/lit/ - Literature

>>17526538
>pwease i need my wight wing witerature no mean weft wing buks yucky >:(

>>17526538
Right wing can mean anything from hayek to hitler. Be moar specific

Pic related is good. Though if you’re interested in conservatism, you should just read Burke, Buckley, etc. like a normal person. Nearly everyone who identifies as “right wing” on this board is a seventeen year old LARPer who ignores actual conservative thought in favor of mystical proto-fascist craziness. Absolutely no reason to engage with Evola imo.

http://orgyofthewill.net/praise/

"You will never see someone else saying they'll exterminate the subhuman race as they ascend to a futuristic machine-god with such sincerity."

>>17526538
The outlaws is an obscure nivel about the freikorps and them beating the shit out of commies

>>17526538
Do you want fiction authors too or just theory and philosophy?

>>17526738
Both

>>17526688
Sounds based

>>17526578
I'm looking mostly for books that are related to fascism. Doesn't need to be explicitly fascist though as long as it captures the spirit of fascism

>>17526575
I've already read quite a lot of left wing literature in my commie phase. That's why I'm a fascist now

>>17527181
Why don’t you just think for yourself? Use that brain then put a bullet through it

>>17527181
Fascism was a europoor fad from the 20th century. Stop calling yourself something that is almost entirely irrelevant to modern reality.

>>17527181
>That's why I'm a fascist now
There are better ways of coping anon.

>>17527233
>>17527215
Calm down commies. Fascism makes a lot of sense when you get past all the baggage.

>>17526575
fpbp, think for yourself OP you fucking fag

>>17527205
>Why don’t you just think for yourself?
I do, why else do you think I read books from every part of the political spectrum? During this process of broadening of my reality tunnel I happened to realize that lefties always tend to have a slave morality/ victim mentality. This kind of thinking is obviously not a good foundation to build society on. Only a conception based on competition and elements of social darwinism will create a strong society that can survive long term

>>17527236
I'm not a commie. Even from a right-wing perspective, calling yourself a fascist is retarded. There is no getting past the baggage.

>>17527236
fascism makes no rational sense, its all mystical bullshit and propaganda. if you call yourself a fascist in 2021, youre a retarded larping kid

>>17527236
>Everyone against my retard ideals is a communist
Brainworms and beyond help. There’s a reason fascists gather so many reactionary gimps like you

>>17527248
How do fascists not also slave morality? They see themselves as victims of the jews or minorities or whatever and they need a strong leader to tell them what to do

>>17527263
>IT'S DA JOOS
You're thinking of nazism, I'm talking about OG fascism

>>17527181
>No mom I’m a communist now! Uhh no mom I’m a fascist now!
Fucking LARP. Beyond pathetic

>>17527251
>no rational sense
nikkah, rationalism is ultra-gay and even more passé then fascism, neck yourself

>>17527263
You don't quite seem to understand what the terms master and slave morality mean. Let me help you out friend

If this thread is bait, I have to say well done

>>17527288
Is this meant to mean anything but fuck all? You just uncritically believe this?

>>17527236
>Fascism makes a lot of sense when you just ignore everything bad that happened because of it
So this... Is the power of /pol/tards....

>>17527300
What exactly is your problem with the concept of master and slave morality?

Dennis Fayhe is a really interesting author for a catholic reactionary, aligned with fascists

>>17527236
No it doesn't, that's why there's any "baggage" at all

>>17527236
>>>17527250
>>17527251
>>17527252
>>17527322
>>17527342
Be honest: how many of you have actually read Doctrine of Fascism? You are just repeating memes or are likely dishonest communists who are afraid of fascism cleaning up your mess

>>17527181
>went from commie to fascist
>/pol/tard is literally incapable of thinking outside of fringe and extremist ideologies

>>17527181
>Both
Ezra Pound
Knut Hamsun
TS Eliot
WB Yeats
Wyndham Lewis
Ernst Jünger
Louis Ferdinand-Celine
Jean Raspail
Henry Williamson
Peter Kemp
Gabriele D’Anunzio
Thomas Wolfe
Michel Houllebecq
Alain de Benoist
Friedrich Nietzsche
Carl Schmitt
Karl Haushofer
Martin Heidegger
Giovanni Gentile
Plato (The Republic)
Dante (De Monarchia)
Joseph de Maistre
Vilfredo Pareto
Robert Michels
Gaetano Mosca

Off the top of my head

>>17527365
doctrine of fascism says nothing worthwhile

Honestly I believe the key to reviving fascism in the 21st century is to excessively shill for Nietzsche and never ever saying anything positive about Mussolini or even Hitler. Also lead by example, no one will bother listening to a NEET ranting about society. Instead prove that you stand above the masses by cultivating your body, mind and spirit

>>17527385
Based.

>>17527388
I am not a fascist but I was pretty shocked to learn how many fascists don’t read Giovanni Gentile or believe in his ideas. I guess the whole “everything is fascism” campaign we’ve had for the last 60 years has been effective.

>>17527386
You've never read it.

>>17527413
ive read excerpts. its trash

>>17527424
>I reject an entire ideology based on a few excerpts I've read
Wew lad

>>17527385
Another which wasn’t right wing but is relevant to the right wing is Georges Sorel.

>>17527449
Reflections on Violence is highly based

>>17527365
I read it. Not a vey exciting book desu

>>17527473
>>17527424
>>17527365
Tbh doctrine of fascism is only a starting point, if you want to understand the spiritual core of fascism you need to read Evola

>>17527493
I thought Mussolini hated him and his spiritualism was distasteful to the National Socialists.
He's definitely interesting, but I don't think he's definitive of fascism. I personally have enjoyed Oswald Spengler a lot more than Evola

Currently reading this, according to the preface it's the translation of the english version. I've just started reading, so I can't give a judgment on it yet

>>17527532
Evola wasn’t even a fascist and wrote a whole book critiquing fascism. Please just ignore those who are misunderstanding.

>>17527532
>>17527572
Evola has a better conception of what fascism ought to be than Mussolini does

>>17527589
That’s strange because the guy says outright that fascism is to be rejected but don’t let me stop your politically revisionist fantasies of your favorite authors.

>>17527619
Show me the quote then, with context

>>17527181
>I'm looking mostly for books that are related to fascism. Doesn't need to be explicitly fascist though as long as it captures the spirit of fascism
In other words, you don't actually want to learn what actual fascism and right-wing ideas are. You just want more ammunition to dismiss right wing ideas as fascist.

>>17526538
>obscure
Just because people know the name's doesn't mean they've actually read the books anon. Just look at Evola's wikipedia page to see the proof of that.

>>17527385
>Plato

Which right-wingers were actually inspired by Plato? I know a certain political group who liked communism of wives and property a lot though.
And why not Aristotle?

>Michel Houllebecq

Oh really? I would've even understood Lovecraft, but this guy is just an edgy liberal (or maybe a libertine, like de Sade)

>Friedrich Nietzsche

Here we go again. Why not Hegel or Kant then? What about Machiavelli?

>>17527619
No, he sought to have it modified, he expressed great optimism when it first arrived, and even after its end he argued in its favor IF it's opposed to liberal democracy.

Is anyone on this board serious btw?
I always see ignorant takes baka

Read these four articles and you will have a list of about 20 names of interest to you by the end, plus a greater understanding of how fascism was a world-historically coherent distributed response to the bourgeois capitalist domination of the destiny of humanity
https://www.counter-currents.com/tag/breaking-the-bondage-of-interest/

Once you see this, you can understand all particular fascist projects and engagements, like Peronism, Falange, Ezra Pound's endorsement of Mussolini, or Mosley's anti-internationalism and promotion of an international of nations, exist within fascism as subsets. Fascism is simply that which cultivates anything outside the bourgeois-capitalist cone of vision, which naturally the bourgeois-capitalist defines as "irrational" because it only recognises its own worldview as rational.

Then read pic related for a more up-to-date strategy guide.

>>17526538
>sun and steel
I read this and I thought it was kind of underwhelming. The military anecdotes were nice and the sperm comparison he made to flying in a jet was funny, but I didn't get a whole lot more out of it than that, just a lot of metaphysical jargon.

So, the sun is spending time outdoors and the steel is working out? Just seems like transcendentalist philosophy with a self-improvement aspect to it.

>>17528225
>Which right-wingers were actually inspired by Plato?
Straussians
Traditionalists
Orthodox Christians

>>17527288

>>17526538
Why I Am Not A Liberal by Jonathan Bowden. Don't let the title put you off; yes I know it sounds like it could be written by a Fox News host, but I assure you it's the opposite. Also my diary desu

>>17527244
>think the way i want you to you fucking fag
ftfy

What's with all the derailing of threads today, usually threads for discussion on right wing literature aren't too bad.
Is it the school holidays in yank land or something?

