/lit/ - Literature

Joe Rogan
Alex Jones
William F Buckley
Your High School Chemistry Teacher

>>19963465
Charles Maurras

Karl Marx

Adonai

>>19963470
based and red-pilled

>>19963465
Who else?

Me.

>>19963465
Richard Wagner.

>>19963465
'far-right' is an ambiguous and useless category (how do you classify George Bernard Shaw, for instance?) but here goes:

William Butler Yeats
Gertrude Stein
Wyndham Lewis
Yukio Mishima
Henry de Montherlant
Pierre Drieu La Rochelle
Lucien Rebatet
Roy Campbell
Henry Williamson
Gottfried Benn
Inky Stephensen
Miles Franklin

>>19963465
the rightists after the revolution were not trad, many of their ideas were similar or the same to those of the left (ex. exaltation of work, secularism, etc.)

>>19963507
>gertrude stein
>far right

>>19963465
You don’t get to decide these things, anon.
The Right are Biden, Trudeau, Macron.

>>19963526
the right is not the far right

>>19963540
Nietzsche is not “the far right”

>>19963549
he was literally an aristocratic radicalist proto-fascist

>>19963519
>She publicly endorsed General Francisco Franco during the Spanish Civil War and admired Vichy leader Marshal Philippe Pétain.[104] Some have argued for a more nuanced view of Stein's collaborationist activity, arguing that it was rooted in her wartime predicament and status as a Jew in Nazi-occupied France.[110][111][112][113] Similarly, Stein commented in 1938 on Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky: "There is too much fathering going on just now and there is no doubt about it fathers are depressing."[101]

>>19963519
>While identified with the modernist movements in art and literature, Stein's political affiliations were a mix of reactionary and progressive ideas. She was outspoken in her hostility to some liberal reforms of progressive politics. To Stein, the industrial revolution had acted as a negative societal force, disrupting stability, degrading values, and subsequently affecting cultural decline. Stein idealized the 18th century as the golden age of civilization, epitomized in America as the era of its founding fathers and what was in France, the glory of its pre-revolutionary Ancien Régime.[4][114] At the same time, she was pro-immigrant, pro-democratic, and anti-patriarchal.[115] Her last major work was the libretto of the feminist opera The Mother of Us All (1947) about the socially progressive suffragette movement and another work from this time, Brewsie and Willie (1946), expressed strong support for American G.I.s.

>>19963558
no, you're thinking of his sister.

>>19963585
no his sister was an actual nazi

>>19963549
I don't really understand how you can advocate a hereditary caste system and not be considered right wing. There's nothing even relative about it

>>19963558
Yes he was. Progressives, postmodernists, poststructuralists and the current left in general have a hard time assimilating it because Marx has been their teacher and they also like Nietzsche. But Nietzsche was definitely on the right, anyone who reads his anti-socialist comments and supporting aristocracy and individualist anarchism knows that.

Don't listen to this retard >>19963585

>>19963683
>>19963702
Nietzsche sits outside current modern politics and thus appeals to almost anyone dissatisfied with what is on offer, left right or something else. He is not an ally of socialists, anarchists, or liberals, but he is not an ally of moral conservatives, nationalists, agrarians, clericalists or anti-Semite militarists either.

>>19963722
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 ofManu 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 shalt", on which obedience is based.

>>19963722
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. 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.

>>19963722
This. Nietzsche was a radical individualist. In today's politics he would most closet fit with "right libertarian" but the battle of our time is auth left vs auth right. Libertarians are irrelevant and Nietzsche was a midwit anyway.

>>19963722
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:[30|Few men are noble.] 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. Indignation is the privilege of the Chandala; so is pessimism. "The world is perfect"—soprompts the instinct of the intellectual, the instinct of the man who says yes to life. "Imperfection, what ever 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.

>>19963722
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… 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…

>>19963745
>>19963753
>>19963760
>>19963765
Kill yourself retard

>>19963770
Is that all?

>>19963549
This is what people who have only read Kaufman's Nietzsche think

>>19963831
He was sympathetic to jews so he wasn't far right

>>19963519
nice admittance of your idiocy, pseud

>>19963907
>stein
>far right
lmao

>>19963892
Right and left wing is not predicated upon like or dislike of ethnic groups. That is /pol/ tier.

>>19963709

No Moldbug? Are you fags really so shallow?

T. S. Eliot

>>19963922
Yes it is

>>19964028
>foucault
>marx
Shit chart try harder

another poet who was a right winger is ee cummings

>According to his testimony in EIMI, Cummings had little interest in politics until his trip to the Soviet Union in 1931.[21] He subsequently shifted rightward on many political and social issues.[22] Despite his radical and bohemian public image, he was a Republican and later an ardent supporter of Joseph McCarthy.[

>>19963922
Right and left wing is not determined by the individualist/collectivist axis either. Nietzsche was not a nationalist either. I suppose you know his stance on abortion perhaps?

>>19964028
Hmm, I don't like the way Nazism takes precedence. There should be more Italian and French Syndicalism in this chart. Cercle Proudhon, etc.

