Are there any contemporary conservative philosophers who are not neocon sellouts? I'll also take any person from the post-WW2 20th century.
And yes, this is /his/ related. It's about philosophy.
However I haven't personally not read any of them since what's considered conservaive differs from country to country for obvious reason, even if they may share some ideas such as the precautionary principle.
Living ones off the top of my head:
Also check out journals like First Things, Perspectives on Political Science, New Criterion, and Telos, just to name a few. Many more exist outside the Anglosphere as well, especially in French.
Contrepoints (not to be confused with Contrepoint, a journal from the 1980s that later became Commentaire)
Le Figaro also has decent opinion pieces and interviews with conservative/liberal thinkers
There are a lot more, also blogs, webzines etc etc.
>His essay explaining why prison poetry is awful
If you're interested in conservative philosophers, you ought to have a look on the political philosophy known as communitarianism.
plato.stanford.edu is a good source, and a professional one at that, for all your basic philosophy needs.
Communitarianism is a fascinating and extremely pertinent school of thought, but I wouldn't conflate it with conservatism. Communitarianists come in conservative, liberal and even socialist hues and have extremely diverse intellectual sources.
Isn't communitarism also very popular in post-colonialist circles, mostly as an answer to very "colonial" mindset of many cosmopolitans.
Also if I had to ascribe political philosophy to "tumblr SJWs" it would probably communitarism, but then again I'd also describe /pol/ as communitarian, it's very flexible idea.
I would say it's a confused mishmash of radical individualism to an almost Stirnerite degree with some communitarianist ideas. But it's really inconsistent.
No fucking clue. Some of them are libertarians I reckon?
Basically both are product of extreme echochamber, which explains why I felt like they're communitarian.
I'd call it digital communitarian, having incredible link between your own identity and their favourite internet site.
Raw biological racism which unfortunately characterizes some of them isn't left or right. So is antisemitism (especially when it translates to being pro-Palestinian and sounding like a liberal human rights advocate when it comes to the Middle East).
When it comes to gender roles, family structure and so on they're something like an exaggerated form of classical conservatism, but on other issues like economics and religion they're all over the place.
Yeah that's legit. But then again so are a lot of internet libertarians, and they're really not communitarians for the most part. On the internet all of those worldviews to look pretty similar in their outward form, anyway.
/pol/ has mellowed out a lot since a ton of the stormfags (neo-Nazis for you non-/pol/ memesters) ran off to other sites after /pol/ Harbor in December 2014. /pol/ is majority right-wing these days, with smatterings of every other political position. Libertarianism still has a strong base there, but they're not a majority.
And I'd say SJWs are their own creature, unique to Western society. Their actual political term is "progressive," taken from the idea that history is progress towards an ideal or utopian future; they unironically say they're "on the right side of history," which was a pejorative used by the old left to slander them as ignorant zealots. This is silly, because history all across the world did not "progress" towards much of anything that they'd like *except* in the Western world; the experience of history by most peoples worldwide negates their core principle, but their narcissism doesn't allow them to see that.
It's very anti-individual in that it assigns group responsibility for past evils and group-based compensation for said evils. It entirely ignores the individual's ability to differ from a cookie-cutter version of their idea of an X, Y, or Z person. They realized early on that people can actually belong to different groups at the same time (for instance, being black and a woman), which should have pointed them to individualism as the only rational choice for explaining how groups can have such radical intergroup differences. Instead, they created the idea of intersectionality, saying one person can belong to many groups at the same time - therefore, the human being is a group-based creature incapable of being an individual in any meaningful sense, and society dictates everything about their life (as a clashing of group hierarchies and power) as opposed to them acting on their own.
This fits very well into their narcissism, as groups are not physical things. Because they are not physical or tangible, they need group representatives.
Fair point. What I had in mind was their extremely autistic idea of how others should respect their individual feelings and 'safe space'. This demand is raised regardless of prior cultural and social norms and other people's subjective expectations, that are usually discarded as merely a form of social conditioning that can simply be unlearned by others. It has a mixture of both strong subjectivism (when it comes to one's personal, supposedly authentic feelings and recognition of self) and objectivism (when it comes to society determining non-authentic (and as such by definition oppressive) behavior.
>Instead, they created the idea of intersectionality
I thought "intersectionality" was a cop-out for when anyone asks for an objective standard of which victim class is more/less oppressed than another victim class (i.e. is an Asian transsexual more oppressed than a straight black woman?)
He flirted with liberal democracy in the Constitutional theory and some of his writings from the period, but it all crashing down after 1933. In the end his weird traditionalist Catholicism won out.
>tfw Nazis forever demonized Fascism but somehow Communism is still okay
Well, think of the environment they've been raised in. They have been sheltered, told they're unique and special, everyone's a winner in their own way, and that they ought to do what they feel is right for them, all from a very young age.
It's a disastrous recipe for the worse kind of narcissism imagineable - it helps instill the idea that you are important because you exist, that your feelings will guide you to the right conclusions, and that subjectivity is universally applicable. They are implacable, unrelenting narcissists.
But they've also been told that the way to be a good person is to help others. Therefore they do things that they think make them *look* like they are helping other people, but in reality they couldn't have a clue how any of their policies are supposed to actual help people. They're just after their own self-congratulation. It's masturbatory, really; much of SJWism has roots in narcissism, I'd argue.
Their narcissism also prevents them from tolerating or even empathizing with other points of view. They are literally incapable of thinking about why another person would think differently, attributing it to evil. This narcissism and the rush to be seen as a do-gooder defender of other people means they needed the safe space as a way to signal to each other that they are doing good and also as a way to continue insulating themselves within the comfortable prison of their own minds.
That's why their political ideology is inconsistent, I feel - it just does whatever they need it to do at the time, but at the end of the day it must validate their existence and their narcissistic efforts.
That's just a side-effect, I think. I believe intersectionality is just a desperate attempt to explain how people could identify with different things all at once in an ideology that demands group structures and inter-group conformity. You need to think about it from their perspective - inventing a cop-out is not what zealots do on purpose.
Holy shit I'm just reading it and the amount of basedness is staggering.
How did I not know of him before? Oh yeah that's right I'm a retard and I'll probably forget about him after I'm done with that one essay, but at least it's a good read for the moment.
>Their narcissism also prevents them from tolerating or even empathizing with other points of view.
