/lit/ - Literature

OP, would you consider yourself "right-wing"?

If so, did you know that being against the Enlightenment is actually an extremely right-wing position?

>>11644903
I don't think either of those assertions hold water, but even if they did, that wasn't really what I was getting at. Orthodoxy doesn't have the presence in the history of the West that Catholicism does, at least not outside of Russia. The whole reason Evola and co. are such memes is because they want to call themselves "traditionalists," but they don't ever treat with the actual traditional religion of Western Europe for 1500 years. They're modernists cloaking themselves in gobbledygook about Dionysus and Vishnu.

>>11441652
Burke is weird because he really and truly is "conservative," ie he wants things to stay the way they are at his time, without any movement either forward or backward.

I always think of William F. Buckley's definition of conservatives as people "standing athwart history yelling 'stop!'". There's something pathetic and self-defeating in it, which I'm sure Buckley was smart enough to notice. Burke really, really likes the way England stands in the middle/end of the 18th Century--he likes the "settlement" in the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution, and he likes the balance England has achieved between the powers of Parliament and the powers of the King.

Now, he may be right to like it. It may indeed have been ideal. But by today's standards Burke would be an extreme reactionary. Do you see any British politician, even Jacob Rees-Mogg, calling for the Queen to exercise genuine temporal power? Of course not, but Burke saw it as vital to the health of the English state. He just didn't want the monarch to be absolute.

So, I tend to be somewhat unimpressed with people who call themselves "conservatives." I always assume they were wild hippies in their youth, and then they settled down and retired from their experimental lifestyles, and they proceeded to be shocked when the next generation of vagabonds and rebels wanted to push progressive ideas even further than they did. They seem oblivious to the fact that you can't keep society in a stasis. If you're not going to move "backward" (whatever that means), you're inevitably going to move "forward" (whatever that means). Nothing stands still.

I self-identify as a reactionary, so you can guess where I stand on these things.

>>11312213
OP just read up on Catholic intellectual thought in the 19th and 20th centuries, that should cover anything of genuine scholarly weight. Also, any history of the right/traditionalism that leaves out Catholic thinkers is necessarily incomplete.

>>11191471
I'm sorry, /lit/ is a Catholic reactionary board now. You are going to have to get with the times.

>>11060627
Chomsky, like all communists, realizes that liberalism and capitalism lead only to ruin, but his thinking cannot progress further than that.

Or, rather, his thinking cannot progress backwards.

A great and terrible fire needs to come and cleanse the right-wing of its plague of morons and pseuds.

Anything by Joseph de Maistre

I'm honestly not sure whether to class fascists as right-wing. It's popular to do so these days, but aren't fascists actually super progressive in important ways, particularly economic and political ways?

Like, I consider de Maistre an example of an arch right-winger. He supports monarchy, he supports the Catholic Church, and he believes in the depravity of mankind. I'm not sure he and Evola occupy the same place on the political spectrum, despite their both being labeled as "right-wing."

>>9922924
This. It's not that we're opposed to right-wing literature as such, it's just that most of the right-wing writers and thinkers /pol/ wants to discuss are fucking talentless morons. I mean, Stefan Molyneux? Really?

>>9819235
This post is an excellent summation of the state of play in conservatism. You may have to choose wisely.

I might add that there's also reactionary thought, which is so conservative it longs for a time before conservatism.

There are threads here all the time about "right-wing literature," but I'm wondering: are there, specifically, any right-wing critiques of capitalism. I'd be happy with critiques from around Adam Smith's time as well as more contemporary critiques.

Insofar as /lit/ has right-wingers, they seem to be much more genuine than /pol/'s right-wingers. That is to say, when /lit/ has a right-wing thread we generally talk about actual thinkers of the right, about Catholicism (which is the ultimate right-wing religion), about contemporary movements in politics and society (which is where Land comes in). Basically, /lit/ takes politics much more seriously than /pol/ does, so of course when /lit/ does right-wing stuff it comes across much more clearly and directly, as opposed to /pol/, whose idea of right-wing intellectual activity seems to be watching Fox News and posting on Twitter.