/lit/ - Literature

Rupi Kaur

No.

>>18026783
Me

>>18026783
define right wing

>>18026783
revcons are overall the most right, there is noting more right, only wrong.

>>18026783
>Is there an author more shilled than Evola?

>>18026853
Karl Marx

>>18026783
OP please report to your nearest FBI field office, wethey would like to speak with you.

>>18026783
Spengler and Guenon

>>18028852
>Spengler
never read him but my ex-gf who was a big whore loved talking about him.

>>18028852
They aren't nearly as racist and political as Evola.
>>18029195
Can I have her phone number?

>>18026783
William Luther Pierce in terms of reactionary extremist, de Maistre in the more traditional sense of the term.

>Is there an author more "right-wing" than Evola?
Yes, actual fascist authors.

>>18026783
The term "right-wing" originates in the French Revolution, and is most salient when talking about modern states. The supporters of a new revolutionary position would stand on the left, while the supporters of the existing position would stand on the right. By voting this way the revolution always advances, but at a sustainably moderate pace.
Liberal democracies still have this dynamic, with a progressive party pushing forward and a conservative party holding them back. (Democracy is already a permanent revolution; Trotsky just remodeled it in terms of class struggle.) The most extreme right-wing position would therefore be the desire to go back to the start of the democratic project, before any progress occurred. The closest example of this I can think of would be Ayn Rand and the objectivists.
Traditionalists like Evola would more accurately be described as reactionary, rather than right-wing, as they have rejected the whole Enlightenment project, including democracy. Guenon even denounces the Treaty of Westphalia, and the modern state model that follows.
The most extreme reactionary position would be the desire to completely return to pre-modern forms of social organization. The closest examples I can think of would be Vedic revivalists like Prabhupada, or Anarcho-Monarchists like Tolkein.

>>18029557
Evola was super-fascist.

>>18029595
Is the supernatural natural?

Friendly reminder that 4chan is among the first grand psyops; and you, my good reader, are a guinea pig.

>>18029557
Fascists are left-wing.

>>18029595
>he doesn't speak Italian

>>18029587
Interesting take anon. Would you care to recommend some more reading in this direction?

>>18029552
Skip Pierce, de Maistre is probably the correct answer, however, although I'd say de Maistre and Evola are roughly equivalent. Evola based a lot of his basic political principles directly on de Maistre's writings.

>>18029601
No, it is above or beyond nature, just as Evola was beyond fascism by being even more reactionary.

>>18026783
In the popular sense of the word... William Luther Pierce (vomits), but he’s more syncretist (in view of his Neo-Nazism) than anything.

But “far right” is a vague term that can be used to describe *many* different concepts. The best I would say is: medieval literature, probably.

>>18029195
Where do I find a woman like this? Minus the whore part.

it’s all so tiresome

>>18026838
Very true. What non-analytic types fail to understand is: reality *does* exist in an analytic structure.
Poets (and other creatives) attempting to do political philosophy and social thought, unless they compartmentalize it, tend to ignore fine but important analytic distinctions in favor of “feeling”.

Whereas if an analytic does not appreciate any feeling, then he is forced into reductivism, and cannot come up with aesthetic theories, or study things such as national consciousness appropriately.
What is needed is not a mere “mixture of both”. What is needed is a mixture of both *in compartmentalized ways*, otherwise we fall into, on the one hand, rebellion against truth itself, and on the other, reductivism, with all of the problems it entails.

>>18029587
>Anarcho-Monarchists
As people like HHH correctly points out, feudal monarchies were technically anarchic because they did not have a state (or a monopolistic government over a given area, with a monopoly on the “legitimate” use of violence).
His fatal flaw however, is his view that we cannot return to such a thing.

>>18029595
No. Evola was a “traditionalist”, and liked some elements of fascism but disagreed with some of it. Apparently Mussolini thought he was a sorcerer and was really afraid of him.

>>18026783
Adolf

>>18029643
>more reading
Some of the most interesting takes come from Hans-Hermann Hoppe, because he is a kind of right-wing/reactionary synthesis. He starts from Classical Liberal axioms and reasons in a very modern way, but often ends up coming to reactionary conclusions.

>>18029644
>Skip Pierce
Wasn’t gonna read him. Am not interested in murdering Natalie Portman since I wanna fuck her.

But, in your view, is de Maistre coherent?