While I agree that "safe-spaces" are cancerous and most of todays humanistic-liberalism is based on narcism they certainly aren't the first and won't be the last who don't empathize with their (political) enemy
I mean compare with /pol/
This is generally the case in Anglo countries and in Germany. The rest of Europe is still more tolerant (or indifferent) to those kinds of ideas. Also Slav countries are going through big conservative revival apparently, but I don't know much about what's going on there.
Yes, but empathy (not lovey-dovey stuff, but "put yourself in my shoes," think like another person even if you disagree empathy) is necessary for debate, which is necessary for democracy. If you are refuse to try to think of how another person thinks, and that you have all the answers, there is no reason for debate. If there's no need for a debate, and how to govern is always known, then there's no need for democracy.
At least most politicians will concede that their political opponents are acting in what they believe are the best interests of the people, even if they believe they are wrong. I myself will do that - at the end of the day, I know most people I disagree with believe whatever they advocate for will help people. SJW's think you're evil if you disagree, because to them the answers to everything is already known and they simply can't imagine it's not, because they're incapable of doing so.
This is also at the root of the SJW's authoritarian nature, but it all comes back to their narcissism IMO.
>Also Slav countries are going through big conservative revival apparently
That's just, well yeah that's pretty much every Slav country ever. Slovenia seems least affected, but we did just denied Gays right to marry and adopt.
But our universities, especially those dealing with philosophy and social sciences are pretty liberal, with some crypto soft-conservatives, like our current PM.
Maybe not outright claim that conservatism and communitarianism is one and the same since they aren't, but one of the pillars of communiatianism are that we are part of a community and that any political philosophy have to take this into account.
Social-liberal, libertarian and dare I say socialist thought have a tendency to see humans as rational autonomous agents with no past nor history or any kind of connection to the society they're in. I think a lot of conservatives would do them good having a look at communitarian ideas since it takes into account that we're actual humans, with a history and family, and this shapes us into who we are.
I've heard the same. And yes, both /pol/ and tumbler have communitarian traits in them.
This is true for many libertarians of the rank and file (read: internet libertarians). A lot of libertarian scholarship however is much more suspicious towards this type of general rationality; if you read Hayek for example, he almost completely destroys the concept of the individual subject as an independent agent. He is generally very appreciative of things like community, tradition, and so on, as expressions of what he calls "adaptive evolution". There is a strong tendency in some parts of the liberal idea, particularly on the continent (and Scotland and Ireland), to see the stricter versions of Enlightenment rationalism as essentially incompatible with individual freedom, which itself is understood as emulative and adaptive (that is, social) rather than a form of pure discretion.
But of course when it comes to politics you have to sort out the difference, and this is how you get Hayekians and Burkeans sitting in the same tent as Lockean liberals, Randroids and whatnot. Life's tough.
> Instead, they created the idea of intersectionality
Not the same person, but I reacted on this.
Using intersectionality (if you can say you're using it) when doing social studies are vital for making sense of large amount of statistical data and explain strange correlations.
When you're applying an intersectional perspective you're not denying their identities but rather look on certain parts that makes up who you are and how these parts in particular affects your group.
Why? Because large parts of social sciences was plagued with only looking at gender, only looking at race, only looking at class and so on. And it's shitty science, since it's silly to think that someone studying English nurses for 30 years then can apply what they learned to every female in the UK.
I'm not American so I don't know if it's used as a political tool over there.
That was already answered by this dude in >>518825, >>519006, and >>519059 albeit indirectly.
You're looking at this wrong. A SJW does not hold an opinion because they feel it will produce the best outcome, they hold it because it makes them feel good.
Take, say, population disarmament. One might be against a populace owning firearms because they feel limiting the number of firearms available will result in a decrease in crime due to a lack of means to commit said crime. One could counter this by saying that a lack of firearms will only remove the ability to defend ones self from crime, and that every study done on the matter reports that there is no correlation between a lack of firearm ownership and crime. This might be enough to sway the gun control advocate, or maybe more evidence is required. Their view is based around something they feel is bad (crime) and a solution to it (remove the tools of crime).
But that is not how a SJW operates. They do not ultimately care about the issue (Crime) at all. Rather, the belief (gun control) is held solely because it increases the standing of belief holder. People like this crop up all the time, and the views they hold are ultimately arbitrary (At one time, Eugenics and the illegalization of Marijuana were progressive platforms held by people not too different from the SJW of today). SJWs do not perceive disagreeing with these views as disagreement with the solution to a problem (or a question of if there even is a problem), it is a direct attack on the SJW themselves.
You can see this in the belief that safe spaces are needed to prevent violence against a given group. It's not that the SJW is trying to silence criticism (They are, but indirectly). It's not even that they believe that words are somehow violent. It's that they are perceiving basic human discourse as an attack on them as a person.
When you say "I disagree", they take it as an insult.
While all this is very interesting I feel, like I kind of derailed this thread when I likened communitarism with SJW back in >>518708
I just wanted to point out, that communitarism is a very diverse school of thought.
But if we're discussing SJW and stuff, I've heard that "safe spaces" aren't just kindergartens for millenials who literally can't even, but just a space and time for you to collect thought. Which yeah kind of makes sense, I personally feel that I sometimes need some time and space to think about a subject to really get to the core of it and to really crystallise my thoughts.
But this still doesn't explain why "SJWs" demand Universities to provide safe spaces, because everyone has their own special place where theye're most "lucid". I found that for me it's being out in nature, either riding my bike or cross-country running.
/pol/ is majority 'neo-nazi' or 'alt right' and I would argue that Libertarianism has in fact been on a much steeper decline ideologically (when compared to those who may be called 'stormfags'). The rise of Trump has demonstrated this quite clearly.
I have to agree (not the guy you're responding to).
It's interesting how /pol/ went from Ron Paul 2012 to CAN'T STUMP THE TRUMP.
But after reading Foucault's Birth of Biopolitics, where he mentions libertarian concept of human capital, it all made sense.
Libertarianism declined everywhere once it became clear it was just the auxiliary line of Cultural Marxism. Most Libertarians just came out of the closet as SJWs or became "neoreactionaries".
Looking at how groups intersect in social science is a good thing, especially if you're looking to root out things that could bias or confound the data. You're right, a person studying one type of one group of people doesn't become an expert on all people in a wider grouping.
In SJW circles, they've taken the sociological concept and corrected it for their ideological biases. So it is often used as a part social science, part ideological/political tool here. Because the social sciences are rife with progressives and SJW types, it was inevitable.
