Which books make the best critique of liberalism?

You can tell that he's not a virulent opponent of liberal democracy and he's more or less criticizing it from within. He has clear sympathies to the modern liberal tradition. It's a very good book but we need actual hardline opponents of liberalism to emerge

As a side note, Deneen had a panel with Francis Fukuyama last week and there's some interesting bits in this. Unfortunately the audio is horrendous and it was sloppily recorded
youtube.com/watch?v=CwGEcizduAw&t=2655s&ab_channel=TheLeFrakForumatMichiganStateUniversity

Whatever you get off on...

critiquing ideologies does not kill them
everything is power and the dressing up of power

>hebckin’ rosenbaum

>critiquing ideologies does not kill them
We don’t have to, reality is killing it.

>Revolt against the modern world
>Wears jeans
>Wears sport shoes

Ehhhhh

As the other user mentioned, Lasch's The True and Only Heaven: Progress and It's Critics is great. Lasch is probably the most persuasive and appropriate social critic of the twentieth century and the work is his magnum opus. To Lasch it is the progressive tradition and perspective that was never as persuasive to the greater citizenry as it was to many of the liberal thinkers in the past few hundred years that has resulted in the consequences Deneen explores.

To quickly sum up Lasch, the progressive tradition can be summed up as the religious extreme or logical conclusion of liberalism that believes in no limits on the ability of mankind to conquer nature and improve his condition. Any and all traditional social institutions or values are questioned and eroded away; important to Lasch is the family, the community, and religious belief.

This is all done in the name of progress, both economically (expansion of capitalism displacing artisans and small capitalists for non-producing speculators and global corporations) and socially ("scientific" or "expert" skepticism or outright hostility towards traditions of all sort, culminating in the post WW1 consensus that the masses are hopelessly stupid and need to be ruled and in the post WW2 consensus that nonbelievers can be explained in terms of medicine and pathology). The progressives have insulated themselves from outside criticism which leads to their complete inability to comprehend opposition as anything other than unenlightened or racist or sexist (e.g., opposition to abortion or desegregation or busing or affirmative action or anti-family feminism). This stokes the flames of racism, sexism, etc.

This can today be seen as a sort of class issue, with the progressive professional-managerial-technical class opposed to the working class. The contemporary right has capitalized on the vulnerabilities of the white working class, paying lip service to family issues and other traditional values while continuing to endorse capitalism, a major source of their erosion. Note both sides are absolutely committed to the uninhibited explosion of capitalism and the markets, and when they talk about the American Dream talk about social mobility (e.g., displacement into the professional-managerial-technical class) and not about being able to work hard to one day own a house, etc etc.

>The greatest proof of human freedom today lies in our ability to imagine, and build, liberty after liberalism.
If that's the case I'm not liking our chances.

Deneen's problem is he's a partisan hack. He spends only two or three lines mentioning capitalism as far as I remember, and I think it is only to lament the inclusion of women in the workplace or something.

Aside from Lasch, there's Carlyle, Durkheim, Marcel Mauss, Ellul, pre-schizo Baudrillard, and unironically Marx and the Marxists for all their faults.

Socialist ones.
Going backwards into monarchism is a ridiculous cope.

I am a eugenicist. I am a racist. I am a nationalist. I am against democracy.

I am a liberal.

Attached: 1588366905835.jpg (1080x1326, 112.77K)

it's also clearly a woman

^DNC everybody

>>Aside from Lasch, there's Carlyle, Durkheim, Marcel Mauss, Ellul, pre-schizo Baudrillard, and unironically Marx and the Marxists for all their faults.

Don't forget McLuhan!!!!!

holy based

>Alisa Rosenbaum.
she looks like she gives good head....for a price determined by the invisible hand of the free market

Stop asking for advice on r/lit.

t. Spencer

>Also note that he praises democracy throughout the book.
>Appeal to the masses
Midwit confirmed. I'd rather have rigorous and objective analysis.
Not gonna even read this book at all now.

what these books dont understand is that its not liberalism that is the problem, its democracy. in fact democracy is a fundamentally illiberal idea.

How's that

It's worth reading user. The basic premise of the book, that liberalism is contradictory and self-defeating since it was founded upon incorrect assumptions about human nature, is correct. And if you want to understand our situation today of how liberalism could simultaneously be the strongest system in the world with the most passionate adherents yet liberal democracy is declining in power at the same time, this book helps you grasp that paradox

this is not the place for fanfiction

The major thrust of post-WW2 American Liberalism has been using the Supreme Court to advance moral values and protect minority groups from democracy and/or majority persecution

He's arguing in terms of political theory. Normies know nothing about this shit. They think "liberalism" just means Democrats. If he was at a panel repeating talking points you'd hear from a liberal like Jordan Peterson then people would've protested, but because his work is clearly directed towards elite segments of the world (Obama read his book) no one cares

Certainly not the moral values of the working class, to this day. Neither negroes nor Hispanics care much for trannys or gays.