>>18029195
He basically has an idea that history *has* to be cyclical, that cultures *have* to (by logical necessity) give way to ossified civilizations. This is the big flaw in “The Decline of the West”, but to be fair, he has a few good ideas. When I read it (it’s like 1,000 pages!) his descriptions of the different *worldviews* of different cultures/civilizations was fascinating, and it is true that such a worldview is borne out in their art, music, etc.. Iirc he goes a bit far with it, but it’s fine enough.

Also, their discoveries in realms such as math seem to be in line with their worldview, even if he seems to incorrectly see this in a relativistic way. It would stand to reason however, that a culture’s worldview would play into *what areas of research they do* as well as how they conduct said research, the extent to which they research, etc..

A side note: he describes functions as “numbers as relation”, which is definitely true, and was a (not really I guess but still) profound realization for me.

His distinction between “truths” and “facts”, and how these are necessarily prioritized by different cultures/stages of cultures, is... largely bullshit.

He did note however, that the *direction* of history is shaped largely by elite (often not centrally), and that everyone else merely carries it out (either directly or indirectly). This seems an obvious truth, but somehow I hadn’t realized it beforehand.

In short: like I’ve said: humans create history, it is not predetermined to follow a given general course, or at least one according to a relatively strict timeframe. So his central point is crap. But some side points he makes, as well as his detailed analysis of the worldviews of different cultures (as well as how they bear themselves out in the arts) is to be appreciated. Would recommend reading him.

Also... I only read “The Decline of the West” because it’s an invention in Victoria II :D

>>18029701
not him, but read this

>>18029734
You type like a faggot.

>>18029195
Watch this, as an introduction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdYaPf4KLFM

>>18029775
>and any attempt to describe it in rational terms is really a kind of dreadful distortion.
Oh dear. This sounds like the classic excuse making of people who just want a free hand to peddle stuff that just isn’t so.

>>18029664
yes

>>18029787
Didn’t know you were his new PR guy

>>18029798
He is objectively correct.
>a free hand to peddle stuff that just isn’t so.
What "is so"? Your beliefs?

>>18029807
>>reality doesn’t exist according to reason
>>He is objectively correct.
Pick one
Mind you, I’m still interested in reading de Maistre, and perhaps his Catholicism (and therefore need to be in line with Scholasticism) makes his... mysticism? not exceed the limits of reason, but I’m sceptical.

>>18029475
>>18029660
don't bother, loses its novelty really fast.

>>18029840
Did you even read the full image? He never claimed reason was not a useful tool or useful within limits. It's the folly of Enlightenment thought which believes reason can be used to explain all aspects of reality including the "aim" of human life and the state. Maistre is perfectly correct in asserting that the principle of the state must lie above human reason and rest in infallible authority, lest it become a mere fanciful notion as it essentially is today, merely waiting to be erased by the next wave of revolutionaries or ideologues who decide the current "philosophical rationale" is wrong.

>>18029676
>his view that we cannot return to such a thing
This may be a matter of what time scale you are considering. I'm not aware of any event where a people managed to intentionally dismantle a state and return to Feudalism. When states collapse and leave a power vacuum, however, Feudal hierarchies form very quickly.
I don't, therefore, hold much hope of Anarcho-Monarchy in the near future. Within the next few centuries, however, I see it as inevitable.

>>18029909
Lmao I’m gonna be honest here: didn’t read all of it . But one question: what if I don’t believe in giving an institution a monopoly on violence? Would his ideas apply to feudal realms (or other forms of civil government), as well?

>>18029684
Yes, he was above and beyond fascism. Hence, when asked in court if he had ever been a fascist, he told them "no, I'm super-fascist". Maybe it doesn't translate well in English.

>>18026783
Me

>>18029953
Interesting. What do you think will happen within our lifetimes?

>>18029966
Awesome dub dubs

>>18029684
>Mussolini thought he was a sorcerer and was really afraid of him.
Yes, funny how he kicked Crowley and the Thelemites out of their little Abbey, but wouldn't dare touch Evola. Maybe there is something to it. Some black magicians apparently still swear by his work.
https://youtu.be/ZnhfB2_5DCU

>>18030061
Huh.

>>18030061
>https://youtu.be/ZnhfB2_5DCU
That guy is a clown, he probably doesnt even have dreams.

>>18029672
psychobabble

>>18030103
Imagine believing reality doesn’t exist or doesn’t exist in a logical way. You need to be pumped full of lithium by big steel syringe (BSS).