Because they need to present groups as monolithic, they had to account for inter-group differences, as well as the ability to identify/be in more than one group at a time. Instead of coming to the conclusion that people are all individuals, they came to the conclusion that people are not individuals but amalgamations of identity - intersectionality, as they interpreted it, saved their emphasis on groupings and society at large over the individual. Therefore, groups can still be monolithic and rigid, but still have people who belong to multiple groupings at once, all without individual will playing any part in it.
You are born into groupings and power structures that you had no control over, and they shaped the way you think. Which, by the way, you also had no control over, by extension of the earlier fact and the idea that your individual will is nothing compared to all-powerful society. You were brainwashed until they came and enlightened you, because these groupings are all-encompassing - the only reason they have broken free is because "progress" is inevitable. That is why they call themselves progressives.
To them, you aren't Sarah, you're Sarah who is a white straight cis young able-bodied student - your groupings define you, rather than you defining yourself as you would in an individualist framework. I'm not even sure most of them realize this, to be honest, they're mostly just in it for self-pleasure.
Don't worry senpai, discussion goes where it goes. I kind of helped derail the thread into SJW territory.
But I've heard that the first safe space was established for people who couldn't bear to witness a debate between a "social scientist" and a non-SJW type. It was a room with cookies, coloring books, councilors, and puppies - the stuff a stupid rich guy would spoil his sad rich brat with. It's not where they go to collect their thoughts, it's like a Thought Fortress to prevent harmful, "wrong" ideas from penetrating their thick skulls.
In terms of the nature/nurture debate, they believe in 100% nurture. This erroneously leads them to believe that because you are 100% influenced by how you're raised (and because they ignore individual will, this leaves society and your group/s alone as the only things to really determine how you turn out), you are effectively brainwashed and the likelihood of you deviating from a group norm are nigh impossible.
How they explain how they themselves escaped is difficult to explain within this framework, so that's where the idea of history as progress comes in. Their coming to enlighten us was inevitable, even if it breaks this unbreakable cycle. So yes, they are (if paradoxically) determinist.
As much as I appreciate a long, well worded explanation to SJWs, I think you're wrong. You are essentially creating an opponent which does not really exist.
>Rather, the belief (gun control) is held solely because it increases the standing of belief holder.
That is false. They really do believe that gun control will have a positive effect on crime, regardless of the studies. They ignore such studies not because they destroy their social standing, but because it negates the argument they so desperately want to be right about.
It's like a person who buys a really expensive luxury car. Upon receiving the car, he notices a dent on one of the doors. The dent is minor, sure, but it is noticeable to his highly perceptive eye. Instead of becoming upset by such a dent, he convinces himself that the dent is a "sign of independence" and that it "adds character". If he was honest, he would admit that he would rather have a non-dented car, but he is not honest.
It is the same way with SJWs, they do not want to accept truths that disturb their own reality, as it would imply that they can be wrong.
>When you say "I disagree", they take it as an insult.
This is true, they take it as an insult, as to them, it is the same to be insulted as it is to be proven wrong. This is where the whole issue starts taking a narcissistic characteristic. If they are wrong, they have nothing. Why is it that these SJWs also happen to be so emotionally weak? It's because they are unhappy, and all of their "truths" are ideas that keeps their world from crushing under them. The same thing could be said about certain conspiracy theorists, far right people, etc.
I think he was pretty spot-on. You're both right - they have the belief because they think it will do good, but the actual reason is that they just want to be seen doing good. They aren't lying to themselves, so much as they are completely unable to contemplate alternative views.
Alternative views implies they don't have the answers already (which they insist they do), and that's where their feeling of being insulted comes in. You just denied their entire belief system by holding an alternative view and insisting you weren't brainwashed into holding it.
Don't try too much to "psychoanalyze" them and determine their unseen intentions, try to come at it from their perspective and how they themselves think. When I said earlier that they are narcissistic, I did not mean it as a character judgement, it's just what I found to be a common thread holding their thinking together. I came to the conclusion that they were narcissists through their stated beliefs and the actions that carried those beliefs out in the real world. For instance, pushing for affirmative action, which causes more blacks to enter higher-up colleges, but also causes more blacks to leave those same higher colleges and never return to higher education because of their already incurred debt. They are divorced from the ultimate consequences of what they advocate for, but they are blind to such things and don't actively try to find out if their programs have actually helped the people they were trying to help.
Other examples include their powerful presence on social media (me-me-me media), their need to be acknowledged as doing good (even if it means self-abasement), their detachment from results as opposed to intentions (results aren't seen but changing your profile picture sure is), etc, etc.
Continuing my autism, too big for one post:
You need to ascertain their beliefs as they believe them, then you can uncover the unintended consequences of their beliefs, such as their emotional weakness, which is an unintended consequence of having an ideology that provides all the answers for you.
If you are caught off guard, you don't have the critical faculties developed to fight or argue back, and can feel helpless as your worldview is under assault - that's the likely root of their emotional weakness upon confrontation.
It's difficult, I don't even think I can paint a 100% accurate picture of SJWs. But when studying a group as strange as this, it's best to be as objective as possible and not substitute your thoughts about them as their own. I think sociologists will be studying these SJWs for the next century. at least.
Thomas Sowell, maybe? Vision of the Anointed was pretty good.
The City and Man
Persecution and the Art of Writing
Natural Right and History
What is Political Philosophy? and Other Studies
There's also a very good Strauss-edited history of political philosophy.
I'm not sure he fits *as well* as some would like, that is, as a conservative. He's interested in philosophy first, which treats conservatism as a tactic. Also, he doesn't think much of Burke.
Yea Sowell great but in his older years has become slight establishment. Realy disappointed that he backed Newt Gingrich a few years back.
Walter E. Williams on the other hand has been steadfast in his principles.
>Liberty is notthe power of doing what we like, but therightof being able todowhat we ought. -John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton
Lord Acton is always a great read if anyone is interested in mid to late 19th century philosophers.
Beltway libertarianism sure. Reason and Cato bieng examples.
But Paleolibertarians are much different story. Hoppe, Williams, Rothbard, etc. While ancaps are extreme Cultural Conservatives. Rothbard bieng the beginning of modern libertarian movement hated the beltway.
The NAP axiom usually. Rothbard even goes to such lengths with the NAP he thinks parents are at liberty to stop feeding a newborn child. I mean at least he's consistent.
And that's just Rothbard, there's also people like Gary North who think we need to replace the state with an Old Testament theonomy that stones children who backtalk their parents and have an economy based on the Bible. Like I said, it's unhinged lunacy.
