/lit/ - Literature

>>19842865
Wagner.

>>19842865
Russel Kirk

>>19842865
Moldbug

>>19842865
>reads rightoid theory
>becomes communist

>>19842865
Roger Scruton
Allan Bloom
Friedrich Nietzsche
>>19842932
What?

>>19842865
Depends on what you mean by right-wing I guess. Like in a reactionary way, Thomas Aquinas is all you'll ever need to read. In a gay larping American vein, Carlyle is the only person worth considering.

>>19842865
>I am to smart
I agree

>>19842865
Junger's fiction is better than his nonfiction imo
Eumeswil is one of the best novels I've read

>>19842865
Hayek. Milton.

>>19842865
>muh IQ
Midwit found.
>>19842955
>Nietzsche
>right wing
??

>>19843287
You mean John Milton or Milton Friedman?

Rousseau
De Maistre
Plato
Aristotle
Dumezil
Fichte
Hegel
Levinas
Paul de Man
Blanchot

>>19842865
This is a one-way ticket to tranny town. Stick to Hitler and classic literature.

>>19842865
>I am to smart
many such cases

>>19842865
>but I am to smart

>>19842865
Alain de Benoist

>>19842904
Kek

>>19843302
>Nietzsche
>not expressively more rw than lw
Midwit or pseud that hasn't read nietzsche detected

>>19842865
Hannah Arendt

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/hannah-arendt-antiracism-little-rock
"she was unabashed in her refusal to use the word “discrimination” as a pejorative. For her audience on the American left, this was a bridge too far."

>>19842865
Guenon isn't right wing or left wing, but someone who enjoys right wing authors would be much more likely to appreciate his books

>>19843818
Nietzsche was neither left nor right. Read BG&E.

Thomas Carlyle is what you want m8. He formulated the Great Man theory of history, which triggered leftists so hard, that they've been saying he's "debunked" for the past 150 years.

>>19842865
>high IQ right wing books/philosophers

>>19842865

>>WHY CAN'T I FIND SMART PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THE THINGS I BELIEVE

>>19842932
Literally happened to me.

>>19842865
>Hayek
retard

reading this thread makes me wanna die

>>19843981
Nwors

>>19842865
Depends, if with right wing you mean third position, like your pic implies, you can look for Giovanni Gentile, which is arguably the founder of fascism together with mussolini.
You will quickly find that their ideas are not that indifferent from the left, because fascism and Nazism are much closer to socialism than the actual right wing.

>>19844017
>not that indifferent
different*

Junger is great but he has been turned into reddit material by the absolute faggots who promote him here. This happened with a few other writers over the past couple years, basically Twitter trannies took them over and made them radioactive.

There's just something so gay and lame about the way Twitter fags try to fit in and be cool, and when they focus that fag energy on something, it adheres to it after a while. That's not really Junger's fault.

>Götz Kubitschek
>Polybius
>John Ruskin
>Luigi dalla Piccola
>Hegel
>Fats Waller
>Joe Rogan
>Eduard Norden

>>19843302
>Nietzsche
>Left wing
you're dumb

>>19843302
>Nietzsche
>right wing
>??
Yes?. He was a right-wing extremist.

>>19844214

>>19844214
literally who?

>>19844235
You have not grasped my aim. Any thinker or figure - I repeat, any thinker or figure - can be right-wing, if read with the sole intention of making them so.
>Captcha: MGAAY?

>>19842865
Unironically Guénon and Kaczybski.

also i can understand reading schmit and heidegger as they are geniuses but i cant see the appeal of reading trash just because of their political views

>>19842865
>>19843302
>>19843818
>>19844221
>>19844232
pic rel

The low-brow take is thinking that these philosophies are reducible to right or left wing takes and not recognizing that your bias and ingenuity interprets their arguments for the right (or left).

Anyway, Arendt

>>19843855

Julius Evola was also influenced by him as well.

>>19843903
Have there been any since Napoleon?

>>19842865
You guys have a different definition of right wing than what I know.

>>19844333
Didn't Hitler, Lenin, and Stalin change the world?
If they never existed, would events have played out the same? Of course not, these men changed the world, the world didn't change itself, society didn't change itself, some "great men" did it.

>>19844352
"Right-wing" has ceased to be a rigid definable criterion and essentially just means "not fags"

>>19844352
liberalism isn't right wing

Ernst Jünger is probably the most complex and multidimensional and relevant thinker of the 20th century.

