Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVI: Making Things Right Again

[EastKekistan]

Sure. I have edited my post though.

I responded. You very clearly haven't read any of the philosophical work associated with traditionalism. Or you'd know that sociology, aesthetics, theology, philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, experience, etc. all go into melding the paradigm.

Sure. That doesn't change the fact that the average trad and fashionist are a lot less intellectual than people with any ideology. The bars are very low..anyone can be a trad or fashionist simply by doing whatever others do.

[Hanafuridake]

Ooh, what's the bad news about Aristotle?

"Traditionalist conservatism, also known as classical conservatism and traditional conservatism, is a political philosophy or ideology emphasizing the need for the principles of a transcendent moral order, manifested through certain natural laws to which society ought to conform in a prudent manner. Shortened to traditionalism and in the United Kingdom and Canada referred to as Toryism, traditionalist conservatism is a variant of conservatism based on the political philosophies of Aristotle and Edmund Burke. Traditionalists emphasize the bonds of social order and the defense of ancestral institutions over what it considers excessive individualism."

Would you consider me a traditional conservative under this definition?

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

"Traditionalist conservatism, also known as classical conservatism and traditional conservatism, is a political philosophy or ideology emphasizing the need for the principles of a transcendent moral order, manifested through certain natural laws to which society ought to conform in a prudent manner. Shortened to traditionalism and in the United Kingdom and Canada referred to as Toryism, traditionalist conservatism is a variant of conservatism based on the political philosophies of Aristotle and Edmund Burke. Traditionalists emphasize the bonds of social order and the defense of ancestral institutions over what it considers excessive individualism."

Would you consider me a traditional conservative under this definition?

I was wondering the same question, actually. What with the whole "society ought to conform to a moral order that transcends the mere whims of the self" bit.

[Al Mumtahanah]

He's mostly correct.

No he isn't, traditionalists have been making philosophical justifications for traditions for thousands of years, they absolutely think for themselves.

Traditionalists put the cart before the horse, deciding something then justifying it after the fact is not thinking for yourself.

[Al Mumtahanah]

No he isn't, traditionalists have been making philosophical justifications for traditions for thousands of years, they absolutely think for themselves.

Yes, there are a few people like that. Way less than either atheists or fundamentalists both of which were a departure from trad norms.

Atheism is just one step further than radical Protestants and Wahhabis. These people questioned almost everything related to religion other than the sacred books themselves. Atheists just questioned one more thing, sacred books.

Similarly exclusive monotheism is just one step from atheism, namely exclusive monotheism in fact contains a lot of anti-religious elements..they reject the existence of all but one deity..and atheists just reject one more.

Wahhabism doesn't question tradition, just fish.

[EastKekistan]

Yes, there are a few people like that. Way less than either atheists or fundamentalists both of which were a departure from trad norms.

Atheism is just one step further than radical Protestants and Wahhabis. These people questioned almost everything related to religion other than the sacred books themselves. Atheists just questioned one more thing, sacred books.

Similarly exclusive monotheism is just one step from atheism, namely exclusive monotheism in fact contains a lot of anti-religious elements..they reject the existence of all but one deity..and atheists just reject one more.

Wahhabism doesn't question tradition, just fish.

It certainly threw away a large part of the pre-Wahhabi Middle Eastern culture it believes is incompatible with their interpretation of Islam. They clearly got into serious conflict with traditional authorities and the common people of the day which is why Ottomans tried to destroy them.

Wahhabism : Islam = Puritanism : Christianity

[Fahran]

Sure. That doesn't change the fact that the average trad and fashionist are a lot less intellectual than people with any ideology. The bars are very low..anyone can be a trad or fashionist simply by doing whatever others do.

1.) Tradition and fashion are distinct from one another.

2.) Your conception of what constitutes traditionalism is reminiscent of Oakeshott's argument about it being more of a tendency than a concrete political paradigm.