>>17528345
Would be interesting if you posted here
>>17523619
Seems to be a lot of raiding going on in that thread. At least those demanding answers would have their questions answered.

>>17528225
Hegel. The Romantic school in general.

>>17527532
>Evolaposting
You niggers are worse than Siegefags

>>17526538
right wingers dont read

>>17526538
Origins and Doctrine of Fascism as a starter point.

>codex fascismo series by H.R. Morgan
>For My Legionaries by Codreanu
>Fourth Political Theory by Dugin

Avoid Siegefag/Esoteric Hitlerist/Other Schizoid books.

>>17530215
>reading comprehension

>>17530284
Even getting people to waste a second of their time reading the ramblings of that man by saying he's interesting makes you an Evolafag

>>17528225
>Which right-wingers were actually inspired by Plato?
All of them.
>why not Aristotle?
Aristotle too. He just didn’t write The Republic.
> Oh really?
Yes, really.
> I would've even understood Lovecraft, but this guy is just an edgy liberal (or maybe a libertine, like de Sade)
Lovecraft was just racist, which ironically pretty liberal.
> Why not Hegel or Kant then?
Because wasn’t about to explain to a guy who had said he only read 3 books how relevant Hegel and Kant are, whereas Nietzsche is obviously relevant and one of the foremost inspirations for the conservative revolution.
> What about Machiavelli?
Not right wing.

>>17530305
>doubling down

>>17526538
Illiad.
Bhagavad Gita.
Storm And Steel

>>17530317
>greentext

>>17526575
Keep dumb posts like this to threads that aren't about books at least.

>>17528277
He flatly rejected it after the war. He literally disavowed fascism on record during his trial. Saying in other words “fascism is closer to what I believe than liberalism” is not an endorsement of fascism. You’re implying the core of his philosophy was fascist and that’s just not true. He only some positive aspects in it. Honestly, the whole /pol/ poster “no you didn’t understand Evola” posting is getting fucking annoying.

Alasdair MacIntyre, Cicero etc.

>>17527619
To be fair he witnessed Mussolini and his mistress get dragged through the street and beaten to death. But even in his earlier writings it was evident Evola wasn't going to be a very good Fascist. He had a Classical mentality. Fascism was born in the trenches of WW1 and was the dialectic to Communism.

>actual thread asking for books
>rabid leftists just shitpost
You guys gotta reign that shit in or you'll really turn this into /pol/. Someone mentioning jews every now and then isn't a reason to go ballistic either, just chill the fuck out and talk about /lit/erature. This is some serious fucking autism.

Anyway, read classics.

>>17528225
>Michel Houllebecq
He's one of the few people who shits on muslims; he shits on everyone else too, but shitting on muslims makes the established media portray him as some kind of fringe right-winger. Charlie Hebdo were drawing caricature's of him when they got got.

For My Legionaires changed my life. Too many parallels can be drawn to today, same as the beginning of Mein Kampf when Hitler is talking about his time spent IN Vienna. It sounded exactly like the gradual ruin I've seen in my own city almost verbatim.

From there I would avoid whag the leftists call "theory", theory is drivel and it's completely useless.

I would also take time to read Culture of Critique which gives a pretty good overview of how Jewish perversion got to be mainstream in the West. Starts with boasian anthropology then Freudian psychology and of course the Frankfurt School. White Power by Rockwell was good too.

Ive been reading Memoirs lately. Just finished Panzer Leader and reccomend it.

>>17530428
Ah and you can't forget the classic French novel Camp of the Saints. That one hit way too close to home. Talk about a premonition. Also Turner Diaries wa an objectively fun book to read and behind the comedy of it there's some really good insight not to mention legitimate portraits of the people pushing our ruin. Pearce was clearly having a blast when he wrote that and it's an easy read can be done in a couple of days

>>17530376
Okay, but if we really want to go there we could argue all day about what what he did or didn’t say for tactful avoidance of political prosecution. You could even attribute the whole of his esoterism to that if you wanted to but it does us no good. The fact is that he wrote positive things about fascism in his earlier days even going so far as to basically endorse it, then he backpedaled and said it’s not what he thought it was and the Italians ruined it, and finally concluded that the only degree to which one should (if they must) consider themselves a fascist it should be only in reference to those aspects of fascism which he attributed not even wholly to fascism, which he rightfully considered modernist.

>>17530445
I would also read about the fall of the Roman republic. Tom Holland wrote a good book called Rubicon

>>17530428
How did For My Legionnaries change your life though?

>>17530451
I don't dispute that I'm also not the anon you were debating with earlier. I think for Evola he had misplaced hopes in Fascism that were evidently crushed mostly by Mussolinis inability to distinctly manage Italian affairs. Also, Evola came to dislike those mass movements in general. But in his critiques of Fascism he does offer a large number of positives to draw from the concept so I don't believe even later in life he was totally against it. You have to keep in mind that he was conscious of the sham Nuremberg Trials too. Italian communists like the RAF were also launching terrorist bombing and assassination campaigns after ww2 as well. Lots of shit to consider when dealing with his post war writings

>>17530465
Codreanu was a rich character in life and was so totally driven in his goals and ambition that from this part of the story alone was enough to give me a great perspective shift. There is one scene where he is describing a brawl that breaks out with leftist students who had broken into his small gathering and were trying to kill a few of them. It reminded me of experiences i had in college. That's just one example. Codreanu lived a full life and fought until his death for his people. It's almost biblical in what he went through in terms of suffering and never broke even when they killed him. Astounding book and I'm very haply it got translated into English. I have to re read it soon.

>>17526575
>Being butthurt at the mere mention of rightist literature.
L M A O

>>17530491
>I think for Evola he had misplaced hopes in Fascism that were evidently crushed mostly by Mussolinis inability to distinctly manage Italian affairs.
You’re right. There’s a whole passage in The Path of Cinnabar about how pathetic the Italians’ attempts were.
> so I don't believe even later in life he was totally against it
No, he was and it’s an important distinction honestly. He went from saying “There are positive aspects of this so it’s a good thing” to saying “There are positive aspects of this but that doesn’t mean it’s a good thing”. Now, whether he came to profess that because he feared political persecution, I don’t know but that’s what he indicated nonetheless. I don’t think we should attribute any sort of covert motive to his post-war writings personally. If you mean to imply that fascism is something that he still would’ve considered a positive development after the war, then yeah, probably but again, I think it’s important not to think of that as an endorsement but simply an acknowledgement that “this isn’t the worst possible outcome” and nothing more. The one thing here is totally true is that he probably did hold onto his fascist ideal more than his idealist ideal, which I find incongruent and a bit ironic.

>>17530513
Interesting. I read his Prison Notes and found that, and him, really remarkable.

>>17530428
Good post, lots of good posts ITT actually. Nice to know you bros are out there. Check out Beautiful Losers if you're taking recs. Or Pound's Jefferson and/or Mussolini, but that's harder to read because he writes in arcane colloquialisms. Do you like Bowden?

"Theory" is okay if read right. I think it's just a tool. Can be used by anyone, and by itself it's meaningless and harmful, as the death of the left and its transformation into trannies and pedophilia justifying twitter retards shows. Critical theory is also often needlessly complicated for what it is, which plays into the hands of elites so I don't understand why the leftists do it. Probably because they're mostly rich assholes and other terminally urban people who despise the working class.

Anyone who says "theory" unironically is a moron who reads nothing though.

>>17530585
Even through all this time you can still tell he had something more than human to him.

>>17526538

>>17526575
You only say this because leftists can also be called Marxists, but there isn't any single philosophy you can pin to right wingers. You wouldn't post this in a "left wing literature" thread.

>>17530513
He was an amazing guy. Didn't deserve that fate but he was too good for this wretched world.

The Reactionary Chart

>>17530513
>>17530656
glad that nazi fuck is rotting in hell. i'd piss on that ghoul's grave

>>17530687
Codreanu is in Heaven and you will not see him there.

>>17530390
It's incredible how these people go completely retarded when something they don't like comes up.

>>17530658
I would also add:

The Economic Foundations Of Fascism by Paul Einzig

German Economic Policy by Wilhelm Bauer

>>17530760
Fuck Cordonbleu and fuck you. He got what was coming to him.

The problem of youth is the problem of memory. If you don't know where you're going then any road will bring you there. If anything is truth, if there is no structure, no direction, they will cling to anything. I am unabashedly pro European and I will defend European identity to my grave. I do so without apology. The fact of the matter is that the world would be a better place if more of us expressed our truths. We're all in the same tribe as white men, Europeans, descendants of Rome, of Christendom, of the Western tradition. We share these bonds. We shall preserve them for the good of humanity, as we built this world and the most epic towering civilization the world has ever known.

>>17531575
>If anything is truth, if there is no structure, no direction, they will cling to anything.
>I am unabashedly pro European and I will defend European identity to my grave.
Ironic.