>how to turn thinkers into consoomers and polfags in one post

>>19844353
Lenin is absolutely a Great Man in the Carlyle sense of the term. He altered the nature of the world in a way that matches what Napoleon did.

>>19844353
I’m not even sure they did. I’m American so from an American point of view, what the Nazis and Soviets mostly did is push America even further away but still on a trajectory they were already on (see: New Deal). Besides, the question wasn’t if they changed the world. It’s an impossible question to answer because history happened as it happened and we have no other history to compare it to. The question at hand is they’re “great men” or “heroes” and I think obviously, they were not. And that’s not a moral judgement but a pragmatic one. Hitler arguably doomed the German people. Stalin directly or indirectly killed millions of his own people.

>>19844569
no one wants to read your schizo blog. stop spamming Junger threads.

>>19844601
Not everyone who mentions his name is the one person you have in mind.

>>19844545
Then what is?

>>19844333
Abraham Lincoln and Leo Tolstoy

>>19844597
>Hitler arguably doomed the German people. Stalin directly or indirectly killed millions of his own people.
Napoleon fucked up France a lot too.

I guess Giovanni Gentile. Also, maybe this video will help you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-MbiAAvg48

>>19844912
Giovanni Gentile isn't right wing

>>19844932
You know what I mean, anon. The term "right wing" just refers to someone who either supports hierarchy and inequality, or views them as inevitable. I am aware of Gentile's leftist influences.

>>19843400
Explain

Richard Weaver
Russell Kirk
Spengler

>>19842865
SHUT THE FUCK UP

DICOTOMY IS FOR RETARDED PEOPLE (LIKE YOU)

IF YOU READ PHILOSOPHY JUST TO MAKE YOUR BULLSHIT IDEAS FIT INTO AN INTELLECTUAL SPECTRUM OR TO SUPPORT THEM WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S IDEAS (MUCH SMARTER THAN YOU) YOU SHOULD KILL YOURSELF OR GO TO POL

>>19842972
Spell checkers are the biggest midwits of all

>>19844633
monarchy

>>19844932
>Giovanni Gentile isn't right wing
It depends how you define right
If you define the right as spiritual and left as material then Gentile is right

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTCr7d1HahI

>>19844818
While France was already in upheaval. The Napoleon quote here is relevant “I found the crown of France in the gutter and I picked it up”. A man such as this hasn’t been seen since.

>>19845373
I thought it was something like "I found the crown of France on the ground and picked it up with my sword"

>>19845402
Probably. I quoted from memory, which is imperfect. My point stands either way.

>>19844608
he's reddit. Get over it.

>>19842865
This should be around your level, Mr. High IQ. Written by one of your contemporaries as well.

>>19842865
>right wing
>high iq

lmao

The fact that someone asks for 'smart right-wing philosophers' is so pathetic. Having an ideology is the gayest thing ever. Think for yourself or, better yet, expose yourself to a variety of different perspectives and maybe by your sixteenth birthday you'll hold an actual political standpoint that isn't larping.

>>19844269
based. i agree that basing your reading on a political leaning and refusing to broaden your views are reddit-tier NPC behavior

Everyone has been so blindsided by politics they haven't seen the far more obvious bait that OP has read anything

>Vilfredo Pareto
>Gaetano Mosca
>Robert Michels

>>19843287
They're libertarians

>>19844633
Anarcho-Primitivism is the most rightwing ideology in some sense and so is extreme libertarianism. That is obviously not practical so you have to go with fascism.

>>19847751
Fascism is third-position, not right wing.

>>19843843
she's got parenthesis, definitely a psyop

>>19847759
I don't think some positions on the political compass are even possible. If you are defining right wing as unrestricted capitalism, but then describe the process of capitalism as utilizing the state, it becomes self demolishing.

>>19843843
discrimination literally means to differentiate. from latin: discernere. "It especially annoys me when racists are accused of 'discrimination.' The ability to discriminate is a precious facility; by judging all members of one 'race' to be the same, the racist precisely shows himself incapable of discrimination."

>>19847797
I remember taking classes on Machine Learning and the SJWs in the room would get upset that we had to learn to create "discriminatory models"

>>19847761
She literally let a nazi take her virginity. She knows more about nazis than you.