3.) Most of the college students I've met perceive the world from a liberal perspective and frame their policy arguments accordingly.

[Al Mumtahanah]

Wahhabism doesn't question tradition, just fish.

It certainly threw away a large part of the pre-Wahhabi Middle Eastern culture it believes is incompatible with their interpretation of Islam. They clearly got into serious conflict with traditional authorities and the common people of the day which is why Ottomans tried to destroy them.

Wahhabism : Islam = Puritanism : Christianity

I meant fiqh, stupid spellcheck. Precedent and tasawwuf are important elements of Islam but distinct from theological tradition. The late Ottomans were ardently anti tradition, they banned the turban and legalized homosexuality.

[Salus Maior]

Ooh, what's the bad news about Aristotle?

"Traditionalist conservatism, also known as classical conservatism and traditional conservatism, is a political philosophy or ideology emphasizing the need for the principles of a transcendent moral order, manifested through certain natural laws to which society ought to conform in a prudent manner. Shortened to traditionalism and in the United Kingdom and Canada referred to as Toryism, traditionalist conservatism is a variant of conservatism based on the political philosophies of Aristotle and Edmund Burke. Traditionalists emphasize the bonds of social order and the defense of ancestral institutions over what it considers excessive individualism."

Sounds like a fit for me. Although I haven't gotten around to reading Aristotle or Burke.

[EastKekistan]

Sure. That doesn't change the fact that the average trad and fashionist are a lot less intellectual than people with any ideology. The bars are very low..anyone can be a trad or fashionist simply by doing whatever others do.

1.) Tradition and fashion are distinct from one another.

2.) Your conception of what constitutes traditionalism is reminiscent of Oakeshott's argument about it being more of a tendency than a concrete political paradigm.

3.) Most of the college students I've met perceive the world from a liberal perspective and frame their policy arguments accordingly.

(1) Yes but they tend to attract people with comparable quality, that is, the lowest quality.

(2) You are right.

(3) Most college libs are fashionists. They only know how to repeat others' arguments.

[Greater Adamsia]

"Traditionalist conservatism, also known as classical conservatism and traditional conservatism, is a political philosophy or ideology emphasizing the need for the principles of a transcendent moral order, manifested through certain natural laws to which society ought to conform in a prudent manner. Shortened to traditionalism and in the United Kingdom and Canada referred to as Toryism, traditionalist conservatism is a variant of conservatism based on the political philosophies of Aristotle and Edmund Burke. Traditionalists emphasize the bonds of social order and the defense of ancestral institutions over what it considers excessive individualism."

Sounds like a fit for me. Although I haven't gotten around to reading Aristotle or Burke.

Tbh, my current philosophy owes more to Aristotle than to Burke. However, I might re-read Burke soon.

[Greater Adamsia]

Although, as I've mentioned before, my philosophy owes more to Plato, Mozi, Kant, and Hobbes than to Aristotle and such. As much as I have a profound intellectual respect for Aristotle, I have a few quibbles that, sadly, I am unable to elucidate upon in sufficient detail at this time.

[Salus Maior]

Sounds like a fit for me. Although I haven't gotten around to reading Aristotle or Burke.

Tbh, my current philosophy owes more to Aristotle than to Burke. However, I might re-read Burke soon.

Yeah, right now I'm trying to read more spiritual/historical material so I haven't gotten into more political works. Although really I should, I don't think my political philosophy is as developed as it should be.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Tbh, my current philosophy owes more to Aristotle than to Burke. However, I might re-read Burke soon.

Yeah, right now I'm trying to read more spiritual/historical material so I haven't gotten into more political works. Although really I should, I don't think my political philosophy is as developed as it should be.

Ooh, any book recommendations?

[Salus Maior]

Yeah, right now I'm trying to read more spiritual/historical material so I haven't gotten into more political works. Although really I should, I don't think my political philosophy is as developed as it should be.

