There has been alot of off-topic, rude and/or unproductive threads sliding this board lately, so the time has come to make this a place of worthy politcal discussion again.
ITT: We have a friendly and lively chat about the neoreactionary movement.
No topic in particular, just make a comment about the neoreactionary movement and hopefully the conversation will lead us in a productive direction.
Some thread music,
Other urls found in this thread:
4chanlit.wikia.com
twitter.com
KEEKKEKEKEKEKEKKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKKEKEKEKEKKEKEKKEKKEKEKEKEKEKEKKEKEKEKKEEKKE NERF PROTOSS NERF TERRANS
You're the cancer killing this board.
You care to add anything to the conversation?
SUCK MY FUCKING COCK WHILE I PULL IT OUT YA DAD'S ASS HOLE
Yeah, protoss can harass my drones before i can even get zerglings or a proper number of kangs and the fucking protoss can just produce air units and fuck up my entire strat, not even corruptors can beat a fleet of carriers deathballing your hive clusters
bump for the sake of Sup Forums
Check my digits famalam
Thanks for that lovely comment.
Also the reapers at the minute 1 are the worst, i didn't even get my second hive cluster and the enemy already got liberators to harras my eco
At least one person cares. I don't even know what happened to Sup Forums anymore.
Check em'. Blizzard doesn't care about balance, no Korean prof. ever win a zvt match, ever
What politcal ideology do you support?
Are you interested in having an actual conversation?
I'm willing to read and consider any points presented to me that are not blatant shitposts.
The only win to defeat a Terran is going muta and you need a lot of eco and time to produce them, and if the enemy decide to go blue flames hellion you already lose because it counters your only units
Idk hh 14/88 somebody end my life, i stare into the abyss and it stare back at me, i am barely sentient ill never be white pls acept me and mercy kill me
And if the enemy protoss isn't a retard it make you lose all your eco or even defeat you with 2 or 3 templars
What's the difference between neoreaction and Traditionalism?
Also what do the zerg got to defend it drones ? nothing 2 or 3 kangs and nothing more
>Muh cheap units
Cheap units also mean they are weak, an upgrade swarm of marines can fuck you up very big if the enemy terran can rush with two medivacs
Bro bro bro you're totally wrong about everything
Said the Terran player
Lol pretty cringey t bh
Broooooooooo
What kind of thread you want
Just fuck my shit up senpai
Say no more
Also cloaked units are an insta gg in a lot of matches, Overseers are the only units that reveal them and it can be easily killed by an air superiority unit
>Muh harras
You can't harras if you don't even have drones bruh
>Idk hh 14/88 somebody end my life, i stare into the abyss and it stare back at me
This sounds like a mashup of random neo-nazi ideas combined with nihilism. In other words you learned to shitpost but never bothered to read much of any political/philisophical literature.
Here you go, just read whatever appeals to you. The most important thing is that you read.
>4chanlit.wikia.com
STOP DERAILING THE THREAD YOU GOD DAMN SWINE !
>Implying no matter what you do all you do is pushing a rock up a hill
30 months whitout winning a match bruh, nobody ever picked zerg and winned a match
>tfw you will never establish a monarchy
>tfw calvinists disrupt your thread
That quote is from Nietzsche, who's views on existentialism led to fascism.
Doesn't count
>reactionary
>plan nothing, freak out as though you were about 18 months old
>neoreactionary
>be polite
There's a huge overlap but as a rule traditionalist want a return to cultural norms before globablism occured ( or even centuries before current times). Neoreationary is an opposition to democracy and egalitarianism.
One is a return to traditional culture, the other is more a reaction. Functionally however they behave in very similiar ways.
Op's pic is eyes wide shut garbage
>He thinks there is satisfaction on what is already know
Shiggy diggy
And Schopenhauer
I know the quote, I know the author.
>who's views on existentialism led to fascism
I disagree on this point, his sister stole manuscripts from him while he was dying of syphalis and altered them to support anti-semitism. This isn't a conspiracy theory, it's a historical fact.
I'm not a huge fan of Nietzsche to be honest. His works are still worthy of reading time though.
Do you even know about Venice?
I have seen Eyes Wide Shut. I wasn't trying to copy the movie though. I was trying to find an example of interesting European culture.
