Talk:Essay:Conservative Revolution
Article problems
Several of the people named in the article, be it Julius Evola or Oswald Spengler were either openly anti-Christian bigots, openly in favor of socialism/hostile to free markets, or both, and certain lines in the article are also problematic such as this one:
Wikipedia states that the DNVP was "proto-fascist", but there might be Liberal bias.
Ok, so since is article seems to be using the word "conservative" in the big-government Spenglerian/European sense of the word and not the American small-government sense, am I to assume that this article is also using the word "liberal" in its original small-government European sense? If you mean "liberal" in the big-government American/Clintonian fashion, then this phrase needs to contain the word "progressivism" instead of "liberal" since with that word there is no question. Progressivism means tyranny, in every possible application. That way any readers will be met with concrete language.
This article also makes it impossible to decipher the meaning of "restore the traditional culture". The culture Spengler was so proud of was unabashedly socialistic. At least his book Prussianism And Socialism is openly listed here. It would be wise of anybody who attempts to edit this page to read that book front to back. Spengler wanted everybody to know he was a socialist, and that's the book where he proclaims it. But in the end, this article seems to be somewhat written in favor of the DNVP, and this article states that it was monarchist. In America, we rebel from kings. Monarchism is a failed ideology, republicanism and limited government and God's unalienable rights are the traditions sought after here.
In summary, this article has way too many dual-use words that do not clarify their European or American connotations. Progressingamerica (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