Ooh, any book recommendations?

I've mostly been reading stuff of particular interest to me so it's a bit random. But right now I'm reading 'Nicholas and Alexandra' and GK Chesterton's biography on St.Thomas Aquinas.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Ooh, any book recommendations?

I've mostly been reading stuff of particular interest to me so it's a bit random. But right now I'm reading 'Nicholas and Alexandra' and GK Chesterton's biography on St.Thomas Aquinas.

Thank you, Salus. In turn, I'll provide some book recommendations of my own. For basic/light philosophical reading, I recommend Spinoza's Ethics and Marcus Aurelius's Meditations; although, I'm sure that y'all have read those two already since y'all are a clever bunch. An acquaintance of mine on a Discord server that discusses philosophy and the sciences recommended The Fabric of Reality and The Beginning of Infinity by Dr. David Deutsch to me, but I haven't gotten around to them yet. I'd also recommend the work I was assigned to read over the summer by my university for one of my classes; this work is called Poor Economics and it provides a fascinating look into the counterintuitive economic challenges among the world's poorest, who live on less than one USD per day. Lastly, with regards to fiction, I found The Massacre of Mankind, a sequel to The War of the Worlds written by SF author Stephen Baxter and authorized by H.G. Wells's estate, to be a wonderfully engaging read.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I've noticed that too. Since western ultranationalists can't really call themselves patriots because a lot of what they want goes against the values of their country.

Western ultranats have done nothing wrong. I actually respect those who want an ethnoglobe and genocide of all non-ingroup members even though I hope and believe they will be deterred for it is a perfectly normal line of thought.

If Tribe A and Tribe B know that each other exist there is always some possibility that the other tribe will start a genocidal preemptive strike. If the possibility of a genocidal preemptive strike succeeding is sufficiently high we will get genocidal preemptive strikes. It's all downstream from the circumstances not very different from why feudalism was stable before good firearms and unstable after them. If you think it was actually mostly about changing moral preferences then you are mistaken.

It's not a normal line of thought, it's psychotic.

[Conserative Morality]

Ooh, any book recommendations?

I've mostly been reading stuff of particular interest to me so it's a bit random. But right now I'm reading 'Nicholas and Alexandra' and GK Chesterton's biography on St.Thomas Aquinas.

My man

[Fahran]

Would you consider me a traditional conservative under this definition?

Plausibly. You're a weird eclectic blend of traditionalist and Buddhist nationalist from what I've seen, albeit these strands of thought occasionally overlap with social liberalism in your philosophy as well.

I've mostly been reading stuff of particular interest to me so it's a bit random. But right now I'm reading 'Nicholas and Alexandra' and GK Chesterton's biography on St.Thomas Aquinas.

Between Chesterton and Eliot, y'all sometimes get close to stealing me away from the religion of my forebears. That said, we are a stiff-necked people and I'm resolutely Jewish. A girl can swoon though.

[Old Tyrannia]

"Traditionalist conservatism, also known as classical conservatism and traditional conservatism, is a political philosophy or ideology emphasizing the need for the principles of a transcendent moral order, manifested through certain natural laws to which society ought to conform in a prudent manner. Shortened to traditionalism and in the United Kingdom and Canada referred to as Toryism, traditionalist conservatism is a variant of conservatism based on the political philosophies of Aristotle and Edmund Burke. Traditionalists emphasize the bonds of social order and the defense of ancestral institutions over what it considers excessive individualism."

Would you consider me a traditional conservative under this definition?

Conservatism is by nature subjective and dependent on context. You're certainly a traditionalist conservative in a Japanese cultural context, even if your views wouldn't be regarded as particularly traditional or conservative in Europe or North America. Similarly Fahran is a traditionalist in an American context but would not be a traditionalist if she were British and held the same views.

Would you consider me a traditional conservative under this definition?

I was wondering the same question, actually. What with the whole "society ought to conform to a moral order that transcends the mere whims of the self" bit.