>>18029734
Why exactly do you think a cyclical view of history necessitates predetermination, and is therefore crap?
We often see cycles occur as emergent properties. For example, there is no predetermining force compelling money to flow in a particular way, yet it consistently produces business cycles. No one is controlling fashion trends, yet you will likely see the clothes you are wearing go out of style and come back in again within your lifetime.

>>18030061
EA Koetting is a huge faggot that larps as a demon summoner
>>18030082
Correct

>>18030129
Well to be clear: I’m not arguing against cycles, but he seems to induce too much of a hard time frame into it. Whereas I would argue that civilizations can go through these cycles at different rates, and some (China), may emerge from the ossified “civilization” stage once more into the vibrant “culture” stage.

>>18029794
Ebert is clearly a wise and insightful man, but I don't trust some of his more /x/-tier work. Like a lot of boomers, he appears to have been impacted by the new age woo.

>>18030169
I hadn't checked little of him.
But thank you for the heads up.

>>18030217
*I had checked
>Mussolini thought he was a sorcerer and was really afraid of him.
That's hilarious hahaha

>>18026783
Quentin Scobie

>>18029970
Some variation on Spengler's Caesarism. States are becoming too bloated to manage democratically and big business has a vested interest in using the state to prevent competition. The closest historic parallel would be the rise of the latifundia in the Roman Republic. Citizens suffer from this forced accumulation of capital and look for a strongman to stop it.
There is basically a dictator shaped hole at the top of the modern state. One by one each nation is filling it, even if they still call themselves democracies.

>>18030223
This one is a wildcard.
He could be the most right wing man in the world.
He could be operating on so many layers of hyper-irony that he appears more right-wing than he is.
He could be an O9A operative using us for the sinister agenda.
He could be having a genuine mental breakdown while we all laugh, thinking it is part of the act.
He could be cynically playing us for attention.
He could be taking the piss.
He could be doing all these things at once in a superposition of states (yes that's a real thing, ask a stemfag).

>>18029794
This is a much better and more entertaining video and a great introduction.
https://youtu.be/i9pjlgMbLIY

>>18029619
kindly commit suicide

>>18030432
They are. Fascism is a post-Enlightenment/modernist ideology, meaning it is left wing from the objective perspective (albeit less left than say socialism or communism).

>>18030417
Thank you, I'll watch it today!
>>18030432
Not him, but fascism is, according to the bourgeios dichotomy, is left wing.
It's not reactionary; it's just revolutionary

>>18028852
>>18029552
>>18029557
>>18029658
>>18029694
Nationalism is not right-wing. Fascism is only right-wing relative to progressivism and Communism. The only kind of person who could be considered more right-wing than Evola would be a reactionary supporter of Papal sovereignty who denied freedom of religion.

>>18026783
Depends how you define right wing. By a philosophical definition no, he idolised a time before recorded history, you can't really get more Traditional than that. Politically, though, Spengler and the Conservative Revolution were further right in terms of the culture they thought should be created, since Evola thought the individual should ignore culture moreso than try to change it.

>>18029660
All women are whores

>>18029775
This is awesome. Where can I read more?

>>18030508
I wish I knew where it came from. I'm trying my best to find it

bump

>>18029701
Absolutely disgusting

>>18030488
George Lincoln Rockwell who denied Joseph's Egyptian Federal Reserve in Genesis as holy.
Pic unrelated

>>18029613
Are you sure you're not the wrong place?

>>18029775
>>18030505
>>18030596
My first though is that it is somehow related to the Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes

>>18030316
>big business has a vested interest in using the state to prevent competition.
So long as the state exists, rent-seeking will be inevitable. There’s no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent from depriving people of private property.

>>18026783
Reading RATMW was the greatest inspiration to complete my first piece of erotic literature. Thanks supervillain-looking Italian guy.

>>18031237
If you’re an “Aryan” (don’t really use that term for Caucasoid advocacy cuz it’s meme-y) and you wouldn’t impregnate (((her)))... then necessarily you like dick up your ass.

>>18029966
supra-fascist is what you're looking for

>>18032527
>cuz it’s meme-y
Kys Redditor

who is the most left wing author?

>>18032591
You didn’t deny not liking women, so therefore you’re a faggot. Probably a bottom, too.

>>18032608

>>18031981
Locke and Hobbes are where it all went wrong. Rights/legitimacy instead of duties/bonds.

>>18029684
>Apparently Mussolini thought he was a sorcerer and was really afraid of him.
source?