>>17531575
>We're all in the same tribe as white men, Europeans, descendants of Rome, of Christendom, of the Western tradition.

And you let the Jews play you for fools over and over again...

>>17527619
Right, he disliked fascism because it wasn't extreme enough

>>17531678
because it wasn't traditional enough. "extreme" is a totally ambiguous phrasing. In his own words, Evola disliked the totalitarians aspect of facism.

>>17530814
I don't even know who that is but you sound like a massive faggot

>>17531701
He's a dead Nazi fuck who deserves to have his grave shat on and his remains immolated

>>17531575
>We share these bonds.
No "we" don't
>We shall preserve them for the good of humanity
No I personally won't
>as we built this world and the most epic towering civilization the world has ever known.
I didn't and certainly neither did you. Take your meds and stop LARPing

>>17531704
Who cares? You have the maturity of a child

>>17531712
You deserve to be decapitated. You're not even a human being, you're a fucking fascist. I hope your mother is raped by a gang of black men

>>17531715
I'd consider myself extremely right wing but I have some respect for the accomplishments of people like Marx and Lenin. Quit your whining and go back to twitter

>mods banned the leftyfag
>all his posts deleted

No need for that. This is proof free speech works, all you are doing is deleting the evidence he's a queer.

>>17530350
Holy shit you're legit brain dead

>>17530350
>During his trial in 1951, Evola denied being a fascist and instead referred to himself as "superfascista" (lit. 'superfascist'). Concerning this statement, historian Elisabetta Cassina Wolff wrote that "It is unclear whether this meant that Evola was placing himself above or beyond Fascism".[18]

trannoids on suicide watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8BRdwgPChQ

>>17526538
Being right wing is a mental illness.

>>17532551
Someone must be running out of cultural battles to fight, demonizing the medical treatment for a diagnosed disorder is a new low for the Right.

>>17527181
>I'm looking mostly for books that are related to fascism
fiction: Gilles, Pierre Drieu la Rochelle/ les sept couleurs Brasillach/ Ezra Pound's Cantos/ Knut Hamsun's works/ Salvador Dali's art/ marinetti, pirandelo, d'annunzio, malaparte, etc...
non-fiction: A. James Gregor works on fascism/ Hegel/ Marx/ Sorel/ Notre Avant-Guerre and Journal d'un homme occupé, Brasillach/ Les décombres, Rebatet

>>17532596
>mental illness
Cool projection

Jason Reza Jorjani - Prometheism, Faustian Futurist
Oswald Spengler - Hour of Decision
Bulwer-Lytton - The Coming Race
Ludwig Klages - The Biocentric Worldview
William Doyle - The Old European Order
Carl Schmitt - The Concept of the Political
Alexsander Dugin - Political Platonism

Obviously a grounding in Cicero, Lucretius, and the pre-Socratics would be required first.

>>17532697
>demonizing the medical treatment for a diagnosed disorder is a new low for the Right

>>17526538
Many good recommendations in the thread
Mircea Eliade is often overlooked in our circles, he was part of the Iron Guard and fought on the eastern front
Get Degrelle, Yockey works as well

Read the history of the SS and the Iron Guard and memoir of its members, the modern Right’s Warrior Brotherhood

>>17533017
Thought he an heroed a couple months ago? Maybe I'm mistaking him for another, hard to keep track of all the tranny suicides lately

>>17528345
reading leviathan and its enemies right now. it is a bit repetitive though, you really see that it was a draft and not editored. nevertheless it is a great book, but you have to take a lot of his descriptions with a grain of salt because it was written before we entered age of omnipresent internet, smartphones and social networks, so quite a few things that changed the world he describes over the last 30 years.

>>17526538
ernst jünger - early works for nazbol and militarist lit, ww2 and afterwards for apolitical aristocrat musings
carl schmitt - everything, start with concept of the political
ernst niekisch, but only if you read jünger's worker before
alex kurtagic - mister. hit really close to home for me
jean raspail - camp of saints
spengler - decline of the west
yockey - imperium, only if you read spengler first
dugin for weird but creative approaches on what a postmodern right could look like
richard werner - princes of the yen for a right wing take against gold standard
gottfried feder - breaking of interest slavery, the same as werner but more polemic
armin mohler - conservative revolution in germany
everything by machiavelli
dominique venner - for a positive critique
joseph de maistre for the tradcath memes and some of the most beautiful dialogues ever written
also, remember neo-liberalism/-conservatism, libertarianism, fascism, national socialism, authoritarian capitalism, theocratic systems and so on are all different lines of thought and praxis and even though they are commonly lumped together as right wing they are radically different and usually every current sees itself as the real right and calls everyone else a liberal, a collectivist, a heathen etc. just dont fall for it

>>17526575
fpbp OP confirmed brainlet

>>17527181
>commie phase
>fascist phase
keep trying, Pinocchio, maybe one day you'll be a real boy

>>17526538
>ctrl + f Ernst von Salomon
>0 results

Embarassing.

>>17531575
>as we built this world and the most epic towering civilization the world has ever known
Thank you for ruining all of the traditional oriental civilizations and the other parts of the world with your modernity.

>>17526538
This is you in 2 years
https://twitter.com/WattsEnthusiast/status/1358512717208944647
You want to be spoon fed book recs on the sole basis of them being "right wing" or "fashy" before you even know what that means. You're treating books as props, window dressing to signal belonging to a certain in-group. One day you're going to break and start testing the waters on what it feels like to voice basic bitch progressive left talking points with no nuance, and when the social validation you get from doing so gives you a neurochemical hit, you'll turn coat in the blink of an eye.
So, fuck off. All you are going to do is bring more unwanted attention and misrepresentation of the meme authors you get your grubby hands on.

>>17530682
>lefties get called reactionary
>they start calling the right reactionaries
>lefties get called snowflakes
>they start calling the right snowflakes
books for this phenomena?

>>17530687
>>17530814
Why are yanks so cringeworthy in their writings on this board? Especially the schizos who chimp out at the mention of anything they don't like

>>17528661
i think you might be a lost cause

>>17532596

>>17533337
He just gets roasted in the comments lmao

>>17533448

>>17533413
they always project.

>>17533017
we will always demonize drug addiction and satanic cult abuse.

>>17531960
>"It is unclear whether this meant that Evola was placing himself above or beyond Fascism".
That part of the Wikipedia article always bothered me, because it clearly shows the person writing it hasn't read Evola. It's clearly the latter.

>>17533413
The left isn't reactionary though. Reactionaries don't have positive visions for social organization. All right wingers care about is rebelling against a certain symptom.

>>17532697
>demonizing the medical treatment for a diagnosed disorder is a new low for the Right.
How exactly is genital mutilation an effective treatment for mental illness? If a mentally ill person told you he can only be happy if he amputates his perfectly functional legs and arms, should you really allow him to do it or wouldn't it be better to treat the underlying condition? (and yes, a mental illness like that actually exists, I forgot the name though)

>>17533535
[this post was removed due to hate speech]

>>17533337
You are projecting hard anon, I just want to read some right wing lit because I want to learn more about the topic. No need to get so butthurt

>>17533535
>Reactionaries don't have positive visions for social organization.
Maybe you should actually understand what you are critizing before shitting up the thread

>>17532697
>>17532596
These two posts ahahaha

>>17533535
I always thought it was the opposite, when you consider how successful monarchies have been historically, and how poorly communist/socialist states tend to pan out. Reactionary also has an inherently negative connotation (which was originally adopted by leftists against monarchists for this very reason), as it gives the implicit assumption that there is no positive element, only a reaction. This is not always true, especially not for actual reactionaries who desire the restoration of monarchy and nobility, which was already positively established for thousands of years prior to the need for "reactionary" movements.

[this post has been removed (reason: transphobic & zoophobic hatespeech)]

>>17533555
>You are projecting hard anon
Except I'm not. I've never adhered to a political stance of any persuasion for social kudos.
My social life has been flatlined for well over 6 years now. Detached from any social utility, there isn't any point in identifying oneself with any political labels. Instead of reading through the filter of "does this affirm or challenge the dogma of my in-group", I get to read with a complete openness to authors' thoughts, where the critical eye is mine and mine only.
I don't consider myself left wing or right wing or socialist or communist or fascist or capitalist or conservative or progressive or any of those daft, loaded buzzwords. What I DO consider myself, however, is better than you.

>>17533603
Why do you assume that I don't to the exact same thing? Have you considered that I only ask for right wing lit so that I can expand my horizon?

>>17533603
>>17533625
I don't think many people, apart from leftists at universities, choose political ideology for friend points. The only place you'll find the right is online or at church

>>17533647
There are right-wing online social spaces though.