>>19848001
I think that experience had much more impact on Heidegger than it did on her. She did not get nazi'd - Heidegger got jewess'd.

Same as always.

>>19843893
>>19843302

What is good?—Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man.
What is evil?—Whatever springs from weakness.
What is happiness?—The feeling that power increases—that resistance is overcome.
Not contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war; not virtue, but efficiency (virtue in the Renaissance sense, virtu, virtue free of moral acid).
The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it.
What is more harmful than any vice?—Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak—Christianity...."

>>19848492
Section 52 of The Antichrist:

"One catches the unholiness of Christian means in flagranti by the simple process of putting the ends sought by Christianity beside the ends sought by the Code of Manu—by putting these enormously antithetical ends under a strong light. The critic of Christianity cannot evade the necessity of making Christianity contemptible.—A book of laws such as the Code of Manu has the same origin as every other good law-book: it epitomizes the experience, the sagacity and the ethical experimentation of long centuries; it brings things to a conclusion; it no longer creates. The prerequisite to a codification of this sort is recognition of the fact that the means which establish the authority of a slowly and painfully attained truth are fundamentally different from those which one would make use of to prove it. A law-book never recites the utility, the grounds, the casuistical antecedents of a law: for if it did so it would lose the imperative tone, the “thou shall,” on which obedience is based. The problem lies exactly here.—At a certain point in the evolution of a people, the class within it of the greatest insight, which is to say, the greatest hindsight and foresight, declares that the series of experiences determining how all shall live—or can live—has come to an end. The object now is to reap as rich and as complete a harvest as possible from the days of experiment and hard experience. In consequence, the thing that is to be avoided above everything is further experimentation—the continuation of the state in which values are fluent, and are tested, chosen and criticized ad infinitum. Against this a double wall is set up: on the one hand, revelation, which is the assumption that the reasons lying behind the laws are not of human origin, that they were not sought out and found by a slow process and after many errors, but that they are of divine ancestry, and came into being complete, perfect, without a history, as a free gift, a miracle...; and on the other hand, tradition, which is the assumption that the law has stood unchanged from time immemorial, and that it is impious and a crime against one’s forefathers to bring it into question. The authority of the law is thus grounded on the thesis: God gave it, and the fathers lived it.—The higher motive of such procedure lies in the design to distract consciousness, step by step, from its concern with notions of right living (that is to say, those that have been proved to be right by wide and carefully considered experience), so that instinct attains to a perfect automatism—a primary necessity to every sort of mastery, to every sort of perfection in the art of life. To draw up such a law-book as Manu’s means to lay before a people the possibility of future mastery, of attainable perfection—it permits them to aspire to the highest reaches of the art of life. ---

[1/3]

>>19848500
--- To that end the thing must be made unconscious: that is the aim of every holy lie.—The order of castes, the highest, the dominating law, is merely the ratification of an order of nature, of a natural law of the first rank, over which no arbitrary fiat, no “modern idea,” can exert any influence. In every healthy society there are three physiological types, gravitating toward differentiation but mutually conditioning one another, and each of these has its own hygiene, its own sphere of work, its own special mastery and feeling of perfection. It is not Manu but nature that sets off in one class those who are chiefly intellectual, in another those who are marked by muscular strength and temperament, and in a third those who are distinguished in neither one way or the other, but show only mediocrity—the last-named represents the great majority, and the first two the select. The superior caste—I call it the fewest—has, as the most perfect, the privileges of the few: it stands for happiness, for beauty, for everything good upon earth. Only the most intellectual of men have any right to beauty, to the beautiful; only in them can goodness escape being weakness. Pulchrum est paucorum hominum, goodness is a privilege. Nothing could be more unbecoming to them than uncouth manners or a pessimistic look, or an eye that sees ugliness—or indignation against the general aspect of things. Indigna tion is the privilege of the Chandala; so is pessimism. “The world is perfect”—so prompts the instinct of the intellectual, the instinct of the man who says yes to life. “Imperfection, whatever is inferior to us, distance, the pathos of distance, even the Chandala themselves are parts of this perfection.” The most intelligent men, like the strongest, find their happiness where others would find only disaster: in the labyrinth, in being hard with themselves and with others, in effort; their delight is in self-mastery; in them asceticism becomes second nature, a necessity, an instinct. They regard a difficult task as a privilege; it is to them a recreation to play with burdens that would crush all others.... Knowledge—a form of asceticism.—They are the most honourable kind of men: but that does not prevent them being the most cheerful and most amiable. They rule, not because they want to, but because they are; they are not at liberty to play second.—The second caste: to this belong the guardians of the law, the keepers of order and security, the more noble warriors, above all, the king as the highest form of warrior, judge and preserver of the law. The second in rank constitute the executive arm of the intellectuals, the next to them in rank, taking from them all that is rough in the business of ruling—their followers, their right hand, their most apt disciples.—In all this, I repeat, there is nothing arbitrary, nothing “made up”; whatever is to the contrary is made up—by it nature is brought to shame.... ---