Hey man, I like some of the Mises Institute guys, even if I don't agree with their politics. They give away a lot of literature for free, you've got to respect that too.
Lew Rockwell's brutal takedown of egalitarianism along the lines of what SJWs advocate for was pretty glorious imo. I would just not join him in instituting an ancap society. For those interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rPFmCD---Y
It's not that terrible an idea (in theory). They say that the state having a monopoly on force produces bad outcomes because it can abuse that monopoly, and that people ought to associate through voluntary association along the NAP rather than through state apparatuses. They don't argue that it'd create a utopia, unlike utopian socialists (note, not all socialists are utopian socialists) they say that this system is prone to failures but that's alright because mankind is imperfect and thus prone to failure.
As far as idealized political systems go, it's not that bad, it's just unworkable as far as I can tell because you'd need to indoctrinate everyone into following the NAP (without using force, mind you) when most cultures would consider such a concept alien.
Literally an anti-inheritance Libertarian. I also found his arguments against rawsian liberals(in Against Liberalism) too good. Liberals just can't do good.
Zizek says he is philosophically reactionary.
He literally wasn't a neocon, though. Some people attribute neocon ideas to him, but only retroactively and through his (supposed) students. Seriously, Strauss-pounding is the bane of both the right and the left.
I second that.
Besides that borders between old style liberalism and conservatism aren't that solid.
I think I found the key between the two aspects (intersectionality and safe space narcissism).
The point is that if your identity is entirely contingent upon wider social affairs and your belonging in groups, you have to isolate those elements due to risk of contamination.
In other words, Stirnerfags don't care about muddying up their ego with spooks, because ego is ego, it's as durable as diamond platinum (this is the only thing we can attribute to it really) while spooks are just, well, spooks, ghosts. For SJWs however the ego is just a side effect of society, either of oppression or whatever they consider as emancipation; it's never truly 'authentic', it's just a sociological afterthought.
So as a result what they are left with is constant anxiety about their own identity and constant need to insulate it from wider society.
The irony of course is that under pretense of progressivism they are incredibly conservative and even reactionary. They reject 'natural' society, but substitute it for a no less objective and deterministic concept of society, which does not stop at the body, mind, and subjectivity. They are left-Maistreans.
>It is the same way with SJWs, they do not want to accept truths that disturb their own reality, as it would imply that they can be wrong.
this is literally all ideology, not just sjwism
Apart from the modernist experiments of nazism and fascist, most conservative philosophy is against ideology as a driving force of truth. It can be destroyed from lots of viewpoints actually, pragmatic and idealistic.
If by ideology you mean a political theory with its own social, epistemological and normative assumptions, then yes.
If you mean something like the 20th century usage in mass social movements, then no.
If you mean ideology in the Marxist sense then I don't see how those terms are even useful.
Most ideology movements(including nazism and fascism) follows the "we must make it happen" rethoric that comes from Marx's thesis of Feyerbach. Conservative ideology on the other hand thinks it posits existing states or natural law of the world.
Not the same person, but one can adopt conservatism for pragmatic reasons. But then it's closer to an attitude or practise more than a net of theories, rooted in that we have to be careful when we change society since humans, for the better or worse, have a tendency to fuck up.
>In America. And even over there there are exceptions.
Everywhere in the world you fag. The amount of exceptions generally grows past the, what used to be Iron Curtain(no wonder) but overall these are mostly globalist, utilitarian cuckholds.
This is just absurd, you're throwing around words you don't even know the meaning of. I can't think of a single conservative that's an outspoken utilitarianism. How on earth would those two even be compatible?
> I can't think of a single conservative that's an outspoken utilitarianism.
muh free will
Masons are the definition of neocons. Half of neocon politicians in countries where masonry is very active(like Italy, UK and the US) are freemasons for a very good reason.
>we totally not masons I'm just house cleaner and had to clean that lodge, that's why you saw me there
>Masons are the definition of neocons. Half of neocon politicians in countries where masonry is very active(like Italy, UK and the US) are freemasons for a very good reason.
This is demonstrably false.
By the way, one of the most hardcore conservatives of the 18th-19th century, Joseph de Maistre, was a Mason. Get your intellectual history in order.
>muh free will
Yes, because free will is such a vital concept within utilitarianism, and it's totally not the case that utilitarianism thrive on the fact that it's one of few ethical theories that isn't affected by if we've free will or not but you're just shitposting at this point, aren't you :^)
I'm a leftist, who after studying at a very left-leaning university became even more left, but I would say it might have something to do with scientism.
There's a belief that progress is good, so both natural sciences, and humanities have to progress, which means that in humanities conservatism is seen as holding back the development of humanities, well social sciences back.
Also most of the conservatives aren't interested in university tenure.
>As Wordsworth said, poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings; and the most powerful feeling that overflows spontaneously in most prison poetry is self-pity. Few indeed are those so lacking in compassion that they do not feel sorry for themselves
I'm suspecting the following, that it isn't a "purge" so much as a lot of unintentional actions leading to the university climate we have now. Saying it's "purged" makes it sound like someone is out to make sure conservatism have no place within universities.
1. A lot of it has to do with the simple fact that conservative philosophers are situated in place and time and this means that conservative principles. This means that someone arguing for or against egalitarianism ala Rawls is relevant independent of if you're living in Sweden or the US. This means your work will be cited more often, and being accessible for more people, and then you have a snowball effect where new people will have an easier time accessing these universal arguments and continue a tradition based on universal arguments.
Meanwhile, conservatism in Sweden and the US looks different and so rooted in the society that you can't do the same kind of exchange between Swedish and US thinkers.
2. Another reason is that a lot of conservative ideas rest on the idea of a natural law, and it's an idea that's having less and less followers while consequential ethics such as utilitarianism are so important that ethic classes beyond introduction levels are boiled down to arguing for or against utilitarianism.
3. Lastly, it may just be that conservatives don't pursue doctorates and university work within history, the humanities and social sciences outside of law and economics.
It's not a purge but it's about ideological purity.
People whose jobs depend on a welfare state will invariably not like people who vote for parties that would deny them access to more public money.
And that's just the economic self-interest part, there is also the social part, where in many cases everyone who is conservative gets conflated with religious nutbags who want to deny women their abortion rights, so this means that it's easy to just shut people out from any discussion by calling them bigots and women-haters.