I guess I'll use a pic of a Romanian dancing bear parade next time.
You can't even type a complete sentence properly.
Can you reformat that as a few coherent sentences and try again.
I'll respond, I promise.
Kek i got banned
If you're banned then how are you still posting?
You have the same id.
Do you think the Enlightenment was a mistake?
>Implying mods didn't just delete my post
Now i am banned
Yes
Finally a worth while thread
Can there be a fusion between traditionalist and reactionary ideals?
Yeah, why not.
The overlap is already so large that it functionally doesn't matter.
What do you think of chosing to become globally irrelevant, closed and self sufficient?
As long as you protect your unique cultural heritage a lowering of living standards is acceptable.
bump
So do you identify politically as anything?
>NRx
literal cuckolds, have fun with your Jewish overlords
Any thoughts on The Way of Men?
I know Jack Donovan is a satanist homosexual (literally), but I find myself agreeing with his writings on masculinity.
Nationalist, constitutionalist, and federalist
Seems like you could just outlaw usury and that would solve alot of problems.
I read it and liked alot of it.
I think that masculine culture is a product of taking on threats.
Now that wars between industrialized and nuclear armed nations don't occur I think that by default this has led to a decline in male culture.
Simply put, peace destroys a males place in culture over time.
Indeed. Most of the Jewish bloggers in NRx shill for Austrian econ without addressing the root of the problem. Usury is a one way funnelling of money from the poor to the rich. Also, I have no issue with authoritarian governments in homogenous small-scale societies, but in any other scenario they go to shit, which is why people put limits on the government's power in larger scale societies via egalitarian measures.
Why are neoreactionaries opposed to the enlightenment?
I have read some moldbug dark enlightenment texts, but it just doesn't appear logical to me.
The enlightenment wasn't a purely political branch of thinking. It contributed much more to the scientific method and to the way we reason than to politics, no?
...
I believe that the larger the population of a state, the more ineffectively it governs. Which is why I support the idea of city states.
>Why are neoreactionaries opposed to the enlightenment?
We oppose the french revolution for destroying the church's cultural connection with France.
We also resent the begginings of internation banking.
What's the difference between neo-reaction and reaction?
>go on politics board
>no one wants to debate political ideologies
The jidf has won
Nothing happened since Brexit and most thing are discussed on general threads like /srg/ or /trump/
>We oppose the french revolution for destroying the church's cultural connection with France.
But it's a very broad brush to go after all of the enlightenment then. The West wouldn't be where it is wasn't it for the scientific achievements in all fields that in one way or another owe their founding to the priniciples of enlightenment.
And the spark for the french revolution wasn't even the enlightenment. How it played out - yes, but the immediate cause were miserable living conditions and famine and bad governance. I just don't see how you can burden a philosophical set of ideas for what went wrong in nobility and clerus at that time.
I do think the NRx positions on democracy are valid though. It's just that I'm a scientist myself and it really baffles me that you don't see the connection between our scientific success and the enlightenment.
This and Sup Forums already has a general consensus on most issues, if you want a debate offer a challenge to the dominant viewpoint.
NRx is shit
A monarchy would be good for the first monarch, who is a good leader, but succession would fuck everything up. We would end up with little boots.
Maybe a democratic monarchy where every monarch has to have the support of the majority for more than just their name?
Who would have succeeded Hitler?
Some retard that would have probably fucked everything up
Really interesting pic.
I'm basically a separatist. How does this relate to NRx and whatnot?
You are right that the Enlightenment was not purely political, but the branch that was political included themselves in the term "enlightenment" to essentially use the prestige gained by the scientific branch for political ends. Moldbug's point is that it is wrong to think of the Enlightenment as an indivisible unit where all parts were necessary and correct for the advancement of humanity. Their ends were to justify their radically religious universalism (basically all Enlightenment political thinkers were some form of radical protestant, Locke and Rousseau were both Calvinist) as the unquestionable basis for political thought.
Neoreactionaries reject that there can ever be a single system that works for all peoples at all times. Leadership requires a knowledge of people that cannot be encoded into systems
> the spark wasn't even the enlightenment
So? The Enlightenment is what made it a revolution rather than just a revolt. The spark of a fire is not the fuel that makes it destructive.