>>17533535
Isn't that the exact opposite, though? "Reactionnaries" have a more grounded idea of what society should be because it generally involves striving for a recent past or simply keeping society the way it is instead of changing it. Leftists, however, keep breaking down any sort of percieved injustice, often without thinking of the bigger picture, towards an abstract idea of a perfect society that keeps changing every 10 years.

>>17533625
>>/lit/thread/S17363541
Here. It's not that difficult to search for the myriad other threads where this has been asked before.
It's not that difficult to use google, or wikipedia, or note the references and bibliographies of books you like and do your own research on authors or subject matters.
I've never read anything explicitly fascist, in the veins of Mussolini. I just wasn't drawn to it. The identification of oneself or one's political enemies with a term for an abortive political movement, the overgeneralisation of its definition as to render it meaningless, put me off.

>>17533684
>I've never read anything explicitly fascist,
Then how do you know it's bad? In your previous post you touted yourself as a free thinker and now you tell me you hate fascism without ever having bothered to do any research?

>>17533573
>>17533665
No, monarchist autists and past-fetishizers are the exact people I'm talking about. They have no ideas about, say, how a nation should draw its wealth, they just want to cure one pejorative social aspect and decide that we only ever changed the way things were because we were poorly informed or foolish. How would a monarchy intersect with the complex distribution of economic sectors that participate in the global and domestic economy? "I dunno, but I don't get laid so we shouldn't have tried to be a part of it to begin with." The left is winning not because they have the best ideas but because they engage with the future instead of just decry it as inimical.

>>17533657
Fair enough.

As an aside, I see the rise of schizoid leftist beliefs and the increase in trannies (as an example) as being correlated with the decline in social pressures and traditional morality. These are the nerds that would have been abused every day in school in the 90s.
The aids physiques and insufferable personalities would make them destined for some abuse.

>>17533707
>They have no ideas about, say, how a nation should draw its wealth, they just want to cure one pejorative social aspect and decide that we only ever changed the way things were because we were poorly informed or foolish.
No, you are just creating strawmen and ad homs. If you want to engage with me you are going to have to engage in good faith, and either admit what you are doing, or admit that you have not seriously read any literature from "reactionaries."

>The left is winning not because they have the best ideas but because they engage with the future instead of just decry it as inimical.

Half-right. They don't have the best ideas, but the reason they are winning is because of a germ, the myth, of "progress" which has been planted in the mind of Westerners BY THE LEFT (originally by classical liberals, not even Marxists or socialists). It's the same for both fascists and leftists, both have an implicit assumption that the past is bad, and the future has to be better. None of them will ever question this basic presumption, because otherwise they are immediately called a reactionary, or some other buzzword which demolishes their social status as a "man of the future", whether that man is Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, FDR, or whoever.

>>17533704
>Then how do you know it's bad? In your previous post you touted yourself as a free thinker and now you tell me you hate fascism without ever having bothered to do any research?
That's not what I said. I never said I hated fascism, I said I disliked how the word "fascist" is bandied about nowadays. I don't care enough about fascism proper to read into it properly, but I didn't once say I hated fascism. I haven't made an informed value judgement on fascism yet, I just decided I'd rather read other books. You fucking spastic weasel.

>>17533749
Reactionary by definition has no positive contributions. It is regressive. When I say reactionary, I mean regressive. It has nothing to do with right v. left, it's just incidental that right wingers are the more reactionary. Also, if you really believe that we can just not move forward you're genuinely retarded and have poor knowledge of history. Things outside of the control of governments take place, things shift, and need to be ameliorated.

>>17533767
>Reactionary by definition has no positive contributions.
That's what I already said. It's a term coined by the left for that very reason, even if the people it's applied to do not deserve it. Hence I was arguing that, if we have to still use the term, it has to be partly redefined. Or better yet, we can use a better term which wasn't originally coined by the left. This is why traditionalists adopted this term, even though it's still not fully ideal for those who haven't looked up the nuanced definition by traditionalists themselves.

>Also, if you really believe that we can just not move forward you're genuinely retarded and have poor knowledge of history.
It's not that we can't, it's that our idea of "moving forward" is fundamentally flawed and erroneous, and thus we need to move in a different direction. Ideally a direction whose course is not fundamentally carved out by the forces of the left (which includes classical liberals, neoliberals, socialists, fascists, and all modern and post-modern ideologies and movements). It has to be a direction based on intelligence, strength, diligence and reasoned austerity. These values cannot be imparted by mass-movements spurred on by an illusory myth of progress and infinite expansion.

>>17533784
They do deserve it though, that's my point. They have no architectural ideas about how to manage unforeseen issues. You don't either, that's why you're talking in vague fuckin generalities, trying hard not to bring up whatever your pet issue is.

>>17533796
You haven't made a point, you've just made baseless attacks on strawmen.

>>17533766
>but I didn't once say I hated fascism
You're right, you didn't explicitly state this, however when I said that I wanted to read right wing lit you immediately sperged out, thereby unintentionally revealing your true sentiments about fascism

>>17526538
Two first are already beyond left-right dichotomy. Check out Imperium by Francis Parker Yockey, he's a follower of Spengler.

>>17533798
It's not strawmanning at all. Do you have a system of reform that consists of something other than resurrecting the idea (not even the institution, really) of objective common authority? Do you have any ideas you'd like to share about how the global economy should be engaged with, how workers ought to be treated, how to ameliorate racial identitarianism, the relative importance of security, foreign policy, education, investment, that aren't just appeals to some image of the past where everyone just obeyed, in your mind, a deified figure? No? Then you're a reactionary, and no glittering generalities like "the left is dictating our direction and we should instead choose intelligence and diligence" are going to change that.

>>17533803
My issue is that every single time a wehraboo LARPer such as yourself asks for "fascist" book recs, you always start off by name dropping the meme books of authors who are unequivocally not actually fucking fascist.
At the very least to your credit, you didn't go so far as to name drop Guénon as "essential fascist /lit/", because that's happened on this board before.
The problem is, 4chan is teeming with retards, and these retards engage with one another in a positive retard feedback loop. One retard name-drops Evola and Spengler in the context of fascism, and more retards form that association, then those retards name-drop Evola and Spengler in the context of fascism and exponentially more retards form that association.
Then bunkerchan raids the board to disrupt conversation and gather intel, and they see a heap of self-identifying fascist retards talking about Spengler and Evola, and they think "oh, Spengler and Evola must be the intellectuals behind the far right resurgence, let's try and get their books delisted, let's write hit pieces about how naughty Bannon is, let's attack the publishers of these books".
Have any of you retards actually read Spengler, Evola or the traditionalists? Do you have an iota of comprehension of what you're on about? Because if you did, you'd know that they aren't fascist, they're not even tangentially fascist. They tried to influence the ascendant powers in the political instability post WWI, and for that they get tarred with the same brush as the regimes that didn't execute anything remotely in line with what such thinkers were proposing. Understanding where Spengler diverged in his beliefs from the National Socialists is essential, for example. Understanding that the Nazis saw themselves as inherently revolutionary and came to reject the aristocracy they perceived to have failed them in WWI, whilst Spengler was a conservative, or understanding Spengler's criticism of their adoption of Social Darwinism, which he characterised as inherently English and un-German.

>>17533829
None of those issues are important to me. You're assuming because I don't buy into the progressivism of the left, I am thus a reactionary by default. This is simply wrong, unless you define reactionary as not playing into the games of the left. If you define "reactionary" as not playing into the games of the left, then I am reactionary, but that is not how I define it. A reactionary is one who merely reacts against political positions without proposing anything in its place.

So ignoring that nonsense, here are some of my economic and social "policies", which you of course consider reactionary, even though they provide a positive direction and purpose, and are thus, from an unbiased viewpoint, non-reactionary: The de-urbanisation and ruralisation of the economy, the establishment of either slavery or land-bondage (serfdom), the establishment of a strict caste system based on blood ties with a nobility based on integral superiority of character, de-centralisation of "government" and a political system closer to that of the feudal system, where bureaucracy is non-existent and "governance" is based on honour, personal relations and fidelity. Universal education is abolished and replaced by home-education for the majority, etc.