I actually disagree with your first point. Conservative thought isn't more specifically attached to local and historical concerns than other schools. In fact, even when it's articulated in local terms it's still capable of addressing universal issues. The fact that people today still read Burke and Maistre's works on the French Revolution, despite both of them being published basically as pamphlets to rebuttal other political forces, is a case in point here. This is one of the important differences between political thought and punditary.
>isolate those elements due to risk of contamination
Good point, I think this is true too. In order for the monolithic status of each group to exist, they must be inviolate and impervious to change that individuals might bring with them from belonging to other groupings.
>For SJWs however the ego... is never truly 'authentic,' it's just a sociological afterthought. So as a result what they are left with is constant anxiety about their own identity and constant need to insulate it from wider society.
It's like what I said earlier, they are very deterministic for everyone but themselves as far as the ego goes. Their anxiety from having such strong identities being questioned or "attacked" as they call it does likely come from their lack of individualistic thinking or self-realization. They believe the groupings they put themselves into are unshakable, so to question it is a very personal attack because they are nothing more than the collection of these myriad identities in their minds, and these identities are thought to be unquestionably true and accurate. It's strange, that in the lack of a personal, individual identity, the larger group identity/identities becomes the personal for them, but that's just what they think they are - nothing more than an amalgam of identity.
I feel like Brendan O'Neil did a good job of speaking about this subject (identity's weakness in SJWs) in his article "Crisis of Character" on Spiked, you might enjoy it: http://www.spiked-online.com/spiked-review/article/the-crisis-of-character/17691#.Vn_4__krLIU
I don't know too much about it, but it's not as well-accepted as anarcho-capitalism because it focuses on the production side rather than the consumer's. It therefore overpays and overemphasizes labor and production, meaning consumers pay more for things they probably could get cheaper.
Here's what Ludwig von Mises had to say on it:
>The ideal of centralist socialism is at least discussible; that of syndicalism is so absurd that one need waste few words on it.…
>Preferring the producer interest over the consumer interest, which is characteristic of antiliberalism, means nothing other than striving artificially to maintain conditions of production that have been rendered inefficient by continuing progress. Such a system may seem discussible when the special interests of small groups are protected against the great mass of others, since the privileged party then gains more from his privilege as a producer than he loses on the other hand as a consumer; it becomes absurd when it is raised to a general principle, since then every individual loses infinitely more as a consumer than he may be able to gain as a producer. The victory of the producer interest over the consumer interest means turning away from rational economic organization and impeding all economic progress.
>Centralist socialism knows this very well. It joins liberalism in fighting all traditional producer privileges.…
>Syndicalism deliberately places the producer interest of the workers in the foreground.… Syndicalism would make all repatterning of production impossible; it leaves no room free for economic progress.
This comic was incredibly prescient.
>he's a bit too memey and tends to talk in catchphrases
That's the point innit lad?
I mean it's 2015, come on.
>it's not as well-accepted as anarcho-capitalism
unlike "anarcho"-capitalism the movement actually has a broad history and isn't a straight up meme-ideology only popular with a bunch of lolberts and edgy kids on the internet
>Ludwig von Mises
I have yet to seen an anarcho-anything theory that doesn't rely on some variation of the Marxist class struggle thesis and the labor theory of value (anarcho-capitalism aside since it isn't really a thing). Since I'm not a fan of either I think it can apply here as well.
It's not as well accepted by anarchists of any stripe is what I meant, sorry for being vague. More are drawn to outright anarcho-communist or anarcho-capitalism than to anarcho-syndicalism.
And Mises had some great work, but not all of it's great. His takedown of central planning as seen in socialist states caused debate all over the world though.
>More are drawn to anarcho-capitalism
that's just straight up bullshit consider how most anarchists do not even consider "anarcho"-capitalism as a legitimate anarchist school (and rightfully so)
ancaps are a fringe group of libertarians who already are a fringe group in the US, not to speak of the rest of the world
Hey, this is just what I see from the sidelines as a classical liberal type.
But anarcho-capitalists are anarchists. I don't think anyone has a monopoly on organizational structures. Most libertarians are minarchists, while anarcho-capitalists argue for the abolition of the state in its entirety. The fact that the names are often used interchangeably causes no end of confusion, not least between the two groups themselves. But telling people they can't voluntarily organize hierarchically requires violence to prevent them from doing so if they disobey, thus you would invalidate anarcho-socialism by needing some sort of apparatus by which to prevent people from organizing in such a way.
Also, your pic is still using the labor theory of value, which has fallen out of favor with all economists after the 19th century. The theory that better reflects reality is the subjective theory of value, wherein things have value not because of the labor that went into producing them, but because of how much the prospective buyer values it.
Therefore there cannot be "excess value" because it doesn't exist. Profits ("excess value") are simply a part of the supply-demand system of prices, whereby society organizes its needs and wants accordingly. Things that people want more of have higher profit margins (they will pay more for scarce things), attracting people to supply that demand, then the price falls as competition for consumers increases, and the profit margin falls down so as not to allocate too many resources to a market that is becoming too saturated. In the other direction, as demand falls so do profits, prompting people to sell off their goods at lower prices to recoup the losses that went into making them. This lower or negative profit margin is an indicator to new enterprises not to enter this market, as society does not want it. Therefore scarce resources, which have many uses, are diverted towards where society wants and away from where it doesn't want.
Radical conservatism and radical
cultural-left thought converge in total critiques, which treat modern democracy
as so spent and false that alternatives are no longer foreshadowed
in existing institutions and that the line with authoritarian regimes is
blurred (e.g., Delfini and Piccone 1998, pp. 25–26, 40–41). Weber saw this
type of total critique, which he traced “back to Nietzsche,” as a leading
tendency in the romantic antimodernism of the youth movement and left
and right revolutionism of his day (Weber  1958b, p. 393
Remember that initially conservatism was only aesthetical on 4chan. Now it's true.
>But anarcho-capitalists are anarchists.
they aren't for two simple reasons:
first of all every single current in the anarchist tradition has been anti-capitalist by nature. rothbard loves claiming individualist anarchists like benjamin tucker or lysander spooner as supporters of unregulated capitalism because of their advocacy of free markets, whereas they considered themselves as socialists
secondly the principles of private property and wage labour are antithetical to the anarchist ideals of freedom and opposition to authority. choosing to work for minimum wage in order not to starve is not a voluntary contract.
anarcho-capitalism taken to its logical conclusion is neofeudalism with local business owners and their security forces acting as kings and their mercenaries.