You're definitely not a traditionalist conservative. Your views are antithetical to traditionalist conservatism.

Considering the persecution of Catholics I really don't blame the conspirators of the Black Powder plot for wanting to kill the perpetrators of said persecution. And considering there were only 13 members of said plot, I don't think you can really place the blame on the entirety of British Catholicism for that.

So you're just going to sidestep the fact that the Vatican had literally declared the queen illegitimate and made it an excommunicable offence for English Catholics to obey the government? We're not talking about a small number of dissident Catholics taking extreme measures here, they were literally doing as the pope commanded.

Unless you also have some unspoken opinions on modern Britain's minorities and terror attacks and their harsh political statements?

If you're trying to draw comparisons between the position of modern British Muslims and English Catholics in the 16th and 17th centuries, there are a number of substantial differences. For one, society has changed substantially since the Renaissance period and governments in general, at least in the developed world, rely less on repressive measures to maintain order- partly because advances in technology have enabled more effective law enforcement and there's less of a need to rely on strong deterrents to combat crime, plus incarcerating people in large numbers is more feasible than in the past. Attitudes towards the death penalty and towards free speech have also changed substantially. So persecution of Catholics in England at the time was not particularly unique. Secondly, modern Muslims do not recognise any central religious authority whose statements they are bound to follow, and the vast majority of Muslims do not believe it is their sacred duty to overthrow the British government. Nor is there any powerful Muslim empire posing an existential risk to the United Kingdom that is poised to invade. The comparison would be more apt if there was still a caliph with broad recognition amongst Sunni Muslims, and he proclaimed that every Muslim had a religious duty to join in a jihad against the British government, and he had a large military force poised to invade our country at any time.

Nonetheless, as I have made clear in the past I do not believe Islam has any place in the UK; though I am no more willing to employ repressive measures against Muslims than I am against modern British Catholics. I am in favour of shutting down places of worship or Islamic schools where extremist or anti-British indoctrination is taking place, however, as well as forbidding foreign preachers from places like Saudi Arabia from entering the UK and cutting off funding to mosques and Islamic schools from fundamentalist Islamic countries- just as I think the persecution of Catholic priests entering England in the employ of the Vatican was fully justified given the political situation of the time. I have no time for religious freedom or even tolerance when the religion in question makes itself the enemy of the Crown and of the British people.

[Jolthig]

Would you consider me a traditional conservative under this definition?

Conservatism is by nature subjective and dependent on context. You're certainly a traditionalist conservative in a Japanese cultural context, even if your views wouldn't be regarded as particularly traditional or conservative in Europe or North America. Similarly Fahran is a traditionalist in an American context but would not be a traditionalist if she were British and held the same views.

I was wondering the same question, actually. What with the whole "society ought to conform to a moral order that transcends the mere whims of the self" bit.

You're definitely not a traditionalist conservative. Your views are antithetical to traditionalist conservatism.

Considering the persecution of Catholics I really don't blame the conspirators of the Black Powder plot for wanting to kill the perpetrators of said persecution. And considering there were only 13 members of said plot, I don't think you can really place the blame on the entirety of British Catholicism for that.

So you're just going to sidestep the fact that the Vatican had literally declared the queen illegitimate and made it an excommunicable offence for English Catholics to obey the government? We're not talking about a small number of dissident Catholics taking extreme measures here, they were literally doing as the pope commanded.

Unless you also have some unspoken opinions on modern Britain's minorities and terror attacks and their harsh political statements?

