What are some good philosophical or political texts that form a basis for a conservative, authoritarian or even outright fascist socio-political order?
It seems that the liberals are winning the culture war on all fronts. Government, immigration, race, gender, family laws: you name it, the pendulum seems to be swinging towards the left.
I have had debates with a few liberals but I can't seem to come with good logical responses to their arguments. What should I read to remedy this Veeky Forums?
Evola. Have fun realising that any sincere fascist would throw todays right wingers in front of a firing squad.
>I can't seem to come with good logical responses to their arguments.
Gee I wonder why that could be
Read Catholics. Pius IX, de Maistre, Alisdair MacIntyre.
this post is hilarious or is bait
feels > reals
summed it up for you
I know right? It is strange. The liberals' arguments about immigration, sex, marriage, gender(this is the one I have most problems with) all seem wrong on a subconscious level but on the surface I am unable to find flaws in their arguments.
No.
Try using your own head brotherino.
>all seem wrong on a subconscious level but on the surface I am unable to find flaws in their arguments.
lmao
OP, turn off the computer and go outside. The psy-ops on this site are getting to you.
>conservative
De Maistre, Burke
>authoritarian
Basically any pope of the 19th century, read their encyclicals
>fascist
Evola, Yockey
kek
Turn back. Embrace Marx and fight neoliberalism on another front!
You wouldn't want to be in my gulag after the revolution now would you user?
Also, take a look at Gomez Davila.
Odds are you're disagreeing with them on an axiomatic level. Give me some arguments you have issues with and I'll describe my viewpoint on them - and hopefully not spark a debate.
>I know that I'm right I just need to find stuff to support my preconceived beliefs so I can win arguments
wew
Why do you feel the need to have strong opinions about how the entire world should hypothetically be run when you can't even sort out your own life
>unironically believing in things one can't justify
Whew lad
>What are some good philosophical or political texts that will conform to my philosophical and political views prior to reading philosophy and political theory?
wew lad. How about you read something that challenges your perspective?
>I have had debates with a few liberals but I can't seem to come with good logical responses to their arguments. What should I read to remedy this Veeky Forums?
So instead of questioning your beliefs when confronted with logical arguments to the contrary, you become more deeply entrenched in your irrational views. Never mind OP, don't bother reading any philosophy at all. You're clearly not open minded enough to get anything out of it. (I'm not even joking at all btw, stick to TV or videogames or whatever it is you do with your free time.)
Hobbes
Everyone should read Hobbes, no matter what you believe
I agree with this.
It is possible to be a "right winger" and hate fascism (cult of personality, supremacy of the state over the individual, romantic nationalism, corporatism etc).
Genuinely btfo
How can OP ever recover
Not to mention fascists are often explicitly anti-religion, like Evola for example.
Fascism is left wing.
lowest IQ post in this thread
So the biggest issue that I have problem with is about gender. Especially the whole trans/pansexual stuff happening these days.
I had an argument with a liberal about gay marriage. My position was: I don't care what 2 people do behind closed doors, but the moment you start asking for social and legal sanction for the relationship(aka a marriage), it no longer remains your personal issue.
"Transgenderism" is a mental illness since it is literally the impulse to mutilate your own body. It is called body dysphoria, and was treated as such a few decades back. Only because of political pressure was it declassified as a mental illness. Trans people are mentally ill and need to treated as such, and "sex change surgeries" banned.
The liberal girl I was arguing with replied that by calling it mental illness I was forcing my subjectivity upon them. I need to account that not everyone sees the world in the same terms and these people have a consciousness where they don't identify as the gender they are assigned at birth, and calling it an illness is insensitive.
The debate moved from there to how gender and sex are related. Now I understand the difference between the two, but I do not believe that gender is completely arbitrary and has no root in biological sex whatsoever. Gender roles exist for a reason, which is the biological differences between sexes.
She then started to cite Butler and argue that even sex is a cultural construct and science is shaped by our biases, so it be open to questioning.
The crazy thing is, this isn't even some radical crazy SJW I am talking about. This is a girl in my English class, pretty smart, A+ student.
>I asked for facist literature again mom!
Return to whence thou came
>How about you read something that challenges your perspective?
Almost everything in the mainstream media "challenges his perspective".
>cites Butler
>not a radical crazy SJW
user...
>not a radical crazy SJW
>Smart, A+ student
>cites Butler
Sounds about right. Quit stereotyping the "other side". Yes there are lots of stupid tumblrina SJWs, but your friend has obviously done her homework (unlike you). Take notes.
>cites David Lane
>not a radical crazy neo-nazi though: he's done his homework!!!
I rate you C-
I mean, she has short hair and wear masculine clothes but she pretty intelligent. And she didn't cite Butler as an authority("haha Butler said it so it must be correct!" way), but merely as an example of what her argument was.
I'm not a poltard, I'm not even white dude. I am just a regular person who is against cultural degeneracy.
Anyone who is able to understand and discuss Butler's notoriously dense theory has some sort of basline intelligence. Butler really has a lot less to do with the purple hair and nose ring crowd than you think she does. I love Butler and you would probably be astonished by how normal and non-SJW I am. Literally a well adjusted straight white male. Thanks for comparing her to a crackpot felon though. Totally the same thing. I give you a D.