I will state again, and if you continue to assert that your definition is correct, then there is no point continuing this discussion, because you are thus desperate to label me a reactionary to denigrate my position:
>You're assuming because I don't buy into the progressivism of the left, I am thus a reactionary by default. This is simply wrong, unless you define reactionary as not playing into the games of the left. If you define "reactionary" as not playing into the games of the left, then I am reactionary, but that is not how I define it.
>you of course consider these reactionary, even though they provide a positive direction and purpose, and are thus, from an unbiased viewpoint, non-reactionary

>>17533864
That's not positive, positive means that you've constructed some kind of policy that is actionable instead of just reacting in opposite direction to some political force. Are you going to enforce the de-centralization of government? Are you going to have the military abolish the industrial economy and then give up power afterwards? Are you just going to enslave a population who know better and have means of organization? Are you gonna snap your fingers and make everyone abide by your code of honor and fidelity? Are you gonna erect a magical wall that keeps out modernizing alien forces? Do you expect when everyone's living on a farm they'll just value what you value and behave as you do outside of their own self-interest? I'm sure whatever cretins spoonfeed you your political consciousness have convinced you that it was a leftist engineered, permissive mistake instead of a necessary evolution to leave the feudal system, but as I predicted you have nothing. Fucking fetishized atavism where you just opt to ignore anything that doesn't fit within your reductionism and which might necessitate a compromise. That is the textbook definition of reactionary. Get fucked. You want to know why the West suffers? Because shitheads sit on their ass and play make believe about a millenarian, patriarchal authority-figure coming and just handing them a home and a wife and making it so they don't have to think too hard instead of educating themselves properly.

>>17526538
This is required reading.

>>17533907
I will just post this chart I never finished.

>>17528225
>Which right-wingers were actually inspired by Plato?
Didn't Dugin recently release a whole book dedicated to Neo-Platonism?

>>17533898
>ositive means that you've constructed some kind of policy that is actionable
These policies I listed are clearly actionable and are not reactions, just per how I phrased them. If you think otherwise, demonstrate how.

You can yell insults at me all you want, but we have digressed from the initial consideration, so there is little point in me addressing the rest of your post. I'm fully aware that you are antagonistic to my position, but the point of our discussion was the idea of what "reactionary" was. At this point you are the one reacting to me with aggression, which is ironic.

>>17533916
>clearly actionable
Go ahead and enforce decentralized government without an overarching central government that can somehow withstand being subsumed by expansionism.

>>17533858
I never claimed Spengler was a fascist, the reason why I listed him is because his view on history is relevant to explain the current decline of the west, which in turn is relevant for any movement that wants to create a new fascist/ third position movement that revives the west

>>17533858
ALSO I'm not a fucking wehraboo, I heavily disagree with the racism of the Nazis and its nothing I seek to emulate

>>17533930
A decentralized government is still a government. Ancient Rome being a concrete example.
>withstand being subsumed by expansionism.
A single elite military force is generally superior to quantity. And in the worst case scenario, conscriptions can be drawn if needed. These are essentially practical considerations though, and do not detract from a certain policy being "actionable." It only affects the practicability of a given policy. And I'll admit, given the state of the modern world, there are further practical considerations that have to be made, but this is not the place for them. I was only providing general positive points of reference per the topic of discussion.

>>17533960
>a policy being completely impractical doesn't mean it's not actionable!
That's what actionable means. I don't care how fucking elite your shitty local militia is you're not gonna win a fight in the modern age without industrial means. If you don't consider what actually practically works and instead just claim fiat about resurrecting some antiquated caricature, then you're a reactionary.

>>17533977
>If you don't consider what actually practically works
I've just said I do consider practicalities. And again, you've just redefined what reactionary is in your second sentence (which is also part-strawman). I'm not even sure why I'm still replying to you at this point.

>>17533421
> everyone I don’t like is an American
Take your meds you nutter

>>17533995
It's not a stawman if I'm addressing your argument as it is you moron. I don't care if you sit and think about the concept of practicality, you need a system that isn't de facto unviable. You haven't provided one. Giving a shitty argument and then having someone else recite it is not "strawman." You've listed what you believe to be the virtues of an antiquated system and then just sat there and refused to engage with any of the practical problems that make it unviable. It would be strawman if you had concrete policy ideas about issues, and perennial ones at that, like I listed here >>17533707 (which you don't, you only gloze over the basic concepts of a feudal system) and I ignored them. It would be strawmanning if I simplified what you were saying, but I'm not, it's all surface-level aggrandizement. And my definition of reactionary hasn't changed - refusing to construct actionable policy in lieu of just clinging to some virtuous idea of the past. All in all, your main contention seems to be that you think I'm making some sort of moralistic value judgement on your thinking, but the only real problem is that you're willfully ignorant.

>>17534030
>you need a system that isn't de facto unviable.
By what standard is it unviable? It is perfectly viable - just not from your perspective, because you don't believe it is. In fact, you don't want it to be viable, because it would be detrimental to your own political inclinations.

Anyhow, your assumption is that if I don't play into what is politically "trendy" and "now" and give power to the issues which further propel the trajectory of progressivism merely by my giving power to them, which is already saturated with the problems created by progress to begin with, I am thus reactionary. I never proposed actionable policies that were based on the past, I proposed them as they are valid from an objective perspective irrespective of any historical contingencies (look back at my post - the only historical reference, that of feudalism, was only for the sake of a rough comparison and example of decentralization, it was not a model in itself).

But, you heap your assumptions of historical fetishism onto me because you can't see any other perspective; you have not investigated these thoughts yourself, you have only created a strawman in your imagination which you believe is what I believe. There is no point engaging further when you are clearly this deluded by your own mental constructions, and desperate to continue with attacks upon me without even addressing the original considerations.

>>17533017
God she's so hot, too bad she's a lesbian.

>>17534063
> The de-urbanisation and ruralisation of the economy, the establishment of either slavery or land-bondage (serfdom), the establishment of a strict caste system based on blood ties with a nobility based on integral superiority of character, de-centralisation of "government" and a political system closer to that of the feudal system, where bureaucracy is non-existent and "governance" is based on honour, personal relations and fidelity. Universal education is abolished and replaced by home-education for the majority, etc.

Feudalism in all but name. Or rather, an ideation of feudalism instead of its pragmatic reality. Your shit is unviable because you attempt to freeze a point in social development without central managerial authority and you have no mechanism in place to keep it so. So it will revert. You've already created a system where society is weaker and less able to compete either monetarily or militarily with other global powers because we've ended industrialization. You have no standard of education that would even abet the formation of new industry even if you allowed it (or indeed to ensure homogeneous social values). Are you not making a judgement that the past could work just as well today and it's only some sort of pernicious influence that has seduced us with industrial economies and the ensuing wealth? Are you not ignoring the fact that you are just ignoring the heterogeneous nature of decentralized communities in a way that leads to self-interested conflict? Is this not a regression? Do you not (very clearly) believe that industrialization, modernization, and the evolution of more complex government structuring was somehow a greedy con instead of a suite of necessary social shifts? Do you not believe that this is typified by a certain point in history to which we would be returning? I do not have to subscribe even to a theory of linear historicity to call that regressive, and calling it anything but a resurrection of an image of the past is dishonest.

>>17534106
>I do not have to subscribe even to a theory of linear historicity to call that regressive
Well, by definition, you do, because otherwise there would be no conception of regression or progression, only change. Regression is a normative term and implies a linear, or at least normative, view of history.
>calling it anything but a resurrection of an image of the past is dishonest.
The most reactionary part of my view (and all views have their reactionary aspects, even the hard left, because they are reacting against whatever the status quo is) is that the problematic aspects of modern society, including but not limited to industrialization, need to be destroyed and removed. Accomplishing this is simply a matter of practicality, just as communists will say socialism is a matter of practicality for achieving utopian communism. In this sense my view has reactionary aspects. Calling my entire set of views "reactionary" however is erroneous, because it discards the positive content. In order to establish anything positive, the rubbish standing in its way needs to be cleared.

>>17534021
Alright then you're not a yank, just infantile

>>17534148
But it does not work at a practical level at all. You cannot avoid the industrial economy. You ESPECIALLY can't avoid industrialization without a very large central authority keeping everyone from pursuing its benefits. You so badly want to be arguing with someone incensed that you would forego individual liberty for your system, but your system doesn't even work from a fuckin material standpoint. It cannot be put in place, and even if you managed all the necessary destruction it wouldn't last even a generation. The fact that you are pursuing a paradigm that ignores the purely material necessities serviced by industrial society, including the cooperation of its inhabitants, and refuse to instead conceive of a positive paradigm that can withstand these needs makes you a reactionary. You can't seriously tell me that you think that you're not a reactionary because you simply reject that industrialization has any kind of purely material developmental value.

>>17534193
We've already established that is your belief.
>You can't seriously tell me that you think that you're not a reactionary because you simply reject that industrialization has any kind of purely material developmental value.
I never claimed industrialization didn't have some kind of material value. I reject two things: That these benefits outweigh the negatives, and that material goods are of supreme importance compared to other goods. This is your mental strawman putting things in my mouth again.

>>17530310
>Lovecraft was just racist, which ironically pretty liberal.

That's funny because Houellebecq has literally written an essay called "H. P. Lovecraft : Contre le monde, contre la vie", where he presented Lovecraft as an important reactionary thinker.

