up with a new societal model to deal with this.
Stop
Watching
CGP Grey
Already

Do you have any arguments against what I wrote?

Only fascists and commies hate it, but they unfortunately make up to 90% of this board.

holy autism

>deradicalization

People like pic related are the radical ones.

For Horseshoe Theory to make sense, the left-right spectrum itself would have to make sense. And it doesn't.

not really. they're basically slightly to the left (or even dead center) on the contemporary political spectrum

Explain

I think its related in the human tendency to bifurcate our problems, solutions always seem to be an either or. Black and white

If you arent with us you are against us type of mentality.
Which can be a mentality imposed on any type of ideology that condones violence.

I blame Aristurtle

It sounds like you take issue with "coerced" adaptation.
Its all well and good when integration and synthesis happens organically.
But when human interests force us to adapt quicker than having it arise naturally, people feel oppressed.

I think one major issue with this. If it is the case. Is that this can be an observation after the fact.
That it often can feel that this synthesis or integration or adaptation is forced only becuase of the violent products that initial synthesis or integration often brings.

That isnt to say that isnt the case either.

Its just really hard to cinfirm when this adaptation s forced or natural especially when it comes to human behavior.

But that's my point. They SHOULD be considered radicals, but in our totally messed up culture, they are in the center.

OP thinks he's a radical for caring about immigration/demographics, but these have always been very moderate concerns. Its only now in the wacky modern world that caring about this stuff makes you a radical far-right fascist.

>He's conservative in the sense that he recognizes no generation can start from scratch, and we have to accept some of the hard-earned wisdom of the past without completely understanding it.

I think that is something that needs to change. Its really hard to find justification for things we regard as conventional.
I think we need to start giving people explanations along with our truisms and not just the platitudes by themselves.

We dont understand our past becuase the past only told us how it was and didnt give us adequate explanations.

Compared to whom?

This. Revolutionary ideals are inherently unethical and only arise from a failure in the governmental regime to adhere to its duty to the citizen, which inherently includes suppressing Revolutionary tendencies. That Market Capitalism allows people to ideally pursue their own self-interests without creating stress on the government or social contract (as does Communism and any anarchic system) simply makes it the most effective system de facto and a goal to continuously strive for in legislation. There will always be the cyclical leaning of power towards other systems and that's natural to keep the social contract intact.

Good for you, OP. That atmosphere is unhealthy.

I'd recommend reading everything. Fiction and nonfiction, written by anyone and everyone. Seek out authors who you know you disagree with on one subject or other. That's the best way I know of to get out of an ideological bubble.

>muh globalization is good for you and inevitable meme

Maybe for the least-skilled jobs, globalization would be natural. What you can't explain is advanced industries such as aerospace manufacturing going abroad because the Chinese are willing to subsidize the infrastructure, the energy costs, the education costs, the tariffs, etc., to outcompete the American product without any equivalent support. Cheap labor alone can't replace the skills and the materials needed for complex industries. And we're in big trouble, defense-speaking, when Boeing moves abroad.

What's happening right now is a massive concerted effort to siphon the accumulated capital of the United States into foreign countries, where they can be put to use by less demanding workers without any of the research and development costs that brought them about in the first place.

Agreed. I hopeyou people realize that meme magic (the Overton Window) is a serious thing. You shouldn't place your trust into somebody who has such little faith in human ingenuity. Do you really think that somebody who wants you all sucking off the teat of the government has your best interests at heart? Sounds like a cold cynic to me.

>Its just really hard to cinfirm when this adaptation s forced or natural especially when it comes to human behavior.

It's very easy to confirm when you can trace the origins of multiculturalism to specific policies implemented by the United States in the late 20th century. For example, less emphasis on assimilation and more emphasis on cultural preservation of immigrants (for the fear of "racism". The immigration policy that we've held that began to incentivize non-whites to immigrate over whites. The immigration policy that allowed millions of unskilled illegal immigrants to flood into the United States, oftentimes receiving amnesty in the process. The immigration policy that led to importing H1B workers to replace domestic works at home. i.e.,

It's not universally leftist, but there's a lot of them on here peddling their commie shit, and there's a bunch of transfers from pol. It's polarized.

>Communism is for Liberals
>Education is for Liberals
>Opinions are for Liberals

> liberals are leftists meme

>liberals are not liberal meme

Find me someone who advocates for Marxism/socialism who doesn't also advocate for cultural destruction and demographic replacement of the West