...
Benito Mussolini was influenced by Karl Marx, who also happens to be a critic of liberal democracy, which is what is actually right wing. He probably got the idea of having only one party in existence from Marx.
The idea that Fascism is right wing only disguises liberal democracy/ libertarianism/ Ayn Rand as being a lesser evil, when in fact that is what is the true right wing.
National Socialism =/= Fascism
schizophre/10
Essentially, the Right splices into a liberal/libertarian/anarcho-capitalist group and a monarchist/fascist group.
even Richard Evans agrees that small-f fascism is a totally appropriate umbrella word to discuss the phenomenon.
No, Mussolini was influenced by Gentile, who was strongly influenced by Hegel and to a lesser extent Marx.
And Gentile can't really be dismissed as just a fascist, and definitely not as a Nazi. Gramsci loved Gentile. On top of that fascist Italy had a policy where they accepted Jews.
Not sure why Mussolini created an alliance with Hitler. I'm pretty sure he personally didn't like Hitler and thought he was pretentious.
Am I reading this graph, right? German Catholics were less pro-Nazi than Prots, correct?
Christopher Hitchens sez otherwise.
>fascism
>right-wing
Yeah, try again
if you are not able to counter-argument a liberal, it means you are literally brain dead. liberals, especially contemporary ones, contradict themselves non-stop.
consider a career in sub-100 iq fields such as factory worker, office cleaning and such
where to start with Gavila?
it's pretty hard to divorce fascism from fear-mongering. it just wasn't made to work that way.
fascism is pretty much like socialism, but less romantic
>fascism is less romantic than common socialism
this is the most retard thing I've read this week
I fucking hate these cookie-cutter bait threads. Every single day another fascist lit thread. The only variation is whether it's meant to bait libtards or stormies.
>regular person who is against cultural degeneracy
Sounds like pol
well, if he said that he is wrong
Conservatives would benefit from an understanding of Marx, who was a big fan of Balzac. Conservatives should also read more Rousseau, specifically his First Discourse and his Letter to D'Alembert. Thomas Carlyle, Henry Adams, and T.S. Eliot should also be read more by conservatives.
>not fighting liberalism with socialist, reactionary and fascist literature
It's like you want to continue the status quo
This. It's high time for a return to feudal socialism
The party the Catholics voted for, was in bed with the Nazis though.
They were basically forced to consent. Just imagine sitting in the Reichstag and half the parliamentarians are SA thugs, the president of parliament is a thug and the violent chancellor is their idol.
At that point you might start prefering your continued well-being to steadfast principles.
Are you aware that left-wing ideologies can also be authoritarian?
It's almost like the left-right political spectrum is descriptively useless and outdated. I still can't believe we use this retarded way of classifying political beliefs.
I have read Blazac, who I hold in high regards, but also Marx and Rousseau. I can't say it was completly without use, I would say it is more of an example of how wrong premises result in false conclusions and how you can debunk liberals wishful thinking.
It's worth a read, because the mindset is something that matters for right-wing ideologies. It's up for free on youtube.
It all depends on if you think a statement like "America first" is bad or not. To most right wingers this statement is just common sense; no shit you're going to put your country and its citizens above that of other countries. But to liberals it's a sin to display in-group preference. It's a completely different way of thinking.
>Conservatives would benefit from an understanding of Marx, who was a big fan of Balzac. Conservatives should also read more Rousseau,
couldn't agree more, my man
fuck off, mike
>political(™
>Burke
>A notorious Whig who supported the Glorius and American revolutions
>conservative
Conservatives should really read French post-structuralists and the Frankfurt School, too. They actually used the Enlightenment to criticize the Enlightenment.
Conservatives had always good criticisms of the Enlightenments, but since those were always based on things like god and race, it wasn't taken much seriously. But Foucault and Adorno can be used to criticize the Enlightenment from within.
But the Glorious and American revolutions were "conservative" in the sense that they reverted society to a status quo ante, and were based on traditional rights and privileges instead of a radical new vision of society.
There is nothing wrong with a conservative supporting them, it's the French Revolution that conservatives are supposed to hate (though I, particularly, don't care much for the Bourbons, they deserve what they got, I don't lament it, I lament for the Fronde).
>I was forcing my subjectivity upon them. I need to account that not everyone sees the world in the same terms and these people have a consciousness where they don't identify as the gender they are assigned at birth, and calling it an illness is insensitive
This seems like a perfectly reasonable argument. What is your counter point to that know your perspective on mental illness? Because you could look up literature that challneges this perspective and it would be pretty easy to do so.
>My position was: I don't care what 2 people do behind closed doors, but the moment you start asking for social and legal sanction for the relationship(aka a marriage), it no longer remains your personal issue.
Probably because thats how politics works. I think you need a basic understanding of politics, sociology and the history of these issues before diving into reactionary lit. They won't have the asnwers you are looking for.
