What happened to Intellectual Conservatism?

It was memed to death.

there is nothing intellectual about conservatism

>>24545642
So, fpbp? Is that what you are saying?

>>24545615 (OP)
The more interesting question is: what happened to your previous thread about this?

>>24545667
If you actually consider that interesting you should probably consider suicide.

intellectualism is closely tied with academia. academia has a clear modern slant towards liberalism.
if anything, buckley is the man who failed, he lost composure against the suave (and evil) vidal, and set the tone for how to kill the intellectual conservative. go for his heart, go for the grip he maintains on morality, use the very values he relies on to lever him up and out.
to answer your question, it fucking died. french fried politics are what we all get now. it's proven too effective to bother with old dry tightasses anymore.

>>24545615 (OP)
It lost the position intellectually.
All the values of conservatism - family, state, nation, hierarchy, traditions - are easily undermined through a knowledge of antropology, sociology, history, and political science, all sprinkled with the obvious and rational insights of postmodern philosophy.
>Nuclear family
Anthropology shows the concept of nuclear family isn't as uniform across nations and ages. It may be argued that it's most effective for a certain type of society, but that doesn't in any way mean it's some golden mean of human relationships.
>State
History proves that states are as shifty as the moods of a woman menstruating.
>Nation
History shows that the modern conception of nationhood evolved some times in the 19th century in conjunction with the Romantic movement, and that the concept of nationhood was the first stepping block to volk ideologies that were the impetus for the atrocities of the 19th century. Psychology will shows that becoming a national something - Estonian, Russian, Indian, English, Italian - involves learning performative behaviours that are associated with being a certain nationality (Russians must drink and use blyat; Estonians must never show emotions; American blacks must listen to rap). The same with language - you're just learning to associate specific combination of sounds with a certain meaning. In the end, nationality is like a theatre role you play your whole life without suspecting that you're playing it. And that's not getting into class and subcultural behaviours, which are similarly mediated by performative behaviours.
>Hierachy
See above about the state. History shows that hierarchies can be turned upside down.
>Traditions
See about nationality. There's book - Inventing Traditions or something like that, can't remember the name - that argues that a lot of things that people take as traditional and ancient actually appeared closer to our age (19th century). I read a lot of academic literature on the occult and tantra, and even there what at first appears to be traditional is often something syncretic that tries to appeal to tradition by presenting itself as older (The 20th century occult and witchcraft revival; the terma traditions; many root Tibetan tantras not having sources in India but being fabricated in Nepal by opportunist priests (Tibetan Renaissance by Davidson)).
To defend conservatism intellectually today you have to disregard the whole of humanities. I serious minded humanities student of any field could easily overthrow a single conservative intellectual.
And this, by the way, the reason why humanities are marginalized in totalitarian shitholes like Russian, China, India, Estonia, since a sincere application of humanities, and postmodern philosophy especially, undermines the nationalist and totalitarian narratives these countries need to uphold to preserve their ideology.

>>24545667
Every time he posts this thread an angel gets its wings.

>>24545724
After seeing you suggest that family is the weakness of the conservative approach, I can't help but wonder how you keep walking after you've broken your leg like that. The family had to be sawn apart limb by limb before it could finally be undermined on a consistent basis.
The entire internet had to be invented before that final institution of humanity (ironic that you've selected the humanities as the diametric opposition to conservatism) gave way.

>>24545724
It only seems like that on the shallow surface level. Obviously nothing is objective. But if you want certain cultural outcomes than yes Institutions like religion, hierarchies, patriarchy are the necessary pre conditions it's just that the plebs have to follow something that is seen as ultimate and objective truth and ironically you are seeing the outcomes of relativistic leftist critiques like racial quality, gender liberation as absolute virtues with scientific evidence to the contrary being pushed aside. Because again the plebs can only believe in something objectively true.

>>24545615 (OP)
The problem is that conservatives conserve nothing; they're just latent liberals.

>>24545615 (OP)
It was antithetical to itselfand had to either devolve in blend liberalism or fascism. As >>24545724 points out, there's no objectivity in the fields of human relations (from which politics are derived). Therefore the only way to instantiate "conservatism" is either to abide by it through a prescriptive lens (people SHOULD be in a nuclear family because it will make the nation stronger) which ultimatly leads to totalitarian fascism (you WILL be in a nuclear family for the sake of the nation), or through a descriptive lens by which one would only eventually become a liberal given lack of tangible social structures to uphold.
Iirc, part of the reasons people were so prone to adhere to american conservatism in the 1960s and later on under Reagan was more out of fear of totalitarian regimes rather than an actual belief in the precepts these people valued.

>>24545615 (OP)
Neocons and the Israeli lobby

>>24545615 (OP)
Oxymoron

>i have decided to teach outside of the domain of my expertise this year
that's where you can find it on Tuesdays, OP

>>24546759
I'm like this

>>24545724
>Anthropology shows the concept of nuclear family isn't as uniform across nations and ages. It may be argued that it's most effective for a certain type of society, but that doesn't in any way mean it's some golden mean of human relationships.
Those other nations have strong networks of extended families.
Liberals threw out the father because they think there's going to be a black lesbian down syndrome aunt to take his place. The reality is that the state has to step in and fill the vacancy.

You're talking about "muh anthropology" like retards like you wouldn't have been fucking gassed for thousands of years leading up to this point.