>>19963683
>advocate a hereditary caste system
>There's nothing even relative about it
"The right of others is the concession of our feeling of power to the feeling of power in these others. Whenever our power shows itself to be thoroughly shattered and broken, our rights cease: on the other hand, when we have become very much stronger, the rights of others cease in our minds to be what we have hitherto admitted them to be. The man who aims at being just, therefore, must keep a constant lookout for the changes in the indicator of the scales in order that he may properly estimate the degrees of power and right which, with the customary transitoriness of human things, retain their equilibrium for only a short time and in most cases continue to rise and fall."

>>19963755
>Nietzsche was a radical individualist.
"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, <...> 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.... "

"And often have they been good servants and worthy of their hire. For thus saith virtue: “If thou must be a servant, seek him unto whom thy service is most useful!
The spirit and virtue of thy master shall advance by thou being his servant: thus wilt thou thyself advance with his spirit and virtue!”
And verily, ye famous wise ones, ye servants of the people! Ye yourselves have advanced with the people’s spirit and virtue—and the people by you! To your honour do I say it!"

"This counsel, however, do I counsel to kings and churches, and to all that is weak with age or virtue—let yourselves be o’erthrown! That ye may again come to life, and that virtue—may come to you!—”"

>>19963465
>Ted Kaczynski
No. I genuinely don't understand why he often gets lumped in like this. Is it really because of something as vapid as his choice comments on leftists?
Kaczynski explicitly rejects both left and right.
>"The movement should be a completely new beginning, beyond all positions of the left and of the right."
He is not political at all, moreover. His only goal is the destruction of of industrial society. This does not pertain to the political, which is the governance of society, but to infrastructure.
The reason Kaczynski give such attention to leftists in his manifesto is to right of the bat exclude the possibility of any movement that arises in emulation of his ideas becoming diluted and destroyed by leftist. No doubt Kaczynski's observation of the movement Earth First!, which turned enthusiasm to disillusionment, contributed heavily to his concerns. In his own words: "the left serves as a mechanism for emasculating nascent
revolutionary movements and rendering them harmless". This is because of two reasons:
First, leftist issues (the alleged
oppression of women, homosexuals, racial or ethnic minorities, and animals) are a distraction from the technological problem and they redirect revolutionary energy from the technological problem. If a movement that has revolutionary potential is coopted by intersectional leftist causes, it will loose that revolutionary potential. These causes are themselves and expression of technological society, and serve to further the efficiency of the System. Racism, discrimination, machismo, are primitive vestiges that hamper growth.
Furthermore, there is the problem of the leftist individual and his psychology. His only goal is to satisfy his power-process through vehement advocacy of "causes." Any cause will do as long as it is not specifically right-wing. Thus, when any movement (other than a right-wing movement) arises that aspires to be revolutionary, leftists come swarming to it like flies to honey until they outnumber the original members ofthe movement, take it over, and transform it into a leftist movement.
Because of this, the revolutionary movement must take pains at every turn to exclude leftists from itself. This might lead you to believe that the movement should be right-wing, but this is wrong.
>"But it would be counterproductive for revolutionists to try to obstruct leftists' efforts to solve the problems of women, minorities,
and so forth, because such obstruction would intensify the controversy over these issues and therefore would distract even more attention from the technology problem."
Instead, revolutionists should specifically
disavow any interest in such issues and must repeatedly point out and emphasize that the energy expended on the leftists' victimization issues is wasted--that that energy should be expended on the technological problem--while not falling into the trap of being actively antagonistic towards these issues.

>>19964085
Did you understand my post?

>>19963465
>Ted Kaczynski
he was on the left

>>19964260
Changes in power change your status quo. Therefore, castes are relative.

Race-mix to produce Caesar and da Vinci:
"The man from an age of dissolution, which mixes the races all together, such a man has an inheritance of a multiple ancestry in his body, that is, conflicting and frequently not merely conflicting drives and standards of value which war among themselves and rarely give each other rest—such a man of late culture and disturbed lights will typically be a weaker man. <...> . But if the opposition and war in such a nature work like one more charm or thrill in life—and bring along, in addition to this nature’s powerful and irreconcilable drives, also the real mastery and refinement in waging war with itself, and thus transmit and cultivate self-ruling and outwitting of the self, then arise those delightfully amazing and unimaginable people, those enigmatic men predestined for victory and temptation, whose most beautiful expressions are Alcibiades and Caesar (—in their company I’d like to place the first European, according to my taste, the Hohenstaufer Frederick II), and, among artists, perhaps Leonardo da Vinci. They appear precisely in the same ages when that weaker type, with its demands for quiet, steps into the foreground: both types belong with one another and arise from the same causes.".

>>19964312
Changes to the status quo do not imply relativity.

>>19963465
https://newmanleary.wordpress.com/

>>19963580
>Jewish "far-right"
>still pro-immigrant and pro-democratic
I give her a 4/10 on the rad radical scale, see me after class

>>19963465
>Friedrich Nietzsche
>Emil Cioran
>Fyodor Dostoevsky
Absolutely embarrassing, kill yourself right now.