>>18032462
I never said it would be "reformed away". Are you sure you actually read the post you're replying to?

>>18031981
Hobbes sees the King as the provider of individual rights. No word of duties to community/nation (nation in the westphalian sense).
>>18033091
Yes, Hobbes, for example, is essencialy the first liberal

I didn't know Evola was involved in the occult.
What's his most occult book?

>>18032542
Thanks anon.

>>18033165
Tbh it’s just something I heard. >>18033179
I’m just paraphrasing the Unabomber. But seriously, the sovereign state cannot “be used for good” for any significant length of time (more than say, 1 generation).

>>18033042
that fascist?

>>18033188
Hobbes was the first (human) Liberal.

>>18032608
« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ »

No, Evola was so based and redpilled that it spooked Mussolini

Probably pope Pius IX

>>18030508
>>18030596
That segment is a part of Freedom and its Betrayal: Six Enemies of Human Liberty by Isaiah Berlin and is also the introduction to Considerations on France (Cambridge edition).

A lecture by him about de Maistre is also available on Youtube, it probably covers similar themes than the text segment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juMl4TQzA34

>>18033251
I never said it would be used for good either. I'm talking about power politics, not what it right or wrong.
Elected officials have to constantly trade favours for funding, leading to an increasing wealth gap between the very rich and everyone else. Then they tax the middle class to buy the votes of the poor with bread and circuses. A tiny number of people benefit at the expense of everyone else.
An increasing number of people will come to hate their ruling class. Once the hatred reaches critical mass, they will be willing to support anything that promises to rid them of the parasite elite. This creates a power vacuum that some ambitious rogue elite will fill.

>>18033699
Wow, thank you, Really appreciate it.

>>18029684
>Apparently Mussolini thought he was a sorcerer and was really afraid of him.
Mussolini did not fear Evola
>Despite what is generally thought, I was not at all irritated by Doctor Julius Evola’s pronouncements made a few months before
the Conciliation on the modification of relations between the Holy See and Italy. Anyhow, Doctor Evola’s attitude did not directly
concern relations between Italy and the Holy See, but what seemed to him the long-term irreconcilability of the Roman tradition
and the Catholic tradition. Since he identified Fascism with the Roman tradition, he had no choice but to reckon as its adversary
any historical vision of a universalistic order.

>>18034031
>Doctor
Are you sure this refers to him and not someone with the same name? IIRC Evola refused to attend graduation or receive a degree, because it was too bourgeois for him.

>>18033699
This is awesome. Thanks, man!

If meme answers count, Savitri Devi probably wins. You can't get more stereotypically "right wing" in the general social understanding of the term than believing hitler is the holy reincarnation of vishnu sent to cleanse the earth.

>>18034677
I think Serrano edges out Devi in that respect.

>>18026783
>right-wing

>>18034677
>>18034920
If we're going for edgy meme value, then surely Anton Long wins.

>>18029676
Who is HHH?

>>18034677
>>18034920
Haven't read any Serrano, but with Savitri Devi I think people put too much emphasis on the Hitler cult aspect. She is definitely worth reading for an outsider perspective on modernity, aside from the Nazi stuff.
https://youtu.be/oVNbQ8CAXtc

>>18026783
francis parker yockey

>>18036077
Hans Herman Hoppe. For a German philosopher... he’s very concerned about coherence.

For us Christians (actual Catholics), Pope Boniface VIII's papal bull Unam sanctam, which puts spiritual authority over secular authorities, the second having to submit to the Church in temporal matters. Anything that puts secular authority over religious authority is trash. However, according to the Bible and any other religious eschatology, the world will come to an end and we're likely at the end of it - good political order will not happen, take concern for the salvation of your soul, it's the only thing that matters.

>>18036538
>For us Christians (actual Catholics)
The Holy Writ says “all that believe in Him are saved”. I would take this as meaning that anyone affirming the (basic, so no addressing the Filioque) Nicene Creed, and who puts his trust in the Lord, will be saved.

>>18026783

Francis Yockey

>>18037092
Too materialist

>>18030223
I miss that lil nigga like you wouldn’t believe...
Q, if you are out there, and reading this, you really brightened my life when I needed it and you make good music. Your book isn’t half bad, but I still prefer Taipei

>>18036077
Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
Meme Lords will mostly know him as the originator of the term "Physical Removal".
https://youtu.be/hedkBm3Ud3Q
He didn't mean what they mean by it though.
https://youtu.be/Yt0TWTVyY9Q

>>18029676
>As people like HHH correctly points out, feudal monarchies were technically anarchic because they did not have a state (or a monopolistic government over a given area, with a monopoly on the “legitimate” use of violence).
1. Not what anarchism is
2. Yes they did have a state, especially as time progressed.

