/lit/ - Literature

Don't waste your time with this joker, read De Maistre instead.

Conservatism is cucked. It started with Edmund Burke and Burke was cucked, too. Burke cucked out HARD on both the English Revolution and the American Revolution, which made his objections to the French Revolution pathetic.

Reject conservatism. Embrace reaction. Don't read Burke, read De Maistre instead.

>>15648296
To be frank, even when we had political posting in the past, it felt more intelligent. Even when we had people interested in "right wing literature" in the past, it didn't feel as outright stupid as some of the posts and threads are these days.

I think you can see this most clearly in the shift of interest on this board from De Maistre to Evola to Guenon. De Maistre is a real thinker and a real historian, he's a formidable writer that can actually stimulate interesting discussions of ideas and historical events. Meanwhile, Evola is a memester who has stupid ideas, and Guenon is even worse. The shift from interest in De Maistre to interest in Evola and Guenon signifies the shift away from any serious interest in ideas, and any desire to significantly engage in critical thinking, in favor of just memeing and shitposting without any stimulating discussion.

I honestly am astounded at how incredibly fucking stupid some of the people on here seem to be. I assume some of the people starting these threads have two digit IQs. And it didn't used to be that way.

>>15584832
The entire reason to be a reactionary in 2020 is that history teaches us the futility of revolutions. It was easy to be a radical in 1789 or 1917, because it seemed like a radical new world, an earthly paradise, really WAS possible. But now? We know better. We know it's all bullshit. All the dreams of guys like Rousseau, guys like Robespierre, guys like Marx, Lenin, all these dumb boomers. It's all fucking pointless. It all just ends in mass death and the old aristocracy being replaced by a new, slightly different aristocracy that is functionally identical to the people they had killed.

What the fuck is the point of being left-wing in 2020? Who in their right mind would ever support democracy, communism, these radical ideologies that promise a better world? It's all fucking dogshit. History teaches us that the iron boot of hierarchy and authority inevitably reasserts itself every single time, and all the utopian dreams always end with the original dreamers getting executed by the state they helped create, and a small number of people hold the vast majority of wealth and power, just as it was before the revolution.

There is no logical political position in 2020 except for Reaction. Everything else is moronic and is ignorant of history.

>>15540532
You know, it's funny. This board has made memes out of Evola, Guenon, Spengler and other odd, far-right thinkers. Yet we've been talking about De Maistre longer than we've been talking about any of those guys, but to this day, he's never been a "meme" on this board. Not in the way Evola and Guenon have been.

Is it because De Maistre is a big boy writer, and the average memester from /pol/ and Reddit can't wrap their heads around him?

What about hardcore reactionaries like De Maistre? They're more right-wing than almost any living American, yet they seem to be highly intelligent.

Other than De Maistre, what are some other good jaded Catholic reactionaries I can read?

>>13594616
>muh scientifg methog

>It would be difficult to encounter anywhere ideas that are more false. Who has ever maintained that there was a need for syllogisms to smelt metals, to crystallize salts or to shatter blocks? Did the mechanics, the opticians, and especially the numerous alchemists, contemporaries of Bacon, reason this way in forma? Such is Bacon's eternal ridiculousness: he wraps himself in his oracular toga to tell us things so simple that they could be called silly; and the crowd has no less belief that these pompous words signify something. For Bacon, there is only one science, experimental physics; the others are not properly sciences, since they only reside in opinion. These sciences are always empty of works, that is to say that the theologian, the moralist, the metaphysician, etc., could never put one of their demonstrations in a jar, put it through a filter, or under a hammer or through a still, etc.; therefore certitude belongs only to the physical sciences, and the moral sciences are only for the amusement of opinion. We must take great care not to believe that this system is only ridiculous; it is eminently dangerous and tends directly to the degradation of man. Undoubtedly, the natural sciences have their worth; but they must not be cultivated exclusively, nor ever be given first place. Every nation that commits this mistake will soon fall beneath itself. This truth was quite remote from Bacon; but what he was also perfectly ignorant of is that even in the natural sciences, any conclusive experiment is only a proposition, a necessary part of an internal syllogism; otherwise it would not conclude, which again obviously proves the existence of original ideas, independent of all experience: for man can measure nothing without a previous measure to which he relates himself. Even experiment becomes useless to him if he cannot relate it to a prior principle that he uses to judge the validity of the experiment. So in going back we necessarily arrive at a principle that teaches and cannot be taught; otherwise there would be progress to infinity, which is absurd.

>>13379216
What about reactionaries? They tend to be pretty smart.

Honestly, so much of the rise of right-wing thought on 4chan seems to have come precisely from the sort of edgy contrarianism that has always marked 4chan. That's not to say that it's not genuine. What I mean is: when Obama was elected in 2008, progressivism was everywhere, and a kind of left-libertarian streak was dominant in American, and more broadly Western, politics. 2008-2016 was what one might call the "heyday" of 4chan; it's when the vast, vast majority of current Anons joined the site. As Obama's presidency continued, 4chan's natural contrarian tendencies drove interest in right-wing thought.

The trouble is, we ALSO all remembered Dubya, and the Bush Administration, and we all fucking hated them. Even today, every right-winger on this site hates Bush, Cheney, and all the other neocons.

So we asked ourselves: "Is there a way to be right-wing that doesn't involve becoming a neocon?"

And that led us to discover de Maistre, Spengler, Evola, Guenon, etc.. And so, here we are.

>>11980227
Reminder that you cannot even be considered truly right wing unless you have read and appreciated pic related.

>>11974068
>My professor is presenting my class with anti-enlightenment bullshit.
Absolutely based and rare professor.

>>11930287
>republicans
>conservative
Maybe a few of them but they're just neocons anyway. Take the reactionary pill, "conservative" is a misnomer in the modern world.

*destroys modernity before it even begins*

>>11833988
>Modernity's fundamental problems can be traced back to the psycho-spiritual disorder
Wrong.

It is fundamentally traced back to the Reformation and French (and American) revolution.

No, they were merely products of the French Revolution, which truly began the decline of western civilization.

>>11823136
>>11823176
The French (and American) revolution was the biggest mistake. The world we live in is the logical endpoint for enlightenment thought.

>>11812520
this

>>11812401
Because "conservative" is a misnomer in the modern world. Read Moldbug. After that I would suggest dosages from authors such as de Maistre and Carlyle. Reaction is the logical end point for anyone tending to the right of the spectrum.

Pic related was 100% correct. The Enlightenment was a mistake.