>telling people they can't voluntarily organize hierarchically requires violence to prevent them from doing so
it doesn't if there's no reason to do so
though i'll admit the picture i posted is a bit misleading since many anarchists support hierarchies as long as they are legitimated in direct democratic ways
i'm also familiar with LTV vs STV but that is a different argument
They're still calling for the destruction of the state, which produces a government-less system - anarchy. They're not like other anarchists, but they're still anarchistic in nature. The term describes them well, you both know you're not related to each other except through a cosmetic connection, so I'd say let them use it. I think you guys agree on a lot more stuff than what you disagree on.
>working to not starve is not voluntary
You act as if people don't need to do anything to survive. Is their food produced automatically? Everyone has to do *something* to survive, that is not an evil society imposes on us but a biological reality.
>anarcho-capitalism taken to its logical conclusion is neofeudalism
I'd say that's not true either, because most people would be armed and working in communities or through connections in order to ensure their NAP was applied. So the minute one guy sets himself up as a king with a small army, the locals all get together and kill him for violating the NAP in a "sink or swim together" join-or-die kind of deal.
It wouldn't be that great a system to live under, but it wouldn't be feudal. You'd just need to get everyone to play along with the NAP, but then again in anarcho-socialism you'd need everyone to play along too. It's all heavily theoretical, I don't know of many large-scale anti-state movements that we could study.
>which produces a government-less system
that's my point
>You act as if people don't need to do anything to survive. Is their food produced automatically? Everyone has to do *something* to survive, that is not an evil society imposes on us but a biological reality.
anarchists don't oppose work. they oppose wage labour.
there's a difference between working cooperatively for society's or your commune's profit, ensuring everybody has enough to eat and being forced to work a shit job for minimal pay so you yourself don't starve while someone else makes a ton of money off *your* labour just because this person has managed to seize control of all the land and factories, tools etc and hired a bunch of mercenaries to protect them
at this point nothing would separate that "anarcho-capitalist entrepreneur" from a king with an army or a dictator with a police force either
>most people would be [...] working in communities
you mean worker cooperatives or trade unions? that would be socialist and/or syndicalist
groups of self-employed people?
that would fit the (unorthodox but socialist) ideas of individualist anarchists like tucker or spooner
Your argument about the name is just semantics, really. Cooperation is a nice idea, but there are those who are lazy or want to take out more than they put in, so how does one deal with them?
And you do know that profits are marginal? The average rate of profit is 2-6% on the dollar in the US, meaning for every $1 the owner of the average business makes between two and six cents. There's nothing wrong with wage labor, it's actually pretty expensive to employ people for the owners of most businesses.
I just don't get anarchism tbqh senpai.
I really hope, that people don't become conservative just because of a meme.
I think it has more to do with nostalgia after times, you never even experienced, and actually never even existed in the first place. If progressivism deals with idealised future, conservatism deals with idealised past.
>he average rate of profit is 2-6% on the dollar in the US, meaning for every $1 the owner of the average business makes between two and six cents
that's because a lot of money is spent on marketing, shipping, etc. not on fair wages for the guys working on the assembly line
>There's nothing wrong with wage labor
socialists (and therefore anarchists) disagree
they view it as an injustice that a single person should be allowed to take possession of land and tools for the sole purpose of renting them out to people who have no choice because they have no chance of aquiring land/tools of their own
>it's actually pretty expensive to employ people for the owners of most businesses.
it wouldn't be without laws on working conditions, minimal wage etc. see sweatshops
>I just don't get anarchism tbqh senpai.
it's a really fascinating subject whether one agrees with anarchist ideas or not
Yeah, I'm one of those. Well I'm not Christian, I'm still atheist, yet I find myself again and again defending Christianity and religion in general from edgy atheist.
I'm interested in religion, as I understand what was and still is its function, and I feel that internet atheist, who just swap religion for scientism are way more obnoxious than actual religious people, even those more radical.
oh and i forgot
>Cooperation is a nice idea, but there are those who are lazy or want to take out more than they put in, so how does one deal with them?
people who are able to work but refuse to do so shouldn't benefit from others' work and be politely told to leave
on the question of whether everyone should have a right to as much as they want or just as much as they themselves worked for (effectively upholding a type of wage system) opinions are very divided between anarcho-communists and other types of anarchism
most agree though that in the (more or less) distant future with advanced technologies and more and more work being done by machines eventually there shouldn't be any problem providing everyone with everything they need
At least shitting on Heidegger is justified by most accounts. Strauss is literally just a guy who wanted to read Plato and had some slightly unorthodox ideas about him.
Americans are a neurotic bunch.
But if no one buys your product because no one is aware of it or it wasn't shipped, will you keep your job? Was your labor worthwhile?
And people do have a chance of acquiring their own land/tools, that's what investing allows people to do. Even without minimum wage requirements, it would still be expensive to employ people, because the market would be different - without higher labor costs, prices would be competed down, returning profits to the usual rate.
Rare Gondola, thanks senpai. And I think scarcity will still be a problem, even if it's only just a smaller problem in the future. Until we can transmute atoms, we'll still have scarcity.
To be honest, those atheists piss me off. They turn atheism - a disbelief - into a belief system complete with its own zealots. That's the kind of shit that makes a lot of people atheists in the first place.
If I don't want to smoke, I don't smoke; I don't run around screaming to the world that I'm an anti-smoker and attacking people for their choices and reminding them of the evils that smoking has done. Speaking as an atheist, those redditor-type "enlightened" atheists deserved the fedora meme.
>The irony of course is that under pretense of progressivism they are incredibly conservative and even reactionary.
This horseshoe pattern works in remarkably subtle ways too.
For example, your pic claims that "biological sex rethoric is used to invalidate trans people". But it's gender theory that introduced the concept itself once upon a time, separating the traditional notion of sex (then synonymous with gender) into biological sex and mental/cultural gender.
All throughout the 90s and 00s the LGBTBBQ activists were crusading to make people accept this concept, mocking anyone who was too ignorant to understand that transpeople's genders differed from their biological sex.
And in the 10s they threw all of this progress in the bin and declared that, no, actually, gender = sex and there is no biological sex, you're not a woman in a male body but a woman in a woman's body that just coincidentally happens to have traditionally male sexual characteristics, and anyone who thinks that there is a conflict between a transperson's gender and biological sex is an intolerant transphobic bigot.