[2/3]

>>19848504
--- The order of castes, the order of rank, simply formulates the supreme law of life itself; the separation of the three types is necessary to the maintenance of society, and to the evolution of higher types, and the highest types—the inequality of rights is essential to the existence of any rights at all.—A right is a privilege. Every one enjoys the privileges that accord with his state of existence. Let us not underestimate the privileges of the mediocre. Life is always harder as one mounts the heights—the cold increases, responsibility increases. A high civilization is a pyramid: it can stand only on a broad base; its primary prerequisite is a strong and soundly consolidated mediocrity. The handicrafts, commerce, agriculture, science, the greater part of art, in brief, the whole range of occupational activities, are compatible only with mediocre ability and aspiration; such callings would be out of place for exceptional men; the instincts which belong to them stand as much opposed to aristocracy as to anarchism. The fact that a man is publicly useful, that he is a wheel, a function, is evidence of a natural predisposition; it is not society, but the only sort of happiness that the majority are capable of, that makes them intelligent machines. To the mediocre mediocrity is a form of happiness; they have a natural instinct for mastering one thing, for specialization. It would be altogether unworthy of a profound intellect to see anything objectionable in mediocrity in itself. It is, in fact, the first prerequisite to the appearance of the exceptional: it is a necessary condition to a high degree of civilization. When the exceptional man handles the mediocre man with more delicate fingers than he applies to himself or to his equals, this is not merely kindness of heart—it is simply his duty.... Whom do I hate most heartily among the rabbles of today? The rabble of Socialists, the apostles to the Chandala, who undermine the workingman’s instincts, his pleasure, his feeling of contentment with his petty existence—who make him envious and teach him revenge.... Wrong never lies in unequal rights; it lies in the assertion of “equal” rights.... What is bad? But I have already answered: all that proceeds from weakness, from envy, from revenge.—The anarchist and the Christian have the same ancestry...."

[3/3]

>>19848506
A correction, this is section 57 not 52, type. Also, this comes directly from The Antichrist. I would like to remind the anons here:

Save for his raucous, rhapsodical autobiography, “Ecce Homo,” “The Antichrist” is the last thing that Nietzsche ever wrote, and so it may be accepted as a statement of some of his most salient ideas in their final form. Notes for it had been accumulating for years and it was to have constituted the first volume of his long-projected magnum opus, “The Will to Power.” His full plan for this work, as originally drawn up, was as follows:

Vol. I. The Antichrist: an Attempt at a Criticism of Christianity.
Vol. II. The Free Spirit: a Criticism of Philosophy as a Nihilistic Movement.
Vol. III. The Immoralist: a Criticism of Morality, the Most Fatal Form of Ignorance.
Vol. IV. Dionysus: the Philosophy of Eternal Recurrence.

As such, I think it is fair to say that The Antichrist represents the fullest devlopment of his thoughts, and the farthest evolution of his philosophy. I say this, because while we do have The Will to Power in its incomplete form, many do not think that it is a reliable source. Apart from Ecce Homo which is a very different work, an autobiography, this is the last book he published himself. If anyone, and I mean ANYONE disagrees, then go read The Antichrist right now. On how long to read, it says that it would take 2 hours. Even if you are going through it thoroughly and annotating, you could get it done in an afternoon. Then, once you are done, come back here to /lit/ to tell us about how Nietzsche was actually an egalitarian anarcho socialist

Bronze Age PERVERT

>>19842865
Get into Catholic theology. That's the big boy stuff.

>>19842932
I'd be K with communism if it was racist.

Page 10 pointless bump for a week.

Yeah read my schizo Junger blog dudes.