If you're trying to draw comparisons between the position of modern British Muslims and English Catholics in the 16th and 17th centuries, there are a number of substantial differences. For one, society has changed substantially since the Renaissance period and governments in general, at least in the developed world, rely less on repressive measures to maintain order- partly because advances in technology have enabled more effective law enforcement and there's less of a need to rely on strong deterrents to combat crime, plus incarcerating people in large numbers is more feasible than in the past. Attitudes towards the death penalty and towards free speech have also changed substantially. So persecution of Catholics in England at the time was not particularly unique. Secondly, modern Muslims do not recognise any central religious authority whose statements they are bound to follow, and the vast majority of Muslims do not believe it is their sacred duty to overthrow the British government. Nor is there any powerful Muslim empire posing an existential risk to the United Kingdom that is poised to invade. The comparison would be more apt if there was still a caliph with broad recognition amongst Sunni Muslims, and he proclaimed that every Muslim had a religious duty to join in a jihad against the British government, and he had a large military force poised to invade our country at any time.

Nonetheless, as I have made clear in the past I do not believe Islam has any place in the UK; though I am no more willing to employ repressive measures against Muslims than I am against modern British Catholics. I am in favour of shutting down places of worship or Islamic schools where extremist or anti-British indoctrination is taking place, however, as well as forbidding foreign preachers from places like Saudi Arabia from entering the UK and cutting off funding to mosques and Islamic schools from fundamentalist Islamic countries- just as I think the persecution of Catholic priests entering England in the employ of the Vatican was fully justified given the political situation of the time. I have no time for religious freedom or even tolerance when the religion in question makes itself the enemy of the Crown and of the British people.

We Ahmadis have a central religious authority within our Khalifat of Mirza Masroor Ahmad. And our community forbids jihad against any government that allows us to practice our faith and if they give us refuge from oppressive nations. Our founder, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who claimed to be the Messiah and Mahdi forbade his followers from rising up against the British Raj in India because they allowed us to practice our faith so what's the point in kicking out the British? While the British of course had their imperialist ambitions, taking resources from their colonies, they did make India better with less division and peaceful coexistence between the Muslims and Hindus as well as the Christians.

Yes, I agree. Extremists shouldn't be welcomed in any western country. Especially when we ahmadis try to flee from them. Their mosques should heavily monitored for hate speech and if they're up to anything suspicious.

[Fahran]

I was wondering the same question, actually. What with the whole "society ought to conform to a moral order that transcends the mere whims of the self" bit.

I would consider you a bit ideological and quasi-liberal compared to most of the traditionalists I've read and met, specifically because of how a good many of your policy decisions are derived. Honestly, I'm not certain you can fit into any political box all that easily - you Mohist-Kantian person, you.

[Jolthig]

If anyone wants where I get many of my arguments and philosophy from read these. The book is called Barahin-e-ahmadiyya by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and it comes in five volumes. However, I will put the first two volumes for convenience.

https://www.alislam.org/library/.../Bar ... rts1-2.pdf

You can find the rest on alislam.org.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

I was wondering the same question, actually. What with the whole "society ought to conform to a moral order that transcends the mere whims of the self" bit.

I would consider you a bit ideological and quasi-liberal compared to most of the traditionalists I've read and met, specifically because of how a good many of your policy decisions are derived. Honestly, I'm not certain you can fit into any political box all that easily - you Mohist-Kantian person, you.

I mean, I've been described by one of my more... left-leaning acquaintances as a "crypto-fascist cultural imperialist" so perhaps I should describe myself as that? Granted, they were probably poking fun at my views with that statement, so I'm not quite sure that it's a good idea. I do concur that classifying me according to "normal" or "standard" ideological boundaries is... difficult to say the least. The only thing that people seem to agree on is a general opposition to individualism.

[Fahran]

Western ultranats have done nothing wrong. I actually respect those who want an ethnoglobe and genocide of all non-ingroup members even though I hope and believe they will be deterred for it is a perfectly normal line of thought.

I don't think you understand or appreciate how aberrant and unusual genocide has been throughout human history. The nation-state is a lot more modern than your logic seems to suggest and systematically destroying other ethnic groups in an industrialized manner is something that would have been largely incomprehensible to many before the late nineteenth century.