Who is your favorite right-wing philosopher?

Hobbes

Hobbes was a liberal.

ED-G

...

Hobbes was an authoritarian.

Hobbes was a proto-Marxist

Hobbes was a Neo-Platonist.

Marx was a Post-Neo-Platonist

Donald Trump.

why has capitalism and materialism eaten everything alive except islam?

Because Islam as a return to Judaicism is inherently materialist

explain pls

Islam like Judaicism isn't predicated on a relationship to God through Christ revealing the holy spirit in all men.
As such reason will always be subordinate to the law, the very idea of reason coming into conflict with scripture is not even contemplatable. Its why Christian Science Universities exist and evolution was such a flammatory debate yet there's no such concerns in the Islamic world. There can be no conflict between Islam and materialism.

Sir Roger

>thought it was okay to do things that weren't explicitly permitted or banned by the government

When it comes to English Authoritarians, Hobbes is on the left.

unironically

Jesus of Nazareth

...

He died as a radical, deliberate centrist, he wasn't right-wing.

Nietzsche nailed it on the jews promoting slave morality to weaken the host group they are subverting.

Whoops. Pic related is part 1.

...

read 1st
read 2nd

It only makes sense, since the Jews came out of a raw mass of freed Hebrew slaves.

so how is islam > materialism, materialist?

libertarianism confirmed for AIDS

he was a crypto-fascist you nerd

he died a flaming homosexual with a dick in his mouth

absolut kek, I swear this guy was just hiding behind Marxism in order to espouse his fucking hatred for everything in society.

According to them, but they have a tendency to promote themselves as the eternal victim so I don't know how much weight I'd give their muh Egyptian slave narrative.

what are we defining as "right-wing"?

is it just someone who's a bit cuntish....because thats the general gist im getting

Heidegger

based adorno

Its quasi-materialism since there is no possible contradiction between reducing the universe to a system of exchanges and the divine.
As opposed to Christianity which asserts a transcendental character to our relationship to the world and each other.

There was the Babylonian captivity even before that.

Right, but I think that was more of a 'we have to get these sick people away from us' and not a make them toil in fields thing. Personally I don't think they were ever really slaves; jews have likely always been a usurious elite. But didn't mean to split hairs. Doesn't matter, if you get the JQ we're on the same page.

I think it's best to define right and left along a sort of feeling you get.

For instance, there's always the debate over whether Hitler was a left-winger or a right-winger, usually hinging on the fact that he was a Socialist. I don't really think socialism is inherently right or left wing, revolutionary or counterrevolutionary. Even if you look in the history of Socialist thought (not just Marx of course, but to Utopians before and Anglo types after) you get ex-Royalists and people who were mentored by Carlyle, etc.

Hell, many socialists and commies of old would be considered hard right wingers today if not just because of their opinions on Homosexuality.

A lot of extreme Trad or Nazi types of right-wingers wanna try to define it based on materialist/non-materialist, which I think is a little absurd since it would put some cold, hard, Machiavellian realists who were doubtlessly on the right on the Left!

There's a debate over whether or not libertarianism is right or left wing, I think libertarianism is something on its own that can be split into right and left, and you can categorize it pretty cleanly from there. (Sheldon Richman, Reason Magazine types on the left, Hoppe, Rockwell, Ron Paul on the right.) Though that's also confusing the ideology, ethical system, and movement together.

I think a defining thing about a right-winger is an opposition to some left. Maybe. On second thought that's not very good as well, since Trotsky and Stalin both seemed to be on the left. Which was more left?

None of those people are left libertarians, left libertarianism (or just libertarianism on the civilized world) was a thing way before retarded ancaps decided to LARP Thomas Jefferson.

The distinction of left and right, while a bit complicated to be absolutely made, should be thought in terms of "pro private property" x "against private property". And Hitler was most definitely a right winger, this "debate" is futile shit promoted by retarded ancaps wanting to distance themselves from the disgusting legacy of capitalism.

It could also be reframed as hierarchy vs non-hierarchy. There's a ton of definitions.

>Heidegger

him. hasn't been topped.

There are no solid definitions for left-wing or right-wing.

