/lit/ - Literature

>>23344250
SOMEBODY is going to have to on the NRx side sooner or later if it's to be anything more than a LARP. The fact of the matter is that nothing is going to get done in terms of genuinely advancing right-wing political ideas as long as the United States government is around, or at least around in its present form. The feds are committed to enforcing Liberalism, or at least their interpretation of it. Trump tried to push back on them in the tiniest of ways and they're trying to reduce him to rubble for it. The US government isn't going to tolerate illiberal political ideas and it won't tolerate them in Europe and Asia either as long as American hegemony lasts. So nothing is going to get done as long as the government is still around, and unless collapse is imminent, the only way the feds won't be an obstacle any more is if they're FORCED out of the way.

Neither Yarvin nor Land nor anyone else is going to get their way without at least a LITTLE treason. That's the plain facts.

>>23202251
Reactionaries are rebels from the right-wing. That's why they're succeeding while "normal" conservatism is collapsing. Burke's time is over, it's the time of de Maistre now.

>>23195129
Literally any Catholic right-winger.

In the last 25 years the Right has outpaced the Left in philosophical work. I know Moldbug is a meme but he really was doing pretty rigorous work about a decade ago, and he wasn't and isn't the only one.

The Left won and they've gotten fat and complacent in their victory. Peace has defeated them. The Right is over here trying to rebuild perennialist civilization, which we're going to need when the Left's triumph inevitably leads us into the new Dark Age that everybody with a brain can see is coming.

There was more interesting stuff going on in places like Social Matter and Thermidor than left-wing philosophy has done in decades.

How is the most logical outcome of the modern world, including in literature, not the reactionaries getting their revenge? They were right about everything. They were right about how the Enlightenment would end up, they were right about where the French Revolution would lead us, they were right about the fundemantal sameness of human nature and human civilization through the centuries. All that the 21st Century has done is prove that the dreams of enlightenment, progress, and liberty were fool's errands.

So if you wanted to do something "new" in literature and philosophy, I think you could do worse than calling a spade a spade in a reactionary sense. Rip the band-aids off, dispel the illusions, point out that the emperor has no clothes, use the old words accurately as they are applied to our present age. Point out that the United States is an empire. Point out the reemergence of a firm class system with a hereditary aristocracy at the top. Note the inefficacy of the common people in ever enacting real change, unless they wield the violent power of the mob.

This is why NRx was so interesting to me, because it felt like they were barking up the right tree. Pointing out that our "modern" world wasn't as different from the past as its cheerleaders would have you think.

>>22490924
>Supernatural materialism -> Christianity
Nice

>Le right-wingers heckin steal from the left
Engels said he learned more from Balzac about humanity than from any legitimate sociologist. Balzac in turn saw himself as the intellectual heir of Louis de Bonald.
Marx name-drops Vico as a major influence in his thought.
Any French socialist who was inspired by Baudelaire should know that he considered picrel his master.
Who's stealing from whom?

>>22287892
This is what I have come to understand reaction to be. If reactionaries are the other end of the spectrum from revolutionaries, and revolutionaries want, well, revolution, then don't reactionaries want a kind of revolution, too?

Reactionaries want revolution from the right-wing. This distinguishes them from conservatives, who don't believe in stopping or reversing left-wing progress, merely slowing it down. Reactionaries are right-wing radicals, that's their entire point.

This is why the whole idea of reaction finds so much purchase these days. A sense among right-wing people that there is simply nothing to conserve any more, relative to their values, so being a "conservative" is useless. A sense that something more dramatic will be needed, to get the world where they want it to be.

Pretty much any reactionary. Modern women are bothered by the suggestion that the current age is an abomination.

>>22114204
>Greatest britbong thinker
>Got BTFO by a Savoyard
Embarrassing...

>>22096089
Substitute Maistre for Marx and that's about right.

Alright /Lit/ gives me your best reactionary literature and philosophy. Bonus points if they are Catholic and before the year 1850.

I’ll start Louis de Bonald

All the most truly intelligent people turn right-wing sooner or later.

>>21500554
Or maybe it's good advice to start being a normal fucking himan being (literally lmao) and not have deviant sexual urges. Homosexuality is literally putting your body at risk for a metric shitton of STDs and other diseases that end your life quicker, like AIDS/HIV, prolapsed anuses and incontenence,etc. That's not even talking about the rampant pedophillic aspect of gay culture and the other degenerate shit they get up to like in Pride Parades. The asshole wasn't made to take penises and frankly at least with some sort of sexual activity with women, a man can sire offspring. Stop being gay basically.

I don't even hate homosexuals. I just think they need to stop destroying their bodies and recognize themselves as children of God and thus respect themselves. It's really the same shit with modern women and how they whore themselves out for love and attention when they can find that in God.

>>21441373
Ironically if you're a for-real reactionary you tend to be somewhat well-read.

Like, the average American right-winger isn't a monarchist. That takes a special blend of autism that usually results in a propensity to read.

>>21314048
This. Providence has already taken of most kinds of paganism. Neofagans are LARPers. As for sincere pagans, all you gotta do is point and laugh at Japanese suicide rates, and Indian beach shitters and there you go, paganism deboonked.

>>21313561
anytime :)

>Beach-shitter religion
>Followers conquered and subjugated by Christian empire
Nothing rebukes heathenism better than Providence.

What was Joseph de Maistre's greatest work?
Was he the best of the counter-enlightenment?

>>20515752
We did listen to him, and that's part of the probt. Picrel is who we really should've listened to.

>>20489278
In general, on big questions like power and wealth, history has a way of proving the right-wing correct.

What has every attempt at social revolution, from the English Civil War onwards, striven to achieve? A broadly-shared wealth and power. Broadly-shared prosperity, and the ability of the average man to rule himself. For this reason revolutions have been fought, institutions have been torn down, kings have been killed, kulaks have been liquidated, and there has been almost 400 years of bloodshed, exile, and upheaval.

But now, after all that, where have we wound up? Right back where we started: with a small amount of people controlling most of the wealth and most of the power. And in miniature form that's what happens after EVERY revolution. You have the side that won out in the revolution settling into positions of power and wealth, and the aristocracy is reified. Oh, sure, the names and labels may be different. The Soviet Politburo wasn't EXACTLY the same as the Russian aristocracy under the tsar. But it served functionally the same purpose. All these "people's republics" were no better than the kingdoms and aristocratic republics of old.

And liberal democracy has proven to be no better. The people have no say whatsoever; the real power in the modern West lies in financial institutions, intelligence agencies, and the riches of the rich, who believe their wealth has given them the right to determine what befalls everyone else. The "common people" are manipulated, lied to, and outright ignored when their will goes against that of the true sources of power.

All those revolutions, all that bloodshed, all that trouble caused, and we're no better off than we were under the dukes, barons, and princes. We have the exact same unequal distribution of wealth and power, but everything is uglier, more drab, and more boring.

It's enough to make you wish for monarchy and aristocracy to make a comeback. At least back then things looked cool.

How can you be man of great literature and the Western Canon and not be a reactionary? The art of the past was without a doubt better and you would know this obviously being a man of great art and literature yet you support the liberalization or worse the Communization (destruction of all culture)? It's oxymoronic to be anything but a Reactionary or Traditionalist and still be supporter of great literature. Why would you support the ideology that killed off beauty?

He was a sociopath, right?

I know the popular names associated with the movement but I'm struggling on where to begin.

Sam Francis, James Burnham, Gaetano Mosca, Bertrand de Jouvenel, de Maistre. A lot of this encompasses the overarching "Elite Theory" present in a lot of their respective literature.