Try finding a class or maybe resources online. Read political science pre 20th century before moving onto contemporary stuff.
>Simian Sentiments
>Donkey Kong Discourses
>Ape Analytics
>Bonobo Brainwave
Anything by Dosty, TS Eliot, Ezra Pound, or DH Lawrence
you were caught off guard because the girl is well read and prepared on her arguments. Next time, construct your argument away from social construction issue. You simply can not win on their home turf. Everything will devolve to terminologies and definitions. It is a shame, evolutionary psychology is discredit so much because of the link to Nazism. I believe it is a kryptonite against post modern sociology. We fare pretty well on economical and political issues but we can not catch a break on social ones.
>logic
Somebody doesn't understand fascism.
Justify justification.
>It is possible to be a "right winger" and hate fascism (cult of personality, supremacy of the state over the individual, romantic nationalism, corporatism etc).
Not fascism.
>science is rite cuz i sed so
Fuck off
>evolution
>psychology
Fuck off
You can embrace Marx, but Neo-Marxism is the dominant ideology of this field. With it's supporters are submissive larping faggots too concerned with appearing righteous instead of truly fighting against class struggle. Good luck forming a left-wing leaning group that doesn't submit themselves to identity politics, irrationality and lies.
>the earth is flat because I believe so fuck science n shit!
I'm not a lolbertarian
There is no Earth. A non-thing cannot have geometry.
The Bell Curve
Any normal human of average intelligence can use simple reasoning to refute any left wing arguement
>reading outdated and debunked theories of government
>reasoning is good cuz i sed so
Then ask why pyromania, violent borderline and thinking one is Jesus are considered mental illnesses and not just another point of view
>feels > reals
>wow I won, it was so easy
If you can't argue the other side of an issue, then you have no right to your original opinion. Ignorance is not a virtue.
the zentrum was in talks with the nazis about forming a coalition before hitler's rise to power. the so-called "brown-black" (ie nazi-catholic) coalition was a major plan for fixing the parliamentary deadlock but the negotiations took too long and hitler being given the chancellorship made it all irrelevant.
you were right to be honest
she just said a bunch of soundbite-y shit that sounds good but doesn't actually mean anything
it's what they all do
awfully upset
>pic related
the first ubermensch
Carl Schmitt's Concept of the Political, The Crisis of Parliamentarism and Political Theology. Also Hobbes' Leviathan and Schmitt's lectures on Hobbes.
I would also suggest Heidegger's 'Building, thinking and dwelling' and his critique of technlogy. Also his Black Notebooks.
Then read Dugin's "Heidegger: The Philosophy of another Beginning".
yes, lefitst "arguments" are all feels, indeed
>but hurrrrrrr i feel like ima stwong women trapped in a mans ballbag durrrrrrr gender dnt exist okkkkk
agreeing to a simple social courtesy like calling someone "she" when they have a dick is not comparable to letting a pyromaniac burn down your house. making these goofy slippery slope arguments just makes you look retarded.
using pronouns arent a simple social courtesy
>I am just a regular person who is against cultural degeneracy.
How is accepting other cultures and beliefs degeneracy?
Fucking hang yourself manchild.
There is a fucking ideological war being waged on campuses and it's overspilling into society
They are passing compelled speech laws in Canada, and anti islamaphobe laws.
How the hell is it as simple as accepting other cultures and beliefs? You are incredible naive.
really? you already call people by various titles, nicknames etc depending on their preference and various social rules. if i met you and i was like "call me jim. actually my real name's thomas but i hate that name so please call me jim" would you cause a big stink about it or would you just call me jim? but if i said "call me jane" it's somehow as unacceptable as unchecked pyromania? explain this to me
So you're okay with over 20 different pronouns like xe and xir, and if you get it wrong you'll get fined for hate speech
and if you don't pay the fine they sieze your property
You're entirely fine with this?
I have no problems with using pronouns that people ask me.
I don't care if you ask me to call you Jane and your real name is John. I don't care if your trans.
What I'm concerned about, are the people who say they're representatives of the trans community, when they haven't been elected so, using legislation and linguistics to wage an ideologoical war and gain power.
What I'm seeing in Canada and what Jordan Peterson is fighting against right now scares the hell out of me.
Peterson never even said he wouldn't use a persons pronoun, he said he wouldn't be compelled to by legislation, and this whole thing is blowing up because there's something seriously wrong going on.
no i'm not okay with your imaginary scenario where feminists castrate you for being a man or whatever. i'm okay with being courteous to people who struggle with functioning in society.
>he thinks you get to choose your gender
>he thinks there is more than man and woman
That's fine. I never made such a scenario, i described what's happening in some provinces of Canada. The type of scenario i described is real. It's written into the Ontario Human Rights Code, if you misgender someone it's a form of hate speech and you will be fined. It's turned from objective intent to harm people to subjective.
It doesn't matter if your intent is to harm, i feel harmed and thus you have committed hate speech.
If you don't pay the fine, you get property seized.
> i'm okay with being courteous
so why can't they be courteous to my beliefs and stop destroying western civilisation with their disgusting attempts at commanding attention and feeling "special"