I can't believe we are still using this archaic spectrum. It is descriptively useless.

Because it's impossible to set up any kind of common interest when you use a political axis with more than one dimension, it becomes impossible to create an aggregate of median interest. Do you understannd what I'm saying?

Even though it's not entirely accurate to call him "right wing."

I feel the same way about Rousseau

Andrew Macdonald

>disgusting legacy of capitalism

Right-wing vs Left-wing should be reconsidered as a spectrum of, broadly, "inclusive" politics on the left, where international communism represents the inclusive extreme, and "exclusive" politics on the right, where Ethnonationalism/Fascism represent the exclusive extreme

This would also put An-Cap, Libertarianism etc. in the category of economic ideologies where they belong

You're falling prey to the deceptive language of the left by using morally charged words like "inclusive" and "exclusive". This is how the Jewish post WW2 elite has been able to create a default consensus in low information people. The real "right" (not the cucked right) simply wants to follow the rules of nature, whereas the jewish-led left want to destroy racial identity by mixing people together and calling anyone who objects as "exclusive" and therefore an immoral menace. Not to mention rayciss.

then this thread is dildos

they used to say it was based on ideas of human nature.

left - man is a social being, a creative producer and rational

right - man is individualist and driven by wants/needs. classical liberals would see people as rational whereas conservatives see man as deeply irrational when it comes to controlling his passions and security seeking.

something like that. Not perfect but its a starting point

>I think it's best to define right and left along a sort of feeling you get.

get the fuck out you bona fide retard

>implying you're able to use your intellect when you're right-wing

>rules of nature

this is even worse than inclusive and exclusive

No, it's not. Nature is constructed by a natural hierarchy. It's only through modern comfort, jewish propaganda, and neoliberal funny money economic policies that the historical dregs of western societies such as women and fags have been convinced that they can maintain western civilization instead of the strongest and most adept men. And this lack of adherence to nature is precisely why western societies are presently collapsing and being invaded.

Right-wing only exists in opposition to the left. And the "left" by itself has no coherent worldview either because it adapts to the necessities of power politics, so leftist can be either a progressive, whiggish triumphalit, as in the XIXth century and nowadays, or a relativist critical of the Enlightenment, as with Foucault.

For making me realize that, Olavo de Carvalho is my favorite right-wing philosopher.

>nature
This is a very poorly structured argument, but I can see why some would find it seductive. I would agree that nature, by the mere fact that it is predicated upon survival and the perpetuation of energy, leads to various hierarchies, but extrapolating this onto socio-economic systems is a mistake. By the same logic, monopolies which make the use of the power of the state to protect their assets, then drive out competition by driving down prices for a few years and operating at a loss for everyone except the stakeholders are just as natural as say... communism as force and power are applied by both state and private enterprises in various manners. Or you could argue that one is 'more natural' than the other, but the nature argument is highly circular and easy to manipulate according to your political goals. Not to mention the fact that determining what is 'natural' at that socio-economic level, does not render it as the right course of action. But that's a different point.

he sounds like a bellend

Disagree. What the "right" represents, or should represent, is a natural order comprised of an aristocracy of men who protect a polity of people underneath them. The left is the force against that, and attains power by taking it away from those men and giving it to others under the guise of abstract, meaningless concepts like "equality" and so on. So it's essentially the opposite: the left is reacting against the natural order of the right. A force against nature, a force under the mistaken belief that it can change nature.

If you can, read Cioran's essay on De Maistre. Really made me think about the art of trolling.

There is variation within it but it's correct. This is how every society is socially constructed.

The nomenklatura and the Chekists in the Soviet Union comprised an aristocracy o mwn who protected a polity of people underneath them.

Because that is the natural way societies organize. With communism, however, the elite you're referring to were largely jewish and only became the new elite after overthrowing the aristocratic order in a bolshevik and murdering the native Russian elite. Then Stalin purged them and they fled to Israel and the US.

*bolshevik coup

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Bertrand de Jouvenel, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn.

