/lit/ - Literature

>>16439871
Reminder that Fascism is a stunted form of true Traditionalism.

Books related to the last part?

>>10180568
Every mass ideology since at least the French Revolution, which unleashed nationalism (the original meaning of left-wing), could be considered decadence of some kind. This would include liberal democracy, communism, anarchism, fascism and so much else. There were still distinctions based on race before the materialist conceptions of the 19th C and later Nazism, though.

Fascism was more or less thrown together to combat communism, when it was quite effective at stirring up the masses. For many it was simply a preferable alternative, a tool to be used. Older traditionalists included. Quite a few ex-communists simply used their tactics against them (Mussolini, Goebbels...).

Oswald Spengler expressed some preference for right-wing dictatorship, but would have preferred many of the mass appeal elements to be dropped eventually at least. Both fascism and communism largely exist today in a meme sort of way.

The closest thing to Nietzsche's ubermensch has historically been exceptionally gifted men, often in times of chaos (Napoleon, Caesar). The likes of Shakespeare or Goethe could also be considered. Master morality would be that which is aristocratic. Slave morality: ascetic. Last man = uniform plebian.

Unless Spengler's prediction comes true (the rise of despotism to replace money power) then any powerful man, or even woman, is going to have to use some plebian-tinged ideology or another. Even if they seem relatively bland (generic capitalism, social democracy). Sorry if this is a mess by the way. Threw it together amidst a lot of background noise.

>>10145454

>>10135763
>Joseph de Maistre

What is some literature which can help me further articulate my standings within the conceived bounds of this image? I would like to be in stage 4 but I do not know where to begin. I have The Republic and I think I understand Atlas Shrugged to be conservative reading. What else can help me?

What stage are you in?

>>5270004
Only retards think reactionaries and traditionalist conservatives actually want to "step backwards in time".

Reaction arose in the late XVIIIth century and early XIXth century not as a institution opposed to any change, it was the opposite, while the whigs, liberals and other sons of the Enlightenment, inspired by Newtonian physics saw society as something which followed specific imutable laws and was subjected by reason for this motive, the reactionaries and traditionalists like Joseph de Maistre, François-René de Chateaubriand, Leopold von Ranke and later Jacob Burckhardt and Hippolyte Taine valued the element of change in history and the sense of historical time.

They weren't oppose to looking up and above towards the future. They were opposed to doing that breaking with the past through a mentality that saw society as something that could be planned and molded like some mechanism by "muh reason".

>>4816909
>Evola had to go through court hearing just to prove how pleb he saw Hitler and Musso to be.

The National Socialist party had the right idea in terms of Hierarchy, but they were still a band of plebians who were created merely as a reaction to Bolshevism.

>>4816928

>likes Jews and isn't racist

It depends on what you mean by liking Jews.