>>18029775
I love how right-wingers think that they need to articulate or endorse the social contract for it to be real, as if force as administered by the state is a weapon that can be taken for granted.

>>18037194
>I love how right-wingers think that they need to articulate or endorse the social contract for it to be real,
He was saying exactly the opposite. Did you even read the quote?

>>18037206
He thinks he's saying the opposite but he's not. He's simply got an all-or-nothing conception of humanity where man's self-interest is, in his mind, incompatible with socially cohesive principles, not realizing that the same self-interest guides them towards making these kinds of contracts. This is why no one except the fringe takes de Maistre seriously. "Humans can't be good and bad so the good must mean that social harmony is implemented by God" is a retarded idea, and pretending that the natural state is one of institutional control and abasement before authority does not make it so.

>>18029658
>William Luther Pierce
This man was way ahead of his time. The fact that you reject his non comforting truth is the reason your civilization is failing. You can’t reject truth or nature in the long run, it will always catch up to you and kill you if you reject it.

>>18037223
>He's simply got an all-or-nothing conception of humanity where man's self-interest is, in his mind, incompatible with socially cohesive principles
You didn't understand him. Maybe he's not your speed.
>natural state is one of institutional control and abasement before authority does not make it so.
There is no pretending, this is self-evident given reality as it is and the history of mankind. You can pretend it isn't the case, but Maistre is perfectly justified in stating this fact in light of all given evidence. It's only rationalist idealists, the ones he justly criticized, who think otherwise.

>>18037270
>you simply didn't understand him
>"Man is by nature vicious, wicked, cowardly, and bad... Left alone, human beings will tear each other to pieces... He regards human nature as fundamentally self-annihilating, and needing above all to be curbed and controlled. The only thing which is reliable, the only thing which is dependable, is not man-made; for if it is man-made it can equally be unmade by man.

You can't claim "filtered" when his conception of humanity as purely dissolute is right there in the text, you dink. If I'm not understanding him, neither is the guy writing this>>18029775
passage.

>no pretending
He is pretending, society only functions by the cohesion of individuals. That's just reality. One can argue how much of that cohesion is knowing contract and how much is coercion but Maistre takes it to a ridiculous extreme where he posits that it's ALL coercion and solves the problem of why people cooperate in social collectives by simply using "God" as a clinamen.

>>18026794
OH YEAH RUPI KAUR OCASIO CORTEZ GONNA MAKE ME CUM!!!! HOLY SHIT MMMMM SEXY BROWN !!!!!!

>>18037134
What he's saying in that interview assumes that:
>"doing the reverse" of leftist cancel culture is even feasible
>leftists are willing to live in peaceful seperation
He just doesn't want to be the instigate conflict, as any libertarian wouldn't. But you literally would not have to wait long at all for the left to instigate conflict, as if they haven't already.
I think libertarianism wouldn't be as dead as it is right now if they'd take a more radical approach (appeal to pleb's bloodlust) and rightfully proclaim that modern society is a constant, 24/7 NAP violation and we have to right to defend ourselves.

>>18037365
>You can't claim "filtered" when his conception of humanity as purely dissolute is right there in the text
What Maistre here meant is that the conception of good and bad are not put in man by means of reason or rational argument, nor instinct. They exist prior to the faculty of reason, which some Enlightenment philosophers (most notably Kant) believed was the source of all morality and ethical statehood. Conversely, utilitarian philosophers, another product of the Enlightenment, believe that it is the instinctual desire that guides all moral decisions. Ergo for Maistre, human society and state, in opposition to the Enlightenment idea of a social contract, is not a product of human reason or philosophizing, it is a product of something higher than both reason and the base nature of man (which encompasses the base desires we all know of and that inform utilitarianism). This is de Maistre's view of God's role. It's generally hard to understand for people accustomed to utilitarianism, or even deontology, as the highest good, because we have not been subject to these maxims for a very long time now.
>He is pretending, society only functions by the cohesion of individuals
Wrong, well, begging the question. Cohesion is only possible through authority. Can a multinational company successfully operate as a single cohesive unit without a coordinating (authoritative) force? No. Can a human body operate without the brain to coordinate (through authority) all of its functions? No. We term disobedience in the human body cancer, despite cancer being its own type of life. The only examples of non-authoritative cohesion are very simple organisms like fungus, which merely "spread out" without any overarching principle.
>he posits that it's ALL coercion
No he doesn't. There are obviously examples of people living together harmoniously, which he explicitly mentioned in the text the other anon uploaded:
>People who are armed with the notion of a promise, the notion of respecting each other's will, the notion of punishment, the notion of reward, do not need a society, they are in it already. Quite clearly, therefore, society is presupposed by the notion of a contract.