In short they've gone all the way back to the premodern gender=sex axiom, except now they think it's determined by culture or whatever instead of biology (this concept was in fact quite common in non-Western cultures, but they were anything but progressive.)
OP here. If this was about /pol/ telling me to be a conservative I would have asked them for their "philosophers". I'm not some 14 year old edgy kid with a liking for nazi uniforms.
This thread is more part of me compiling a reading list of conservative authors from the anglosphere and beyond so I can make a little bit more sense of my own worldview. I am not some idiot but I never took the time to sit down and critically examine my own beliefs. That's what I want to do now. Insofar I am thankful for all the matter discussed here, it has been a rather informative until now.
You should really be "proud" of this thread. it's probably the best thread in all of 4chan.
And honestly I first came here, to shitpost, but then I just didn't have the heart and decided to actually participate in the discussion.
I just wish there would be more threads like this.
I think you're missing the forest for the trees. You sound like you've been reading too many anti-gay look how dumb they are opinions. Gender not being sex was divide and conquer. You miss the point that both sex and gender are becoming separated from biological factors.
>gender and sex are biological
>divide and conquer
>sex is biological but gender is not
>go for the killing blow
>neither sex nor gender are biological
>implying it wouldn't be cool to live in a society based around guilds and aristocratic nobility, but with blockchain-based encrypted data storage instead of castles to protect you from the central power
I think I somehow mixed him up with Kojeve. Don't ask me, how that happened.
I think it has something to do with Fukuyama's The End of History and Last Man, I think he's referring to both of them, or something.
I don't know somehow Leo Strauss was branded guys who now Hegel in my mind.
You're definitely thinking of Kojeve, though Fukuyama was a student of Allan Bloom, who was a student of *both* Strauss and Kojeve (the end of history thesis belongs to Kojeve--Strauss and Kojeve have an interesting debate about it in back-and-forths contained in recent printings of Strauss's On Tyranny.).
Yes. Andrew Sullivan makes this point in his book on gay marriage. There is an interesting correlation between Christian traditionalist attitude towards gays (and sometimes towards gender, albeit this is more rare) and certain forms of radical queerdom.
To follow on that, the entire concept of 'gay marriage' was seen for a large part of the political history of gay people not as an emancipation but rather as a regression. Marriage are essentially hetero, patriarchal and normative. The very first gay magazine in the US published a piece on how marriage should be completely destroyed as an institution.
What you get in the last 20-30 years (basically since AIDS but there are other causes obviously) is the 'embourgeoisement' of gay culture and the emulation of straight lifestyle. This also translates to support of marriage.
In America conservatism is actually 19th and 18th century liberalism so if you're an American it would be people like Voltaire and John Locke.
Don't know what it's like in Europe but i know the definition of conservatism is much more conservative than in America.
>In America conservatism is actually 19th and 18th century liberalism so if you're an American it would be people like Voltaire and John Locke.
It's already the 21rst century mate. You anglos have paleoconservatism for this age, get with the program. Also Voltaire is literally an anti-democrat, so only few of his ideas are america-friendly.
I'm probably one of the only people on this board that will defend Stefan Molyneux, I've listened to him for a long time and only recently gave up the majority of what he taught. So hear me out and let me tell you why people reject Stefan and why i reject Stefan. The majority of people viewing Stefan from the outside see him as a cult-ish leader with a following of "anarchists" who can't stop circle jerking their own position long enough to even put an ear to any new idea of what Stefan calls philosophy. More than that, Stefan's philosophy is re-hashed Aristotelian-ism with not a whole lot of change even though Aristotle is long past considered a practical thinker (i'm working my way through all of Aristotle's writings but the vast majority is outdated with the times).
The biggest problem with Stefan though, is that he carries the outdated ideas of Aristotle into the modern age and invents things like UPB to form the foundation of his theory and no one outside his bubble believes he's truly solved ethics in any sense. This is where i parted with Stefan, he has a lot of good things to say, but mainly his show is just his opinion backed with some haphazard arguments that are so one-sided its sickening, he straw-mans every opposition he can think of and just blows his trumpet like he's on the top. To anyone on the outside he's insane, after a few years of reading the primary sources of philosophical thought, and having discussions with people, i can't really side whole-heatedly with Stefan even though he did give me some kind of "running start" in the area of philosophy.
either way, that's all to say that Stefan has a lot of major character flaws and ideological flaws that keeps him from ever being well received by anyone who picks up his podcasts. At the same time his thoughts are only palatable to a very select group with a very narrow band of ideologies, so when posting about Stefan Molyneux you have to expect a lot of understandable backlash.
Which is no coincidence since he's one of those people who constantly defied the right/left dichotomy.
I'm still waiting for someone to write a paper or book and juxtapose his underlying social philosophy with that of people like Bonald and Maistre. The similarities are astounding.
I was thinking of doing it with him and Schmitt, but then realised that Society must be Defended isn't so much his beliefs, but more him describing prevailing beliefs.
But still politics as continuation of war with other means, is a very poignant idea, and very similar to friend-enemy distinction of Schmitt.
I think it's an entirely legit idea, and the comparison is in order. In fact I'm pretty sure I read more than one paper drawing this comparison (not that it should dissuade you from doing your own stuff, just for secondary consultation).
The reason why I think Bonald and Maistre are more relevant is because of those writers' proto-functionalism, and because I think that Foucault was after all, a functionalist.
Way to be a self flagellating bitch. How is calling someone's God a fairytale creature more obnoxious than half the radical conservative Christian shit on /pol/ that calls for vast swathes of people to be murdered? Don't get me wrong, there are many bad arguments circulating in favor of atheism, appeal to ridicule being a major one, but to auto-default to defending religion as a reaction to that just makes you a fucking faggot 2bh famiry. You're focused on identities rather than arguments.
Well I never said, that I agree with /pol/'s "breadpill" stuff. I consider it as retarded as atheist, it just doesn't trigger me as hard as that.
Theologically speaking my favourite philosopher is Roger Williams.
I'm aware that he sometimes kind of broke his rule of tolerance (mostly dealing with quakers and anabaptists), but both his political philosophy and theological philosophy align so well with my I just don't care about that too mcuh.