>A monarchy would be good for the first monarch, who is a good leader, but succession would fuck everything up.
Hereditary monarchy or the adopted emperors like Trajan, Hadrian Aurelius?
If you think a monarch can be a good leader and make the right decisions for the country without having to bribe the people to reelect him, why shouldn't he be good at choosing his successor?
got any more interesting things to say/graphics?
I always knew the economy was rigged, I didn't realize it was THAT rigged. Know where I can read up on the NatSoc economic policies?
Monarchs don't have to be reelected.
I was talking about hereditary.
Even Agustus did dumb shit and he wasn't Caesar's son.
Maybe democratic monarch wasn't the right phrase but hopefully you understand what I meant by having the support of the majority
Hereditary-Elective Monarchy is also a good system. Lesser chance of complete fuck ups if the king is not an eunuch or something.
>Conservatism
>Hey guys we will just try to preserve our ways, cause you know salvation is only by belief, we swear
>t.protestocucks
I sense great heresy.
> succession would fuck everything up
little boots is an extreme example, but I get your point. There tends to be a three or four generation cycle with monarchs. The same cycle is present in wealthy families.
Generation 1 faces hardship and becomes tough and capable. They build their own success and power.
Generation 2 is raised by gen 1 to have the same skills, but doesn't have the same drive. Success is maintained, but not really increased.
Generation 3 is raised by gen 2 disconnected from all the conditions that made gen 1 great. They make bad decisions and create new hardship for their replacement, which starts another gen 1.
> democratic monarchy
If the people have final say legally, aren't they, in effect, the rulers? A democratic monarchy seems like contradiction in terms. Monarchy ultimately requires a single person to be legally answerable only to himself. The monarch must be sovereign in his domain, representing the people according to his own judgment.
I agree with your 3 generation cycle except gen 3 tends to perpetuate more gen 3s.
I already admitted democratic monarchy was the wrong phrase. is more accurate of what I meant, but not perfect.
Maybe all citizens will have to join the army of who they want and then might makes right so to speak.
Once the ruler is in place they rule for life unless the people find them unsuitable and rise up and kill them. Not the military but the people.
I'm a bit drunk so I'm probably not explaining this properly but hopefully someone understands what I'm getting at
>Maybe democratic monarch wasn't the right phrase but hopefully you understand what I meant by having the support of the majority
Yeah, yeah I get it.
It's just that you said " succession would fuck everything up".
So would you say a non-hereditary monarchy is better?
>Their ends were to justify their radically religious universalism as the unquestionable basis for political thought.
Ah ok. I'm on board with that. Universalism is a plague.
>Neoreactionaries reject that there can ever be a single system that works for all peoples at all times. Leadership requires a knowledge of people that cannot be encoded into systems
I fully agree with that one. I really should pick up the dark enlightenment stuff again. Was a good read, too.
Another question:
Don't you think that we move away further and further from the original goals of the enlightenment period?
We look more for correlations and don't care about the reasons any more (in sociology or in high frequency trading or even in politics). Also we can't dare to question certain paradigms any more with political correctness being rampant.
Also I'm of the opinion that someone who never served in the military should not be allowed to rule their country
>So would you say a non-hereditary monarchy is better?
For the most part yes, but if the monarch taught their kids to rule properly they would be the next monarch.
Like said it should be both depending on who is the best for the country
When I said succession would fuck everything up I meant hereditary succession hence the little boots reference.
>Who would have succeeded Hitler?
>Some retard that would have probably fucked everything up
Until I saw this, I was about to write off the thread as worthless.
But this guy is comedy gold.
Hitler, obama, Merkel, Stalin. Every human ever who had power left unchecked, will always fuck things up and kill a lot of people. Always.
The only stable society is a small one, with legally limited, i.e.ineffectual, leadership.
Texas is a good example. The legislative branch meets every second year for a few months, and everyone has someone who can stop them cold.
>What politcal ideology do you support?
Lambrightism.
The gist, as I understand it from the outside, is that technological progress during the enlightenment masked societal decay. Year after year, for the past three centuries, we've compensated for social problems with technical solutions, but that can't go on indefinitely.