>>17534211
>I never claimed industrialization didn't have some kind of material value. I reject two things: That these benefits outweigh the negatives, and that material goods are of supreme importance compared to other goods

So all this just to say that you are ignoring the practical necessities as unimportant in favor of the virtues of your image of prior development; i.e. being a reactionary. For someone who likes to squawk "strawman" you keep saying exactly what I think you believe. When I said
> fetishized atavism where you just opt to ignore anything that doesn't fit within your reductionism and which might necessitate a compromise.
to what did you believe I was referring?

>>17534246
>So all this just to say that you are ignoring the practical necessities as unimportant in favor of the virtues of your image of prior development; i
You've redefined reactionary for a third time, while still incorporating your strawman of "prior image" - which I never once referenced. You can't keep doing this if you want this to go on.

>>17526538
- The Modernist Menace to Islam
- Quran

>>17534246
>>17534263
I don't know if you've figured it out yet, but what I'm telling you is that the "practical necessities" of our time are themselves problems that need to be eradicated - they are not universal necessities, only necessities of our time. This is not because they are new or practical, but because they force human dependence upon them - which is exactly what you've been arguing this whole time; that humans are dependent upon these mechanisms in order to "survive." This dependence itself, along with all of the other destructive and levelling effects on the nobility of the highest humans, is a curse and needs to be removed before further positive action can be given. I think this about sums up the discussion - yes, destruction is required, but destruction and creation go hand in hand. As far as I am concerned, the only reactionary is one who focuses solely on destruction without creation.

>>17534263
My definition of reactionary has not changed. Any political idea that foregoes what is practicable in favor of returning to an idealized past is reactionary. Any judgement that believes that cogent political necessities can be ignored in favor of a virtuous caricature is a reactionary judgement. You are arguing that this version rural syndicalism or Fourierism (neither of which, btw, is as near to what you are describing as feudalism though you think eschewing the label makes you non-regressive) is somehow not a past-image even though you've handpicked it from some hagiography of medieval Europe. You cannot seriously be positing that bureaucratic complexity, infrastructure, standardization of education, and provision of public goods are not a measure of development. You might as well argue that any golden-age society was functionally similar to tribalism.

>>17534290
Ah yes, and you come back with the other point I was sure you're making, that notions of economic needs, social fractioning and identity conflict, development of common infrastructure, workers collectives, etc. simply didn't exist at whatever time to which you believe we should return or they can simply be made not to exist by (???). You believe that these were somehow "created" by industrialization. Why do you think I refer to your vision as a caricature?

>>17533913
Dugin is a postmodernist clown anon. Nobody in Russia takes him seriously.

>>17529334
So Hegel is a right-winger as well? Wait till Marx and Lenin learn about this.

>>17530420
If stupid people with a political agenda miss-characterize him as some kind of a conservative, it doesn't mean you should follow in their steps. Criticizing modernity and the mainstream politics doesn't automatically make you into a "National Front" supporter.

>>17534321
> Hegel is a right-winger as well?
Yes he is. Try reading him
Fuck Marx
Fuck Lenin

>>17534335
How do you explain the split between Young Hegelians and Old Hegelians? Do you believe only the latter actually read him?

>>17534320
>that notions of economic needs, social fractioning and identity conflict, development of common infrastructure, workers collectives,
Some of these are spooks invented by Marxist literature, which cannot be proven to necessarily exist in any given society, or at least not exist in politically significant forms. However, guilds did indeed exist as associations of artisans and fine crafts, social division did occur in the form of castes. Identity conflict - no, workers collectives - not in any significant form ("worker" is a relatively recent concept for starters).
>Why do you think I refer to your vision as a caricature?
Because you're genuinely aggressive about ideas that run contrary to yours. It's quite obvious to note your rage behind these posts.
>>17534307
>Reactionary by definition has no positive contributions.
That's how you originally defined it, which you just redefined here as one example. And again, you persist with the strawman. I am leaving this now, as it is at the point where it will come full circle and nothing can be further said.
>Any political idea that foregoes what is practicable in favor of returning to an idealized past is reactionary.

>>17534343
More than one understanding is possible. It is not about being right or wrong.
I was talking about Hegel himself

>>17534381
>More than one understanding is possible. It is not about being right or wrong.
That is what we call shit philosophy

>>17534352
>identity conflict - no
Read up on the religious conflicts of medieval Europe sometime. Hell, read any book about the actual political minutiae of the period and it will set you straight. When I say positive, I mean it has ideas of its own as opposed to ideas formed only in opposition to something; it posits. It posits a system as opposed to attempting to erase some social facet through regression. In my latter definitions of reactionary ideology, no positivism is possible, and I was right, as all you've done is disinter an old, dead system because you want things to be simpler. You clearly took this as a value judgement.

>>17534393
Religion is not an identity conflict, it is a religious conflict based on religious ideas, not identity.

>>17534381
So you can interpret the works in which a thinker express himself in different ways, yet for the thinker's political views only one definite characterization is possible? I call self-contradiction.

>>17534321
>Nobody in Russia takes him seriously.
It hardly matters but I can tell you it is not true.

>>17534160
No, I am a yank and not the alleged one you were replying to. You’re just an idiot.

>>17534224
I haven’t read it. I’m willing to bend on either Lovecraft or Houllebecq and their position. In retrospect, I probably wouldn’t characterize either as right.

>>17534397
Yeah, I'm sure the conflicts about "heresy" between the Catholic vs Protestant lay all operated among the people as discussions of dogma and weren't essentially tribal associations. That's you're own prejudice, assuming religious factions are distinct from race or nationalist skirmishing

>>17534424
Yes, all of humanity acts based on tribal associations, ideas are irrelevant. You are very wise.

This is partly the Marxist/modernist spooks I just mentioned, unfalsifiable and unjustifiably asserted by Marxist/modernist dogmatists without any reasonable grounds to accept them.

>>17534440
Ideas are relevant but the conflicts among the polity are not idea-based beyond pretension. I doubt some Irish Catholic who couldn't read and could barely wipe his own ass was really that pissed over his equally-benighted Protestant neighbor's rejection of transubstantiation more than simply knowing that he's an outsider. Same goes for getting the public to support war.

>>17534453
The "laymen" are laymen. They would only fight between each other if convinced about the necessity of it by the clergy, or conscripted by nobility. I'm not particularly fond of Catholicism or Protestantism so don't ask me to defend either of them. Most of the time prior to these periods (the Reformation), the thoughts and identities of the general population simply wasn't relevant - and for good reason. This is one reason why nationalism (and all other identitarianism) is a product of modernism and liberalism, which is basically aimed, as you said, at riling up the idiots, who think, first and foremost, tribally, because they lack higher faculties of thought as a mass.

>>17534474
>identity conflict was invented by modernism and liberalism
wew

>>17527288
This table is bullshit. Slave morality is built on ressentiment, something completely absent from every entry in the slave column. Slave morality is not "be nice :)" you stupid faggot.

>>17534490
It is a very modern thing. Of course, you believe religious conflict is identity conflict (without any sort of reasoning), so for you it must be quite ancient.

>>17534510
Any conflict based around social association is identity conflict. That's all religion was to people, and it didn't make them any more comfortable with the idea of the prominence of other Christian schools. Hell it was arguably more identitarian than race since race even in the colonial era had so much economic stratification behind it. This is purely a historical fact, early Christian factions weren't even particularly ideologically diverse. It's funny that you think because it centered on religion it's somehow more noble than a race or nationalistic spat.

>>17534549
You have a very warped view of history. Where did you learn this stuff?

>>17534549
>>17534616
This isn't meant as an insult either. Go make this same argument to any professor of religious history, or even history, and watch him cackle at the suggestion.

>>17534616
Based retard incapable of actually replying to anything anon said

>>17534625
>my argument is literally 'if you say this to someone i respect they will laugh'
Are you even sapient?

>>17534625
Why would he care what some professor thinks? Professors think all kinds of retarded and disingenuous shit.

>>17534634
There is nothing to reply to, it is historically illiterate conjecture. He still doesn't understand that the opinions of the "lower classes" did not historically matter at most times, which defeats the importance of the fact that religion tended not to be important to the lower strata. The only people religion did matter to were those with influence, who controlled why wars occurred.
>>17534642
>>17534643
In terms of concrete history (which is in discussion here), they are more educated than both of you, and even me.

>>17534649
>he literally thinks saying 'people more educated than you disagree with you' is an argument
Going to say not sapient for the moment

>>17534649
>they are more educated than both of you
Who cares? You’re appealing to authority, which is a fallacy and on the basis of a pretty nonsensical sense of authority too.

>>17534666
Yes, a person with a PhD in their field knows more about said field than someone without. Anyone who disputes this is probably in denial about their inadequacy (this occurs on all sides of the political spectrum). And if you believe you know better than them somehow, then I will of course expect evidence, none of which has been provided so far.