Depends on your definition of conservative. He began as liberal pluralist, heavily influenced by phenomenology and hermeneutic philosophy. He wrote a lot against the Marxist intellectuals in the west ("compagnons de route"), and usually adopted a very prudential style of reasoning, which is usually associated with political centrism. After shit went down in western universities in 1968 he began to embrace more unambivalent conservative ideas regarding the importance of authority and identity, and founded a couple of intellectual journals that proved to be the stepping stone for many French conservative thinkers in the late 1970s and later. As a thinker he tends to be somewhat eclectic, as he always addresses issues in a very ad hoc manner, so he's not quite systematic; however he does have a very unique argumentation style. I recommend him warmly.
>It's very anti-individual in that it assigns group responsibility for past evils and group-based compensation for said evils. It entirely ignores the individual's ability to differ from a cookie-cutter version of their idea of an X, Y, or Z person. They realized early on that people can actually belong to different groups at the same time (for instance, being black and a woman), which should have pointed them to individualism as the only rational choice for explaining how groups can have such radical intergroup differences. Instead, they created the idea of intersectionality, saying one person can belong to many groups at the same time - therefore, the human being is a group-based creature incapable of being an individual in any meaningful sense, and society dictates everything about their life (as a clashing of group hierarchies and power) as opposed to them acting on their own.
This fucking shit argument
>Not all Muslim are evil
>suddenly 100+ rapes across 4 major European cities
/pol/ would let you speak and then bash you if they dont agree and would listen if you make sense and probably mock you afterwards
tumblr would literally delete your post and perma ban
>tfw your mail business totally BTFO the postal service so the government gets buttmad and seizes your business
>Conservative = status quo
Not necessarily. Besides 'status quo' is a broad concept. I would say that what's common to all conservative ideas is a distrust of overly abstract and simplified notions of progress (that are usually associated with the political left). Other than that there are plenty of variations between thinkers of course.
>It isn't some equal-and-opposite of progressivism, that's a reactionary
Yeah I might have mixed things a bit. That is more reactionary, than conservatism.
But I don't agree with idea that conservativism is status quo, as >>531014 said.
Because then, in modern Europe, the New Left would be conservative, as it's fighting to preserve the achievements of social democracy, and is in opposition of Third Way neoliberal left of the 90's.
> Because then, in modern Europe, the New Left would be conservative, as it's fighting to preserve the achievements of social democracy.
The Sweden Democrats describe themselves as "social conservatives" and going back to the good old days when there was "proper" social democracy is exactly what they're aiming and why a lot of people are voting on them.
One may argue that there's a difference between "social conservative" and "ordinary" conservatism, but I know too little on the subject to have a proper opinion on it. One may also argue that SD is using the label wrongly. Or that conservatism largely is situated in place and time (I may be wrong here and confusing conservatism with reactionary but I'm just throwing stuff at the wall to see what will stick in this case) and as such looks differently from example to example even if they all have their origins in Burke, or at least justify their version of social democracy by appealing to Burke and other conservatives.
>if they all have their origins in Burke
Thing about Burke is, he was pretty progressive even within the British political circles, but when French revolutionaries beheaded the king, and then the terror started, he was like, welp this has gone too far, thins needs to get dialled back a bit.
I guess in its basic form conservatism is liberalism that gets scared of the path that progressivism is taking and tries to stop it at the point, that they still find acceptable.
Conservativism doesn't imply 'keeping things the same'. There's an entire backdrop of epistemological and social assumptions, that make it largely (although not always and everywhere) incompatible with government intervention in the economy. It's not just a doctrine, it's a theory.
That's because political commentators and academics have gone to great pains to redefine the left-right axis to make sure Communists and Fascists remain on opposing sides. Both are complicit, because neither wants to be associated with each other. Fascists advertised themselves as the "third way" because they didn't want to concede to the hegemony that Communism/Socialism held on the left
In reality what is termed "Left" is left, what is termed "(Far-)Right" is left and what is termed "Center" is right.
Burke published his pamphlet on France in late 1790, Louis XVI was guillotined in January 1791. I'm not just being anal about dates; Burke's wisdom was in seeing through the rhetoric of the Jacobins and analyzing their political programme so as to foresee that it cannot end well.
>incompatible with government intervention in the economy
That's classical liberalism building on Smith.
Only since last party system of the US, when up to then a progressive Republican party lost its base to modernised Democrats, and had to rebrand itself as a conservative party to appeal to until now Democrat base, did its pro-business and against-state control became part of conservatism.
That's what I get from mostly posting out of my ass. I don't know why I thought that it was after the beheading that Burke wrote his pamphlet. Then you're right, he managed to see where this was heading, before it even got there.
>Fascists advertised themselves as the "third way" because they didn't want to concede to the hegemony that Communism/Socialism held on the left
No I didn't mean the third position, but the Blair's Third Way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way
But I was kind of confused myself, when /pol/ and fascist of /lit/ started talking about (for most time) third way, and meaning the Evola's third position.
Well yeah, I think they were. After the reconstruction, when the Republicans were pretty much controlling all the important posts and Democrats were just slogging along, they were the de-facto conservative party, that had a strong south voting base and was the rural party, while the Republicans were the business and workers party of the north.
unis gains most of their funding from govs, they shill for leftist ideologies becuase they usually want more state-control and state funding, if state funding went down, inefficient and outright bad unis would go into bankruptcy, while now they're funded by a secure source which means that teachers and unis can sit around and be as inefficient as possible without consequence, they're shilling for ideologies which secures their payroll
This, without the left there wouldn't be such thing as public schooling nor would there be any universities on US soil, just "company colleges". Conservatism isn't a very humanistic political philosophy, but just caters to the people who are already well off. It's an ad-hoc philosophy for people who got lucky.
But that's really US specific. In Europe, universities are pretty much "untouchable" and would't be as hard-hit. I mean sure the neo-liberal reforms, that pretty much everyone, but the New Left is forcing are trying to cut the funding a bit, but universities are still seen as one of most important heritage of European civilisation.
The left doesn't expand education, it just turns it to useless indoctrination. The mere fact that more people have academic degrees doesn't mean society is in any way better off. Just look at the academic bubble in the US: useless "knowledge" peddled to kids who can't afford it on someone else's dime.
>but on other issues like economics and religion they're all over the place.
That's because the are not one person a singular entity but merely a mob with differentiating opinions, even libs try their luck in there.
>Conservatism isn't a very humanistic political philosophy, but just caters to the people who are already well off.
Do you really think that universities cater to the poor instead of the 'well off'?
In the modern continental model they cater to whoever's in power, since they get the dosh from the state (or some EU institution for that matter). And the powers that be happen to be progressive (or you know, use progressive language which amounts to the same thing in this respect).
>Can't Beat the Pete