>>18037424
>cohesion is only possible through authority
And yet all basic relational structures: tribes and familial relationships and other modern day collectives (social clubs, friendship groups) are formed laterally, not top-down. You're mixing the organizational necessity of the existence of authority (statism) with the idea that the formation of social groups requires an authoritarian apparatus, which basic history should tell you is false. Also
>People who are armed with the notion of a promise, the notion of respecting each other's will, the notion of punishment, the notion of reward, do not need a society, they are in it already. Quite clearly, therefore, society is presupposed by the notion of a contract.
Is not an example of people "living harmoniously" since he is clearly assigning the attribute of harmony to a presupposed collective that is safe from man's meddling. He's not positing that man can exist in that way on his own, he is coerced. Alas, perhaps it is you that doesn't understand what he's saying. He has no answer for why people begin to form social collectives to begin with, nor does he address the reality that people follow forms of authority that are amenable to them, he just claims "God did it." I can tell by your paragraph at the beginning of your post that you so badly want to wade into an argument where you can proffer that enfranchisement of the populace is a naive and sentimental notion that was adopted for emotional reasons and style yourself as the professor of hard truths but de Maistre's vision of society is wrong simply at the mechanical level.

>>18037174
The state was formalized by Absolutism. That's why he draws a distinction between Feudal and Absolute Monarchy.

>>18037388
He's a philosopher, so he is providing an abstract mapping of an NAP-based society. If you're looking for practical application, listen to someone practical like Janusz Korwinn-Mikke.
https://youtu.be/D97RsccfIS8

>>18037479
>tribes
No
>familial relationships
Yes
>social clubs, friendship groups
Which are not societies or states. A lot of social clubs, depending on the type, will actually have forms of authority anyway.
> safe from man's meddling
You clearly don't understand what he means by this. Hint: He is not talking about the everyday man or sociopathic types.
>He's not positing that man can exist in that way on his own, he is coerced.
He is asserting both, entirely dependent on the context. Learn some nuance. You're also using "coercion" incorrectly, but I've let this slide. It's closer to simple respect and acknowledgement for that which is superior. For example, he clearly states that an organization based around social contract can be established and maintained for a period of time, but that it is the inevitable undoing of itself. It's not that men cannot organize and act cooperatively, but that this very principle of man being the measure of all things is also the undoing of itself. Thus, men can organize without a principle of authority, but this same lack of principle is its own undoing. This is Maistre's point.
>but de Maistre's vision of society is wrong simply at the mechanical level.
You keep saying this but offer no actual arguments to support it (whereas I just gave you at least two perfectly valid analogies of cohesive, purposive [unlike the non-purposive examples you gave] structures). I'm done discussing with you if you're this desperate to simply dismiss Maistre from the start. You don't wish to learn anything, just "prove" Maistre wrong. If you don't like Maistre, which you clearly don't, just admit it and move on. I do the same with Marx and other Enlightenment philosophers instead of desperately trying to prove them wrong within their own framework.

>>18037229
>way ahead of his time
You’re right, we haven’t discovered that murder is moral yet

>>18037577
>tribes don't
Tribes are extensions of familial structures

You actually completely don't understand de Maistre. He posits that man cannot, by his nature, engage in a social contract, that he needs saving from himself, and that he is antithetical to order and cohesion. You are mixing up the logistical necessity of central authority for organizing a large groups of people (large collectives like societies, states, corporations, etc.) and Maistre's thesis that the unquestionable authority is a necessary institution because man needs to be controlled. Maistre was not arguing for statism because of how difficult it is to organize large populations at the pluralistic level, he was arguing that man cannot be left to his own devices or pursue any kind of good without that organization. You're the one marrying these two things, which is why you make bad naturalistic comparisons like the human body. Imagining that he was talking about an ethos of willful acknowledgement of authority as opposed to a libertarian contractual flux is a complete misreading. He preferred the divine monarchy to the constitutional republic, did he not? The constitutional republic is just as adept (even more so, for his time) at being a logistic center of authority as the monarchy, and yet he fears the loss of blind compliance to authoritarian institution for moralistic reasons.