>>17534676
We're talking about complicated historical issues with thousands of documents and records which have to be surveyed to get any glimpse of the truth. If you're going to disagree with experts on this information, then you need to show why I should trust your assertion over theirs.

>>17528387
>orthodox
you mean catholic

>>17534684
I see, the problem is that you literally don't understand what an argument is, in your defense you have probably been trained to be incapable of understanding what it is since doing so would open you to ideas you're not allowed to think. To make an argument you have to present what these people with Phds actually said about the topic that the anon was discussing, address the points he made and offer your own points. Saying 'these people who are better than you disagree with you' is not an argument, it is not anything.

>>17534549
I'm still interested in where you found this information also
>>17534700
I don't really care, if you can present me a single valid tertiary/secondary source which supports your absurd claim, then I will treat it seriously. I've already read countless books on the history of the Middle and Early Middle Ages, and not a single one supports any of your beliefs. If you don't believe me, it doesn't bother me, but I'd really like to see what you have to support your claim. If you don't want to provide anything, then we can stop the discussion here.

>>17534688
> let’s just default to the experts
Is not an argument

>>17534746
It most certainly is on questions of specialist inquiry which can't be investigated by reason alone

>>17534751
I was an impartial observer but if this is the hill you want to die on, then I’m thinking you lost.

>>17534804
Asking for evidence of an absurd conclusion is dying on a hill? I'm waiting to find out which revisionist textbook he sourced that claim on, I don't really care about the original argument at this point, which was already in my favour but now inconclusive due to this impasse.

>>17534815
No you’re dying on a hill is the appeal to “experts”, which I’m sorry but it is just a fallacy and not an argument.

>>17534804
>Any conflict based around social association is identity conflict. That's all religion was to people
There are so many problems in this small segment. It's equivalent to reducing whole figures like Augustine, Aquinas, or Plotinus to mere identitarians who were just solidifying a tribal identity against other churches and religions. It's an entirely reductionist approach which holds no weight, even from a purely detached perspective. I can't believe how anyone with half a brain would not scoff at a statement like that.
>>17534857
Can you prove Napoleon was a man? Remember, appealing to the experts is a fallacy.

>>17534873
>Remember, appealing to the experts is a fallacy.
Equivocation and red herrings are also fallacies.

>>17534906
It's a good thing I didn't use them then isn't it.

>>17526538
Being and nothingness, read away.

>>17527181
I used to be a NatSoc fag. Then I realized I don’t want the govt to have a monopoly on power and innovation. I mostly just liked their stance on the JQ.

>>17535035
I could never get into Natsoc because I don't like parades

>>17534503
A-are you retarded anon?

>>17535035
> govt to have a monopoly on power
Then who else has power. You are stuck in the liberal mindset of le separation of power. It sounds nice and but it does not work. The state is always Absolute.
See the United Mongrelistan of Murica
No amounts gunzz and constitution didn’t save them

> and innovation
You sound like a lolbertarian

>>17535035
It's like saying "I'm not a Hindenburg/Ludendorff having total control fag, I just like their stance on winning the war." You can have both, it's just that the war is still on.

>>17527326
Oh good, there are psychopaths running around with this horseshit in their heads, that's just great

>>17535333
What exactly is your problem with the concept of master and slave morality?

Isn't it something that threads on left wing literature pass by peacefully, whereas threads on right wing literature are immediately assaulted by leftoid midwits who loudly proclaim their disinterest.

>>17535344
It's an inherently antagonistic concept that justifies furthering an already abundantly cruel world?

>>17535360
Recently on tw*tter Imperium Publishing made a thread how almost all RW frogs have read some form of left theory but the same isn’t true for the Left. They can not simply compete
It is childish really

twitter.com/ImperiumPress/status/1358095556644540419

>>17535409
That is true, honestly. I've read some of the leftoid canon. I sincerely doubt that leftoids read, let alone Evola, &c.

>>17535375
No, it merely acknowledges reality. Strength is always preferable to weakness. You can't change the laws of nature with wishful thinking.

>>17535360
What do you expect? Leftists are childish
>t. Former leftist
Being calm and rational is usually the best way to react. You'll never convert all of them, but in every leftist is a potential future fascist. You just need to keep dropping redpills until they start to question their beliefs

>>17535409
People like Marx and Kropotkin and their ideologies where products of an upperclass that read the Churchfathers, Classics, Enlightenment writers, etc

You abandon that, you just sink into the lower classes and you no longer have an ideology.

>>17535485
It’s in part not for lack of interest but rather lack of capacity. A lot of them simply don’t read as much as they would have you believe and the left wing lexicon or theology is so vast, so ever expanding, such a murky void of never ending over-intellectualizing nonsense, that you would necessarily not have enough capacity to ever read anything else. You could easily spend several years studying Derrida alone before ever even realizing that he never actually said anything original.

>>17535577
Yeah it's pointless to get angry at a leftist. 80% of them are rich kids who aren't real leftists anyway, or stinky hippies who are along for the ride for reasons other than intellectual or ideological ones. They just like the parties. The other 20% may be along for the ride but only because they are too thoughtful for CNN liberalism, and leftism seems like the only other option that isn't completely crazy.

But the more thoughtful they are, the more they will notice that current leftism is nothing but a mixture of CNN liberals and completely crazy trannies, and on top of that, the problems with the world are themselves crazy, and require deeper solutions than half-baked "heart's in the right place" fake anarchism. Repelled further and further away the status quo, the already unstable equilibrium they have with their leftist friends will break down as they start to see the majority of them as having compromised with the status quo, and even the radical minority as being ineffectual against it because retarded.

The really thoughtful and committed leftists always get pushed to third positionism. It's a constant brain drain. Their leftist former friends hating them and shaming them from the warmth of their delusion only galvanizes them further. And when a critical mass of thoughtful leftists turned third positionists occurs, the left will be composed of nothing but dying freaks, fatalists, failures, and followers. The first three will remain where they are out of inertia, but that mass of morons upon whom any ideas can be printed will follow the thoughtful leftists (now rightists) to the right in a sudden rush.

Happens every time.

>>17535604
Masturbating, veganism and drug use also dont help.

>>17535627
I'm looking forward to purging society of these weaklings

>>17526538
>ctrl+ f I CAN'T READ
>0 results
Come on /lit/, OP handed it to you on a silver platter.

The "right-left" divide is fundamentally about nature vs nurture. Just keep that in mind, idk much about the nitty gritty political stuff

>>17527385
Do you know anyone similar to Benoist who could be considered left wing?

>>17535818
Based
Schopenhauer wrote something similar in essay On Politics
Anons go read it asap it’s short and very interesting

>>17535827
He had plenty of left wing inspirations but none who write similarly to him off the top of my head.

>>17535921
No I meant more like he can't be placed on the far right. Someone who has similar types of beliefs but also would say they aren't a fascist, nationalist, think any races are superior etc.

>>17535818
>He is not aware of the esoteric meaning of right-left

>>17535360
left-wing power hinges upon the subversion of the place in society which was traditionally reserved for the right-wing so it makes sense that their interest lies in subverting the right-wing while the right doesn't need to subvert the left because it is simply trying to re-gain the place and privilege traditionally reserved for it

>>17535969
What is it then

>>17536023
Complex

>>17535967
Julius Evola in all seriousness. Otherwise, I’m not really sure.

>>17535549
>empathy is weakness, ruthless cruelty is strength
Cool philosophy faggot

>>17536099
maybe you faggot should actually bother reading Nietzsche before making such a retarded strawman argument

>>17535818
I see the right/left divide as being mostly about equality. Right wing is either individualist and wants most freedom or is tribalist and wants greatness from your tribe. Both are anti-equality.

bump

>>17530350
You are ignorant.

>>17527181
God, /pol/faggots are absolutely embarrassing

>>17536737
High IQ refutation right here.

Here’s a quote

> Given how much has now been clarified, we will now pause a moment to make precise, in particular, the limits of the personality’s membership in a race. Let us immediately say what is, in this respect, the view that is unacceptable from the traditional point of view. It is that of those who, once race is conceived as a purely biological-human, historical, and only terrestrial entity, holds that in such an entity lies the purpose of every being that belongs to it, that nothing exists higher than race, since race is the wellspring of every value, and the idea of a task and a super-terrestrial destination of the individual is illusory and pernicious: “to remain faithful to the earth and to the race.”

> We have already dealt with this conception and criticized it more than once. In the face of it, after all, one can resort to the racialist criterion for the appreciation of the “truth”; depending on the various “races of the spirit” we have, particularly, as many conceptions of the same race, and there is no doubt that only for a telluric race can that conception be “true”, only the telluric man can suppose such limited horizons as absolute. In this telluric vision of the race, the mentioned supposition of those neopagan racialists also comes back, according to whom the only conceivable immortality would be that of survival in blood, in earthly descendants.

