>>82
In political philosophy, I follow Evola, Hans-Dietrich Sander, and, to a lesser degree, DeMaistre. In economy, Chesterton, Belloc, etc.
Evola makes a very good case for the Traditional system from an occult perspective. "As above, so below". But he also makes a good general case for a pyramidal structure in society: Man as the king of his family, the village headman as the king of the village, the local noble as the king of the local land, etc. all the way up to the Emperor, as living God (this aspect can't really be explained in short, so let's just say he is to represent the Sun-God).
Thus, everyone knows where he stands, who he has duties towards, who he leads, who he is bound to obey. But at the same time, everything is local enough to not go crazy - people rarely wish to live next to an abject slave. It also provides a lot of freedom, because feudal governments by definition aren't centralized and thus relatively weak in enforcement.
Sander makes a similar point, mainly adding a more materialistic reason to the supremacy of the Emperor over the Priesthood and showing the good example of the Staufer dynasty.
DeMaistre makes the negative argument - why Republicanism and democracy is bad - inevitably resulting in tyranny of the masses voting themselves more benefits, with no regard to general welfare, inevitable orgies of bloodshed akin to the French revolution, etc.
The economic thinkers I mentioned argue for Distributism - "Three Acres and a Cow". Small-scale agriculture as the center of the economy for a sensible outlook - there is no other industry without agriculture, and added stability. Craftsmen to be organized in local guild structures, ordered by profession, not managerial/worker status, ensuring everyone can make an independent living as long as he tries, but the living varies based on his skill.
There really is no way to make the argument to overthrow nearly the last thousand years of history without sounding like a lunatic. The best I can say, consider the modern world, and the kind of life it leads to, and if you're happy with it. And if modernity is wrong, then might it not be wrong at the core, rather than some minor misstep that may have happened everywhere modernity took hold?
If you're interested, I recommend you read as much of their works as you're able to (I don't think Sanders got much English translation). The Economic thinkers are a lot more fun to read, so maybe start there..