Why should we believe the moral values of Pablo the construction worker are correct?

Liberalism didn't fail.

Attached: line go up.png (850x600, 46.05K)

>“They” get to define poverty
You will own nothing and you will be happy

Here's my personal, topwit-tier list of the kinoest anti-Liberal cririques:
>1) Mitchell Heisman's (literal) Suicide Note
legacy.gscdn.nl/archives/images/suicide_note.pdf

>2) Joseph de Maistre's Major Works, Vol. I
files.catbox.moe/bxpoe6.epub

The rest can be found on 3lib.net:

>3) The Concept of the Political by Carl Schmitt
Here's a good overview of Schmitt by Momcilo Nevesky: youtu.be/ECz7Q4zNH-Y

>4) Which Way Western Man? By William G. Simpson

>5) Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics by Francis Parker Yockey

>6) American Extremist: The Psychology of Political Extremism by Josh Neal,

Attached: Art Festivals in Munich-03.jpg (1228x825, 202.79K)

And yet the vast majority of the population of 1820 was much more self-actualized and happy in poverty than when multinational corporations or liberal governments bought their land from corrupt governments, destroyed their way of life, prevented their own independence and self-sustenance, and built factories to change self-sustaining communities into market-dependent lowest-of-the-low wage laborers, despite their now earning more than $1 / day.

$1.90/day, sorry. They are much happier, as can be gleaned from their income, you're right

Expounding on #4 (Which Way Western Man?), here is a copy-pasta of Chapter X, "On the Fallacy and Failure of Popular Government":
han.gl/uDKOv

Attached: ad03cd205f56389c14d8f5b99ac9ec9867d2a418.jpg (333x500, 40.09K)

Kalbs the Tyranny of Liberalism

i love how every believe everyone was so happy in the 1820s. do you really think the french revolution and napoleon would have popped off if everybody was so satisfied with their lives?

Populations in poverty are always happier, this is a statistical fact. You can move to a subsistence village in central America if you really think that life would be better, it's still open to you.

What keeps the Amish population not just stable but growing? Why did captured Americans in wars with the natives very often stay with the natives, and why did the natives leave the early modern world to return to theirs? It is exactly the point that the "utility" provided by modern inventions fades as fast as they are obtained. It's a matter of psychology, not a matter of "quality of life" or "poverty" viewed as a one-dimensional number crunched together by economists. Do you think the aristocrat of early modern Europe, or even fuedal Europe or ancient Rome or Greece, could not have comprehended the happiness or quality of life that the lower middle class Western wagie enjoys today? Do you think the feudal farmer peasants that effectively never had to worry about purchasing a house or feeding a family, and who had religion to make sense of their world and their place in it, is any worse off than the ghetto negro with his lack of religion, shattered if existent family, and rented apartment? Something tells me his iPhone, car, and toilet don't make up much of the difference.

now do why the middle ages failed

Russia tried that and it doesn't work. Even outright cash payments don't work. It's not about money. Fertility drops off as female education increases. This is entirely because as a woman's own perceived worth increases, she refuses to consider men she views as beneath her to be a potential mate. She'll use contraception and abortion to avoid the shackles of motherhood before she can land "a good man".

An alternative explanation is that, once a woman is exposed to the global population of the best men, either by education or exposure to broadcast media (television), she can't bring herself to settle for her local supply of average men. She feels she must hold out for one of the good men from college, or the television.

Women have never had it more easy and safe to have as many children as they want and never be worried about wanting for material goods (the state provides it all). It's not about money.

huh, maybe material wealth is not the way to go
maybe we should look back and seek traditional values
I wonder... how far from 1820s Christianity have we strafed from?

>Which Way Western Man?
Absolutely love this book. An humble man looks over his life and the state of the world and gives a well reasoned and well sourced take on what future generations should focus on and be wary of.
Is there any other book like it? I would be fascinated if there was a similar book where the author in all seriousness didn't come to similar conclusions.

When you are aware that your life has no eternal meaning or significance but you have enough money to save up to retire at 65...actually 75 if you're not a boomer. This is Progress.

