He wanted to preserve slavery (chud) and force the slave owners to pay support for the slaves and their families until they died (moronic). Chud + moronic = moronic chud
>He wanted to preserve slavery
how is that chud? >and force the slave owners to pay support for the slaves and their families until they died
how is that moronic? Sounds pretty alright considering what actually happened to emancipated slaves
no, the chud position is being anti-slavery because that means having to live with Black folk. the christian position is preserving slavery until industrial labor becomes less satanic which would've happened when the landed gentry families died. obviously neither of these are issues now and most people just want blacks and foreigners to go back their nations and industrial jobs to go back to the west but it was important then.
Carlyle isn't a moronic chud and was highly regarded by everybody in his day, perhaps if you read Carlyle or even just read about Carlyle you would know that but instead you get your opinions and understanding of historical figures through the internet.
Carlyle made Burke irrelevant. >Burke was essentially a Whig, and only, on reaching the verge of the chasm towards which Whiggism from the first was inevitably leading, recoiled; and, like a man vehement rather than earnest, a resplendent far-sighted Rhetorician rather than a deep sure Thinker, recoiled with no measure, convulsively, and damaging what he drove back with him.
This. Completely correct. Burke is perfect as the "father of conservatism" because he's a perfect example of how conservatives always cuck out. Burke was perfectly fine with the English Revolution and the American Revolution and it was only the French Revolution where he chimped out. This, despite the fact that the Jacobins were merely taking the ideas of America and England to their logical conclusion.
Burke wasn't right-wing, he was a progressive who wanted to drive under the speed limit. A perfect cuckservative.
Contrast him with Samuel Johnson, who DID have a problem with both the English Revolution AND the American Revolution. He actually wrote a pamphlet called "Taxation, No Tyranny" condemning the American rebels.
Reactionaries are rebels from the right-wing. That's why they're succeeding while "normal" conservatism is collapsing. Burke's time is over, it's the time of de Maistre now.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Reactionaries
lol. Maistre was Catholic. Carlyle and Ruskin and Johnson were all tending towards fuedalism/medievalism which was the historical full expression of Catholicism.
It's Catholics.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Carlyle was not a catholic and neither was Johnson. what do you even mean by "medievalism"
Feudalism is the term that refers to the leasing of land to a person who becomes tied to it and works it on behalf of his liege lord.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Medievalism in this context refers to the idealisation of the Middle Ages that characterized much of the Victorian-era critique of capitalism and industrial society (see Carlyle, Ruskin, Morris, et al).
2 months ago
Anonymous
I see, so it doesn't actually have much to do with feudalism but moreso just a desire for actual good rulers and leadership. Fail to see what that has to do with catholicism
2 months ago
Anonymous
>a desire for actual good rulers and leadership
Broadly speaking, this is true. History has no shortage of models in this vein, yet what makes these authors unique is their fixation on the Middle Ages, an epoch which is indissolubly linked to Christianity and Catholicism in particular. Every aspect of medieval civilization, feudalism included, grew out of the Church and her teaching. And yes, they often did indeed praise feudalism by name -- even Disraeli did so in parliament. The specific allegiances of the authors in question is irrelevant. They saw that the fruits of the medieval Church are the only effective means with which to combat liberal modernity, which is about as good as one can ask for from a non-believer.
2 months ago
Anonymous
feudalism more than likely actually came about via conquest of one people over another in wake of the fall of the roman empire, as you never really see it happen in Scandinavia.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Johnson wasn't Catholic, however, he DID dislike the deposition of the Stuarts, and was a sometimes-supporter of the Jacobite cause.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Except most Catholics totally cucked out and don't oppose the modern order at all, including their current pope who is more than amicable to the state of affairs we're in. Even their great writers like Chesterton are not that radical. Want actual opponents of liberal modernity? Honestly your best bet are Muslims. People like Carlyle, Ruskin, Tolstoy etc are wise but impractical.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Carlyle is a moron. Not really wise. At best he’s eloquent.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Carlylegays are pseudonazis. They do not like de Maistre. Read the room.
Carlyle made Burke irrelevant. >Burke was essentially a Whig, and only, on reaching the verge of the chasm towards which Whiggism from the first was inevitably leading, recoiled; and, like a man vehement rather than earnest, a resplendent far-sighted Rhetorician rather than a deep sure Thinker, recoiled with no measure, convulsively, and damaging what he drove back with him.
Burke supported American independence, and was definitely a deep thinker, based on the essay's I've read of him.
Advocacy for tradition and patriarchy is in many cases a category mistake (and thus pointless, relativistic soap-boxing). Advocate for the selection mechanism, and let reality sort it out. If you want direct promotion of specific positive policy, that's social conservatism, not Neoreaction.
The selection mechanism is precisely what has gotten us into this mess. Enough of it, it's time put our thumbs on the scale and start tearing things down. The Left understands this, when will the Right catch up?
how is Carlyle a "moronic chud"?
He wanted to preserve slavery (chud) and force the slave owners to pay support for the slaves and their families until they died (moronic). Chud + moronic = moronic chud
>He wanted to preserve slavery
how is that chud?