> It is true that similar positions, today, are presented less according to a theoretic value than according to a practical and political one. With it we aim to consolidate the unity of the people-race and to concentrate every spiritual energy of the individual member in the temporal and historical tasks that this being has to resolve. But it is otherwise true that the ancient Aryan civilizations, even in regard to earthly, heroic and political realizations, had their greatness without, however, perceiving the need of resorting to these myths, recognizing instead rather different truths. It is clearly evident, in fact, that our view of race carries back to the pitryana, to the “way of the South” and that it is opposed to the “divine way of the North” (devayana) that stood alone to define the highest Aryan ideal.

>>17527181
What's next after your fascist phase? Anarchism?

>>17537332
> The theory of “double heredity” reconnects to such ideals. Personality, we said, is not exhausted in historical-biological heredity or horizontal heredity. It appears rather as a principle that, while manifesting itself in the race (here, as always, race in the restricted sense), in itself stands beyond race, therefore cannot be exhausted in it. To recognize race, as by now has been clarified in principle, does not mean to damage the personality: the personality owes the living and articulated material for its specific expression, for its self-manifesting and acting, to the race and as much as earthly heredity collects. In that there is a conditionality that however is not passive and one-sided. Every individual also reacts on race and on his heredity on the basis of his own most intimate nature, processes the substance in which he manifests himself, ultimately the form, and it is such that interracial differentiation and that diverse purity or completeness of types is realized, which we previously mentioned and now return to, in regards to its social reflexes. It is a giving rather than a receiving. In the points in which a supreme balance and a supreme adequacy are reached (a balance, according to our tripartite view of the various components of the true race), we have as a peak, beyond which the personality has nowhere to go — it has nowhere to go on the horizontal, terrestrial line. To this line its work, its being, and, physiologically, its lineage remains and belongs. But the personality itself, if it has reached such a peak, is “free” and can now turn to a properly supernatural perfection.

>>17537332
tldr: You need to take a shower

>>17537347
> This is exactly the most ancient Aryan conception, relative to which it does not belong specifically to the group of spiritual leaders, a conception that is also found again in the views and various legends of the Western Middle Ages. The dharma is established, the scrupulous observance of worldly laws of race, caste, and so on, up to a full adaptation. Such laws require also the assurance of a lineage: life, which is received at birth, before death must be returned with its own imprint to another being, and it is for this reason that the first-born son is called “the son of duty”. After that, after the “active life”, according to the Aryan law, he must withdraw to an ascetic-contemplative life. And the Ario-Iranian saying is rather expressive that recalls the true task to be, not just to procreate on the horizontal plane of terrestrial descent, but also towards the higher, on the vertical ascending direction. In the Western religion all these views were confused. Above all, what is of pertinence to the active life was separated violently from that which is the contemplative life and almost always the truly traditional solutions were forgotten, according to which the law, that in not of this earth, prolongs, completes and empowers that of this earth. But still more harmful than such confusions are the little noted telluric racist views, in case they have been taken seriously and have a future. According to the traditional teaching of the Aryan peoples, it remains instead firm that the supernatural is essentially the goal and the dignity of the personality: this goal, therefore, acts as the highest driving force and the deepest animating force in the bosom to the expression that race gives to the personality, thereby uplifting simultaneously the race, up to a limit beyond which, after having left a sign of greatness, the same force liberates itself and tends to make it so that death is precisely a finalization, a telos, a new birth, the third birth of the indo-Aryan teaching.

> Only the mediocre and the losers, among the beings who do not know how to realize the law and earthly duty down to their foundation, can think that they don’t have an afterlife, that they have for a destiny a redissolving in the mixed vitality of the race, in the collective and earthly substance of blood and heredity, only in that way surviving (in a somewhat relative meaning of the word) the destruction of their physical individuality, and transmitting to others the task for which they were inadequate.

Let me know if you need help understanding.

>>17537349
We already know you don’t read. You made that perfectly clear.

>>17532697
>diagnosed disorder: mental
>treatment: cut dick off

>>17537371
Aren't you supposed to be in the shower? You better not be phoneposting anon...

The fascist is a slave driven by paranoia. The state is able to manipulate the fascist quite easily due to his paranoia, repression, and tribalism. The paranoid fantasy drives the fascist into seeing the state as a guardian figure. It is then easy to comprehend the reason for the perpetuation of the fascist mythos despite conventional wisdom, history, and rationality discrediting it.

The paranoid depends on an a target to direct its scorn, an agent for inexplicable events, and a scapegoat to accredit its failures to. The paranoid mind cannot tolerate ambiguity. The fascist paranoid paradoxically desires the event or the target that he directs his hatred towards, as without this target or this event occurring then their carefully constructed rationalization falls apart. Thus, fascism is a death cult that begets the creation of nightmare if we were to succumb to the paranoid desires driving it.

Culture of Critique (historiography)
Schmitt (theory)
Codreanu (sainthood)

>>17527287
>impersonating a national hero
How does he keep getting away with this shit?

To force others to act as you will is the desire for control and projection of their own feeling of lack of control over their person. They need the state to serve them, provide for them, and protect them. They give themselves to the state, because they think the state can save them from what they are running from.

>>17537464
>They need the state to serve them, provide for them, and protect them.

Everyone needs that, there's two types of people; Those who know this and those who don't.

>>17537342
Monarchism, obviously.

>>17537464
Religion, nation, tradition. These are anti-rational to the leftist and the Freudian type such as yourself who seeks to pathologize human behavior. The psychoanalyst is ridden with nihilism and fills a hole with trust in academia, in institutions, in guides like the DSM to clarify meaning because he has no meaning in his own life. He ironically projects his own neuroticisms onto others, and depends on the institution to reinforce this. They use this relationship to control others. You are a hypocrite. You claim to be a radical and then offer allegiance to a prevailing institutional, social structure. All your arguments hinge on the appeal to authority.

>>17538055
What a load of tripe this post is. Laughable.

>Religion, nation, tradition. These are anti-rational to the leftist and the Freudian type such as yourself who seeks to pathologize human behavior. The psychoanalyst is ridden with nihilism and fills a hole with trust in academia, in institutions, in guides like the DSM to clarify meaning because he has no meaning in his own life. He ironically projects his own neuroticisms onto others, and depends on the institution to reinforce this. They use this relationship to control others. You are a hypocrite. You claim to be a radical and then offer allegiance to a prevailing institutional, social structure. All your arguments hinge on the appeal to authority.

>>17538087
You demonstrate my point, wannabe Freud. You want to control me and suppress my beliefs. You are appealing to authority right now by ridiculing my beliefs and mocking me because you have the institutional power on your side, so you are relying on social shaming/social proof rather than actually engaging with my argument or refuting the substance of it. You are a joke, my friend, and have the mannerisms of a woman.

>>17538113
No arguments. The left has no arguments, they rely on shaming you and dishonest tactics. Typical of your people Shlomo

>>17538118
He's gonna avoid engaging with any of your points and just try to smear you instead, the usual lefty shtick.

>>17538131
>>17538118
its not hard to shame you. i dont want to "control" you, i dont support censorship or dictatorship like you seem to, youre just an annoying retard and believe in destructive ideology that is easy to mock

>>17532697
Magnus Hirshfeld

>I was a commie, then I became facist
great bait, op, you've really stirred some shit up in this thread.

>>17527251
cringe

>>17538413
That wasn't bait. Mussolini too was a commie before he became a fascist. It's a natural progression once you realize that communism has some huge blind spots

>>17527493

This.
Evola is the best explanation.

>>17527532

Yeah evola didn't get on with the national socialists of Germany or the fascists of Italy.

I tend to think this was a problem with purity spiralling and the difference between academic understanding and political understanding.

Evola was quite the academic unfortunately. Far more useful today than back then perhaps.

>>17533421
Americans are psychologically neutered and completely demoralized.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX3EZCVj2XA

>>17533535
>the left isn't reactionary
>the left literally isn't screeching about every single thing in blind reaction to anything they don't like

>>17535360
every time.
We need to go back.

>>17535360
not true, marxist threads are also assaulted by mouthbreathers

>>17535360
>threads on left wing literature pass by peacefully
this is the most disingenuous post on the board atm

>>17540734
Not funny. Juvenile and crass

>>17527300
>>17534503
retards
>Slave morality is built on ressentiment
and the values listed are the manifestations of it
>you stupid faggot
no u

>>17541190
>>>/lgbt/

https://third-reich-books.com/

>>17535035
Retarded reason to not be a NatSoc. The difference between these commies and socialists, which is another word for commies, is that NatSoc believes in private property. Nazi Germany had the strongest economy,

>>17533603
Congratulations you became the confident individualists corporations had planed for.

Leo Strauss is bar none the best post-WWII rightist thinker.

>>17538156
Peligrosamente BASADO.

>>17541365
You do realise Finland has high homicide rates, right?