There's nothing quite like it but there are a few books that contain a similar Faustin, weltanschauung spirit. Some that spring to mind are:
>Mitchell ~(~(~(Heisman's~)~)~ Suicide Note (2011)

>America's Decline: The Education of an American Conservative by Revilo P. Oliver (1981)

>American Extremist: The Psychology of Political Extremism by Josh Neal (2021)

>Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics by "Ulick Varange" [Francis Parker Yockey] (1948)

>The Enemy of our Enemies (1981): A Critique of Francis Parker Yockey’s The Enemy of Europe (1948)

>The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century by Houston Stewart Chamberlain (1899)
(I created a better-formatted ePub from the 2 vols of PDFs if you'd like a copy)

>Myth of the 20th Century by Alfred )))Rosenberg((( (1930)

>Nature's Eternal Religion (1973) / White Man's Bible (1981) by Ben Klassen

>Neuadel aus Blut und Boden [New Nobility from Blood and Soil] by Richard Walther Darré (1930)

>Adolf Hitler, el último avatãra (Adolf Hitler: The Ultimate Avatar) by Miguel Serrano (1984)

>Germany's Third Empire by Arthur Moeller van den Bruck (1922)

>The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Underman by T. Lothrop Stoddard, A.M., PhD (1922)

Attached: 1578423408935 (1).png (4100x4100, 2.89M)

Natsoc twitter garbage

Deneen and other pseudo-radicals that are enfranchised never go very far in the prescriptive aspect. He basically said to make decentralized Catholic communities and hope that libzog doesn't come after you with force. The Yank already showed in 1861 and many times since that there can be no peaceful exit from the liberal order. I figure that the acknowledgment of this fact would lead to physical/financial harassment though so no conservative professor would ever go there

Seethe, shitwit.
>picrel, it's (You)

Attached: 947e0aecbcd60c5d85da2a1d34b6e223.jpg (369x369, 25.08K)

Attached: terry davis glownigger sun.jpg (1024x683, 112.46K)

Thanks. I read an excerpt by Yockey on the US (chechar.wordpress.com/2022/04/13/yockey-on-the-united-states/) recently which I found enlightening and spot-on. I'll have to check out his Imperium.
Got anything better to recommend?

Attached: 1636503817851.jpg (750x738, 471.56K)

> The Yank already showed in 1861 and many times since that there can be no peaceful exit from the liberal order.
From the Yankee perspective why should the Confederacy be allowed to exist? It has no purpose other than preserving slavery. The same is true of Deneen or MacIntyre's wholesome small Catholic communities in practice (but replace slavery with hatred of gays). Why should these communities be allowed to exist? How can they justify their existence rooted in hatred, in light of the Holocaust?

Women in control of their reproduction is wise. We certainly don’t need more people. Stupid of the western colonialists not to have raised everyone out of poverty, now we’ve got a hell of a lot more non-whites, and white-fright running rampant. Disgusting.

I've no idea. Apparently, even being multicultural and LARPing as jews isn't justification based on the Waco siege. I think you're right that you have to be a non-threat to the system like most communes to get a chance to exist.

Why should it not be? Should we go invading other countries that don't fit our standards of liberal democracies? Why should they be allowed to exist?

It's wrong to say their existence is "rooted" in hatred. What does that mean? They ostracize the out-group. Just like liberal democracy. Just a different out-group.

I'm being a bit adversarial here but also trying to make an important point - the central question for right-wing thought post WW2 is "How can so-called traditional views (nativism or ethnocentrism, traditional views on sexuality, etc.) possibly be morally acceptable in light of the Holocaust and after the Civil Rights Movement?" No one has managed to answer this yet within the framework of Christian Conservatism.

>Why should it not be? Should we go invading other countries that don't fit our standards of liberal democracies? Why should they be allowed to exist?
Well, liberals would say "yes we should", much like Crusaders might say regarding polytheists at the time, for example.

>It's wrong to say their existence is "rooted" in hatred. What does that mean? They ostracize the out-group. Just like liberal democracy. Just a different out-group.
As an exercise, ask yourself why people would want to get together to form a wholesome post-liberal Catholic small community a la MacIntyre, Deneen, or whoever your favorite author of this sort is. Their motivations almost always amount to a negative view regarding the trajectory of contemporary sexual morality, as in, acceptance of LGBTQ groups.

The problem is, after the Holocaust, it's considered morally unacceptable to ostracize outgroups if said outgroup constitutes an ascriptive category. This imperative has basically rekt traditional social-conservative morality, because LGBTQ+ can just claim to be the new Jews/Blacks and conservatives have no idea how to morally respond in a compelling way. Only a sort of Nietzsche-inspired immoralism is somewhat compelling here, but the problem is that getting onboard this train means rejecting Christianity.