>and force the slave owners to pay support for the slaves and their families until they died
how is that moronic? Sounds pretty alright considering what actually happened to emancipated slaves
lol you're too far gone
Nah, you're probably just autistic
Being pro-slavery is a textbook chud position.
name every chud who advocates for slavery.
no, the chud position is being anti-slavery because that means having to live with Black folk. the christian position is preserving slavery until industrial labor becomes less satanic which would've happened when the landed gentry families died. obviously neither of these are issues now and most people just want blacks and foreigners to go back their nations and industrial jobs to go back to the west but it was important then.
He disagrees with 21st century ivy League politics
Carlyle isn't a moronic chud and was highly regarded by everybody in his day, perhaps if you read Carlyle or even just read about Carlyle you would know that but instead you get your opinions and understanding of historical figures through the internet.
OP here, I'm trans btw
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlyle%E2%80%93Emerson_correspondence
Your precious Carlyle married a troony lmao
An old woman is a troony to Twitter progressives now? Epic dunk
>old woman
"She" has no wrinkles and her hair is not white yet. "She" was just an ugly troony.
>Twitter progressives
Nice boogeyman, moron.
Thanks for the confirmation
he hated her for a reason. i would too if i was married to that
Carlyle made Burke irrelevant.
>Burke was essentially a Whig, and only, on reaching the verge of the chasm towards which Whiggism from the first was inevitably leading, recoiled; and, like a man vehement rather than earnest, a resplendent far-sighted Rhetorician rather than a deep sure Thinker, recoiled with no measure, convulsively, and damaging what he drove back with him.
This. Completely correct. Burke is perfect as the "father of conservatism" because he's a perfect example of how conservatives always cuck out. Burke was perfectly fine with the English Revolution and the American Revolution and it was only the French Revolution where he chimped out. This, despite the fact that the Jacobins were merely taking the ideas of America and England to their logical conclusion.
Burke wasn't right-wing, he was a progressive who wanted to drive under the speed limit. A perfect cuckservative.
Contrast him with Samuel Johnson, who DID have a problem with both the English Revolution AND the American Revolution. He actually wrote a pamphlet called "Taxation, No Tyranny" condemning the American rebels.
Rebels are kino. Chuds are low test.
Reactionaries are rebels from the right-wing. That's why they're succeeding while "normal" conservatism is collapsing. Burke's time is over, it's the time of de Maistre now.
>Reactionaries
lol. Maistre was Catholic. Carlyle and Ruskin and Johnson were all tending towards fuedalism/medievalism which was the historical full expression of Catholicism.
It's Catholics.
Carlyle was not a catholic and neither was Johnson. what do you even mean by "medievalism"
Feudalism is the term that refers to the leasing of land to a person who becomes tied to it and works it on behalf of his liege lord.
Medievalism in this context refers to the idealisation of the Middle Ages that characterized much of the Victorian-era critique of capitalism and industrial society (see Carlyle, Ruskin, Morris, et al).
I see, so it doesn't actually have much to do with feudalism but moreso just a desire for actual good rulers and leadership. Fail to see what that has to do with catholicism
>a desire for actual good rulers and leadership
Broadly speaking, this is true. History has no shortage of models in this vein, yet what makes these authors unique is their fixation on the Middle Ages, an epoch which is indissolubly linked to Christianity and Catholicism in particular. Every aspect of medieval civilization, feudalism included, grew out of the Church and her teaching. And yes, they often did indeed praise feudalism by name -- even Disraeli did so in parliament. The specific allegiances of the authors in question is irrelevant. They saw that the fruits of the medieval Church are the only effective means with which to combat liberal modernity, which is about as good as one can ask for from a non-believer.
feudalism more than likely actually came about via conquest of one people over another in wake of the fall of the roman empire, as you never really see it happen in Scandinavia.
Johnson wasn't Catholic, however, he DID dislike the deposition of the Stuarts, and was a sometimes-supporter of the Jacobite cause.
Except most Catholics totally cucked out and don't oppose the modern order at all, including their current pope who is more than amicable to the state of affairs we're in. Even their great writers like Chesterton are not that radical. Want actual opponents of liberal modernity? Honestly your best bet are Muslims. People like Carlyle, Ruskin, Tolstoy etc are wise but impractical.
Carlyle is a moron. Not really wise. At best he’s eloquent.
Carlylegays are pseudonazis. They do not like de Maistre. Read the room.
Johnson was close friends with Burke and loved him despite Johnson being a Tory
Burke supported American independence, and was definitely a deep thinker, based on the essay's I've read of him.
the two fathers of conservatism are burke and Joseph de Maistre
the more pol like one is maistre
Advocacy for tradition and patriarchy is in many cases a category mistake (and thus pointless, relativistic soap-boxing). Advocate for the selection mechanism, and let reality sort it out. If you want direct promotion of specific positive policy, that's social conservatism, not Neoreaction.
The selection mechanism is precisely what has gotten us into this mess. Enough of it, it's time put our thumbs on the scale and start tearing things down. The Left understands this, when will the Right catch up?
His essays on the imagination are great. Shame no one cares to read them.
where can I find these essays of his that these mentioned subjects?