>>18037622
>Maistre was not arguing for statism because of how difficult it is to organize large populations at the pluralistic level, he was arguing that man cannot be left to his own devices or pursue any kind of good without that organization.
Correct, I never said otherwise. You've somehow managed to misread MY posts as well.
>The constitutional republic is just as adept (even more so, for his time) at being a logistic center of authority as the monarchy
No, absolutely not. Again, misreading.
>You actually completely don't understand de Maistre
No, you don't. As I said, I'm not dealing with anymore of your made up nonsense. Either post quotes from Maistre himself to support your points, or don't post at all.

>>18037622
Not that anon. But which of de Maistre’s works would you suggest I read first? Also... could the authority be a non-state authority (it could still be a government, just one without a monopoly on the legitimate use of coercion), according to him? considering that in various analyses of history, feudal monarchies were not states.

>>18032608
me

>>18037649
>no absolutely not
Yes, this is point of fact, it has nothing to do with Maistre. I don't know why you call it a misreading, the French governments that arose after the revolution had more central authority and were better organized, that's just reality. This entire post is just a "no you're wrong." I don't know how one comes to the conclusion, either by his writing or his reputation, that de Maistre was not categorically denying that man is capable of social cohesion by any power other than that of abstract divinity. You seem to be completely incapable of making a distinction between the necessities of logistics for institutions and the necessities of the social conception of the citizen, and you attribute to de Maistre the union of these concepts as one and the same despite the fact that I have not even read a scholar who has posited that his primary concern wasn't the intractable turpitude of the individual. He claims absolute authority is necessary, he describes absolute authority as not being amenable to contract for the citizen. I don't know what led you to believe differently.

>>18037622
>He posits that man cannot, by his nature, engage in a social contract
I will end this here: This statement of yours seems to be the crux of your misunderstanding. Maistre explicitly states, more than once, including in the first few paragraphs of the pic that was uploaded in this thread, that man can organize societies based around a social contract, similar to your constitutional republic, without a higher principle (God). He states that these CAN and DO exist, not that they CANNOT. This does not mean it is within human nature, but it does mean that they can exist for a time without a higher, completely infallible principle (ie reason/philosophy). In Generative Principle, he also speaks about this in relation to pre-Christian states like Rome and how they are imperfect, albeit well-intended, products of a certain kind of divine influence. What it does mean is that they are ephemeral and will inevitably break down because they have no universal legislation, which is also partly because the tendency of the common man (in Maistre's view) is opposed to it, and the nature of reason's employment is critical and destructive, or at the very least based on personal factors (which is funnily similar to Nietzsche's view). Additionally, this has nothing to do with practical or logistic factors you tried to accuse me of appealing to, it has to do with the fundamental foundations of the state and its legitimacy with respect to the people it governs.

>>18037665
just read this https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951002310742q&view=1up&seq=20
it's the only thing people read by him, I'm pretty sure. The authority of de Maistre needs to have absolute divine authority, ideally it would be followed without force, but its rule is absolute.

>>18037759
Then he's begging the question, because the only stable government is one which is always supported and not mired by criticism. Also you're still wrong, because you're mixing the logistical possibility of state creation with his thesis, the necessity of abasement. He claims that the social contract cannot be upheld for reasons due to human nature. And yet, the divinely ordered governments still fall, so a willful social contract must have been in play. You also cite reason and philosophy as infallible principles even though de Maistre explicitly names divine right as the only stable source of authority.

>>18037805
>because the only stable government is one which is always supported and not mired by criticism.
correct, or in other words a government which possesses true, legitimate authority, which can only be divine.
>He claims that the social contract cannot be upheld for reasons due to human nature
partially wrong.
>so a willful social contract must have been in play
wrong.
>You also cite reason and philosophy as infallible principles
i cited them as specifically fallible principles.
i think we're done here.

>>18037826
So you're ending by admitting that he's making a tautology?

>>18037833
if that's what you got from my posts, then i can't really help you.