Technology and manufacturing won't do you any good if the rate of technological progress is slower than the rate of civilisational decline. There will come a point at which new inventions can't compensate for dysgenic immigration and reproduction policies.
Moldbug's solution is to create a high birth-rate subculture within which IQ and virtue are selective pressures, then wait for the world around you to fail, and take the reins when they're offered. No idea if that will work or not, but becoming a virtuous person and interacting with other virtuous people is a good thing in and of itself.
Are you saying Hitler was a bad leader?
Yes he overextended his country, but that was out of necessity to defend his people.
Also
>Obama
>unchecked power
Get fucked
I believe that the ideal society would be a small country, most the population concetrated in a large city, clearly defined culture, insular to outside world and possess an advanced manufacturing base of nanoassembler technology.
I believe that the ideal military would basically be a supreme commander situation. One human with nanoassembers could fabricate a robotic army anywhere. Robotic servants could maintain a city in an immaculate state.
What I see occuring in the future is a crisis of spirituality and culture. Our technology will be fantastic but our sense of morality and identity will atrophy.
bump for discourse
One last bump for a petentionally good thread.
Or has all discourse been slid?
When will our thoughts turn to food?
Does the very nature of this medium (Internet) mean that we have no clue what food is and where it comes from.
Tell me where you could find 1 weeks worth of food for your family if it didn't come from a store.
Thank you for shitposting
>Tell me where you could find 1 weeks worth of food for your family if it didn't come from a store
I have more than a weeks worth of food already.
And before you ask I can hunt or fish for food
Why is this thread being slid so hard?
Does the jidf not want us even discussing alternatives to the status quo?
Dumb question I know but I've never seen a slide this blantant
>IQ and virtue are selective pressures
Those seem to be mutually exclusive.
With higher "intelligence" (in what context?) comes the ability to justify any action for "the Greater Good". There are countless examples.
C-students make the best CEOs.
>Are you saying Hitler was a bad leader?
lol
No, destroying his people was fine.
>most the population concetrated in a large city
Baltimore? Detroit?
Can you name a large city that isn't in debt and decay?
>One human with nanoassembers could fabricate a robotic army anywhere
Sorry, I thought you were serious.
I wish people dressed like that more often.
>Does the jidf not want us even discussing alternatives to the status quo?
>did dey steal all ya'lls moneys too?
>sheeeeit, mang.
Ask your man to explain it to you, hon.
I know you're a girl because you're beta. Even so, if dey stealin yo moneys, you go be stealin it back. Don't be a pussy.
Hitler didn't destroy his people, the allies (jew puppets) did
Who said anything about money Schlomo?
Is that all you think about?
Get fucked kike
>lately
It has gotten worse
they were burning porn and garbage degeneracy
There is always a background level of shitposting and shitty threads but lately the ratio has become really bad.
>The gist, as I understand it from the outside, is that technological progress during the enlightenment masked societal decay. Year after year, for the past three centuries, we've compensated for social problems with technical solutions, but that can't go on indefinitely.
Yes, that's what I took away from it, too.
>Technology and manufacturing won't do you any good if the rate of technological progress is slower than the rate of civilisational decline.
Not sure if that's how it is playing out though. I still think our civilisation peaked in the mid to late 19th century. That's way into the three centuries you are speaking of.
>There will come a point at which new inventions can't compensate for dysgenic immigration and reproduction policies.
Strange isn't it? Now that we understand how evolution works we shy away from using this understanding to our advantage. Will be interesting when technological progress will be able to routinely genetically engineer humans. That's when these two developments will cross each other again.
>becoming a virtuous person and interacting with other virtuous people is a good thing in and of itself.
sure. Might become difficult to get an all around accepted set of "virtues" going though. Also I'm not sure how strongly you can evolutionary select for virtues. That's more of a meme than a gene, I think.
Some posts are too stupid to reply to.
And any works that disagreed with the destruction of Germa...I mean...the Glorious Socialist State.
I remember a few years back those festival masks were spammed here, it was a thing for a while, never did find out why, pretty nice desu senpai
Yet you replied
Man U > Liverpool
>Year after year, for the past three centuries, we've compensated for social problems with technical solutions
Great discussion for a college class with the cool Philosophy prof.
Meaningless, because there are no specifics, and only vague glued-together connections that don't stand up to scrutiny.