Going anti-Enlightenment and looking backwards to the era of Kings rather than forward to the era of Techno-autocracies seems to be a losing battle against postmodernism. Carvalho gets it that the (popular and populist respectively) contemporary Left and Right movements are only there to hold political power on the hands of whoever already has that power, but his proposed solution is as far away as Marx's, because he's trying to use intellect against postmodern thinking, which is impervious to intellectual scrutiny. To be fair actually, I think he does know that the "Left" he opposes does not care about reason at all, but he also refuses to put them on their place with some of the very tools he finds to be disgusting, like extreme focus on technological control of populations for instance. He also clings on to astrology and to denouncing classical physics as being trash because they do not include transcendental values.

In the end his way of thinking is what makes most of the "Right" and alt-right movements to fall short in face of postmodern progressive thinking. People like Peterson are doomed to become irrelevant because they want to recover virtues that are long gone instead of embracing the capital and attempting to build some new structure into our modern chaos.

You are in a site in which people sexualize anthropomorphized wolves wearing diapers, humanity has lost any claim to "nature" long ago.
You fail to mention how he disproved Einstein, Newton and what not, this man is a hack and the main reason why brazilian right wing is downright laughable.

wow nice pic of Chomsky you got there

>You are in a site in which people sexualize anthropomorphized wolves wearing diapers

Yes, it's sad how people devolve when they are atomized against their own kind and given absolute freedom to indulge in a postmodern cornucopia of hedonistic pleasures. It's the people who promote and normalize this behavior who are the problem, though. Those in charge of the culture: jews.

Lets be honest, in 2017, left wing = supports demographic replacement while right wing = trying to resist it.

Some would argue there is no one really promoting the normalization of this behavior, and that this is simply an automated historical process, which naturally arises from having every value devolve into raw economic value.

How could any small group of people be in charge of culture? For that to happen it would first be required that every previous culture is reduced to a homogeneous thing which parts can be internally interchangeable (there's globalization for you). Without this requirement, cultures would simply be mostly incompatible with each other and with the global market, and it would not be possible (at the very least, not very fruitful) to attempt changing them all into being consumerism-centered. And who would forfeit globalization for the sake of ending postmodernism? The jews sure wouldn't, but you can be sure most others wouldn't either.

He criticized the political use of Newtonian physics by XVIIIth century rationalist philosophers like Voltaire, not Newtonian physics themselves.

And he was right, the belief that human society responded to immutable rules and could be therefore manipulated just like the physical world led to the Reign of Terror, and later, to the crimes of communism.

That seems like a silly way to think about it. Within a culture, things don't just happen on their own, they are guided by the elite in charge of cultural institutions, in the west's case, jews. Perhaps you aren't well read on how jews are overwhelmingly in charge of the west's institutions and use their positions to promote degeneracy? I'd be happy to point you in the right direction if you're interested.

>itt unironic antisemitism
>implying that if Jews do control the world we shouldn't bow down to them as a masterrace

here,

I suppose would be justified in claiming Jews are very bad at running things if they do run the show. Wealth inequality is reaching the breaking point where it cannot be explained away by any merit and rent-seeking is driving innovation and development down to pre-war levels. Not to mention the cultural breakdown of values (regardless if moved by the capital or by Jews) that both conventional Left and Right acknowledge, one going in its direction and another opposing it.

Frankly I definitely have to read more in order to be able to grasp at how people can shape cultures from inside out without themselves being affected by this movement. But I won't rule it out either.

You obviously seem to grasp the fundamental problems at hand, just have to read some Kevin Macdonald / CofC now.

In a nutshell, jews have never run anything. They've never built cultural or political institutions, and they didn't even have their own country in which to try to build them until recently. But they have progressively come to be in charge of western institutions as they've slowly out maneuvered the white aristocratic elite over the last century or so. Since they are a people who operate through subversion and in hate-filled opposition to the people they live among, they're using their control over these institutions to blatantly attack white people and to implode our nations through mass immigration, feminism, low brow television, nignog music, porn, and on and on and on. They are programmed to destroy, not build. This is what's at the root of why people are becoming increasingly aware that something is seriously wrong. Because they consciously or not realize that are being attacked.

Might be entry-level, but unironically Burke. I was pretty lefty before reading him, but something about his simple reasonableness resonated. Not to mention, how prescient he was.