>>18037826
>>18037833
Also
>but it does mean that they can exist for a time without a higher, completely infallible principle (ie reason/philosophy)
is a sentence that calls reason and philosophy infallible principles, though I guess that's not what you mean

>>18037840
>correct, in other words a government which possesses true, legitimate authority, which can only be divine
The only stable government is a government with unchallengeable stability. That's how his conception of divine right functions, because criticism of the institution is ruled out a priori. So it's a circular argument, and even if it wasn't, it's not the world in which we live.

>>18037845
>is a sentence that calls reason and philosophy infallible principles, though I guess that's not what you mean
You are really not bright if you cannot understand a sentence that simple. I really do not know how I can simplify that for you to make it more understandable.
>>18037850
>The only stable government is a government with unchallengeable stability.
This is a tautology. What isn't a tautology is acknowledging the reality of divinity as the ultimate principle of authority and stability, which is what Maistre does.
>and even if it wasn't, it's not the world in which we live.
Again, what I said before is valid. You simply disagree with Maistre. Move on, instead of pretending you can refute him in his own framework. The world in which you live is clearly different to the world in which Maistre and myself live, one where the divine is quite evidently real.

>>18037865
"Completely infallible principle (ie reason/philosophy)" means "completely infallible principle such as reason or philosophy" you should have written "completely infallible principle (ie one with reason/philosophy)

Name me an institution of divine right that persists and has not been edified by those within it. The very fact that that which is held as absolute authority can find instability means that the authority is contingent. If the divinity were real, it wouldn't happen. No political philosopher with any sense would advocate for the creation of a rule by fiat without consent from the populace and expect it to persist. That situation isn't the fault of the Enlightenment.

>>18037876
>"Completely infallible principle (ie reason/philosophy)"
You left the rest of the sentence out, which gave the necessary negation (in English, negatives are formed using the world "not", or "without" in this case). Are you purposely wasting my time, or are you actually this stupid? I'm not even giving the rest of your post the time of day.

>>18037930
>This does not mean it is within human nature, but it does mean that they can exist for a time without a higher, completely infallible principle (ie reason/philosophy).
They can exist for a time without a higher, completely infallible principle such as reason or philosophy
vs
They can exist for a time without a higher, completely infallible principle, substituting a principle such as reason or philosophy.
The noun "principle" is, in your sentence, both the principle that would, were it included, guide the ideal society and the the principle that would create the fallible society. You need a second noun.
I can understand why you wouldn't want to work out the pragmatism of "divine right," though I'm disappointed that you were mostly just pettifogging and the essential point that I was getting at, that the compliance of the governed is a perennial and immutable factor is something which you won't confront. Typical nu-authoritarianism
>we're gonna create society without "x"
>but "x" always exists
>no we're just gonna get rid of it then it won't be a problem.
In this case x being consent or involvement of the governed, which, like all Maistre followers, you attribute to a feckless conception of Whig history rather than a fact of communal organization. But I guess you just disqualify it by argumentation then make a tautology around its not being present and suddenly we can just do it.

>>18037769
An anti-statist, but a state ruled by God Himself would be based.

Nice thread, thus far

>>18029644
>de Maistre
Only right answer. His writings attack the very ideas of egalitarianism and democracy which a lot of "right" wingers are ok with. Its hard though because what is right wing is tricky. Is it monarchy? Tribal chieftains and Khans? Papal dictatorship? Military junta? All of these can be right wing depending on when and what.

>>18036538
For the majority of the christian world's existence, the king was above the pope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_chain_of_being

>>18030147
I thing you have misunderstood a point of his. For S. a culture does not "reincarnate". Thus the second time a land breeds a culture, this is NOT the same culture.

>>18040343
Alright.

me

>>18032608
>who is the most left wing author?

>>18037577
>If you don't like Maistre, which you clearly don't, just admit it and move on. I do the same with Marx and other Enlightenment philosophers instead of desperately trying to prove them wrong within their own framework.
Uphold Marxism-Maistreism

https://youtu.be/u--cQWrNO_4?t=174

Not an author, but I think the Bloody Baron deserves a mention (the real one, not the fake Harry Potter ghost). His actions and life choices are about as Evolian as it gets.
By extension then, Ossendowski would be a candidate for most right wing author. As the Baron's friend and biographer, he had the privilege to document what was probably the most extreme right wing life ever lived.

>>18041974
What are the Chinks going to do when the US dollar fails? Serious question. I don't understand their game plan given their reliance on export to countries that are debt ridden.

>>18037092
close but definitely not more than Evola

>>18041939