>>19963465

> Friedrich Nietzsche
> Martin Heidegger

Both read and understood better by leftists than any right-wing philsopher could dream about (except perhaps Dugin or Sloterdijk).

> Knut Hamsun
Was literally an anarchist that was heavily anti-american. The only reason he supported the Nazis was because they were anti-anglo.

> Fyodor Dostoevsky
Dostoevsky would've probably killed himself had he seen right-wing art and philosophy in our age.

> Ted Kaczynski
> Emil Cioran
> Salvador Dali

kek

>>19963465
Nietzsche is not far-right, you retard.

>>19964437
>Both read and understood better by leftists than any right-wing philsopher could dream about (except perhaps Dugin or Sloterdijk).

But was Nietzsche himself right wing

>>19963470
>Your High School Chemistry Teacher
I don't know if he was far-right but I do remember him telling us a story of how he put a bomb in a rival frat house in college then it got blamed on a Puerto Rican terrorist group

>>19964463
>But was Nietzsche himself right wing

>>19964437
>Both read and understood better by leftists
lol no...leftist reading of both tends to be very selective

>>19964470
silly /pol/ack posting your wojaks, you should read the quote again and maybe you would realize that my criticism was levied against sperging out over the "left" vs "right" that the poster I was responding to felt the need to engage in.

>>19964489
Yeah, because you are so "above everyone else" while posting anime pics. Grow up and leave your mother's basement.

>>19964499
lmao your mad? yeah, your kinda mad. Understanding nuance is difficult I know, you'll get it one day though.

>>19964480
A good Nietzsche reading should be selective. I think Nietzsche would've hated the idea of anyone trying to make a holistic and systematized reading of his thought. Would've gone directly against his whole philosophy.

>>19964463
Who gives a shit honestly

>No Guenon/Evola mentioned
Utter Faggots, the lot of you

>>19964505
I was certain you wouldn't have a mental capacity for that kind of nuance. I just assume everyone who posts animu is an imebcile that doesn't have anything interesting to say. Think about it next time you want to be taken seriously by other people.

>>19963549
>>19963722
>>19964449

Well at least this board is evolving. I saw you quote anon, good job on actually referencing the primary texts themselves to make your point, which is loads better then what anyone else in this thread is doing. Though I might suggest a few things. You should probably explcitly cite that it's from section 57 of The Antichrist, so that the people here can look it up on their own. Also, if you know that there is a character limit of 3000, then google 'word counter'. This way, you can split up the entirety of section 57 into 3 posts instead of 5. It's also relevant because /lit/ has an attention spam of exactly ZERO. So unless one of your posts begins explcitly with 'the order of castes...' they're not very likely to catch what Nietzsche was trying to say. They probably just lightly glanced at it, because people here don't read. Lemme demonstrate

Section 57 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. To that end the thing must be made unconscious: that is the aim of every holy lie.—

[1/3]

>>19964640
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:[30] 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]

>>19964641
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]

If you see quote anon, the way I formatted it makes it a bit simpler and easier to read. By numbering them at the bottom, it's also more clear where one quote starts and where another begins. Especially if other anons are posting inbetween your posts. Or alternatively, you can just copy paste what I just posted, to save it for the next time you want to post it.

>>19964664
Any quote you want, you can usually see that if it's less then 3000 characters, one post. Less then 6000, two posts. 9000, three posts, so on so forth. Just try to split it up so it finishes a coherent thought, or just at the end of the sentence. Most people know to continue reading to the next one.

Section 58 of The Antichrist:

In point of fact, the end for which one lies makes a great difference: whether one preserves thereby or destroys. There is a perfect likeness between Christian and anarchist: their object, their instinct, points only toward destruction. One need only turn to history for a proof of this: there it appears with appalling distinctness. We have just studied a code of religious legislation whose object it was to convert the conditions which cause life to flourish into an “eternal” social organization,—Christianity found its mission in putting an end to such an organization, because life flourished under it. There the benefits that reason had produced during long ages of experiment and insecurity were applied to the most remote uses, and an effort was made to bring in a harvest that should be as large, as rich and as complete as possible; here, on the contrary, the harvest is blighted overnight.... That which stood there aere perennis, the imperium Romanum, the most magnificent form of organization under difficult conditions that has ever been achieved, and compared to which everything before it and after it appears as patchwork, bungling, dilletantism—those holy anarchists made it a matter of “piety” to destroy “the world,” which is to say, the imperium Romanum, so that in the end not a stone stood upon another—and even Germans and other such louts were able to become its masters.... The Christian and the anarchist: both are décadents; both are incapable of any act that is not disintegrating, poisonous, degenerating, blood-sucking; both have an instinct of mortal hatred of everything that stands up, and is great, and has durability, and promises life a future.... Christianity was the vampire of the imperium Romanum,—overnight it destroyed the vast achievement of the Romans: the conquest of the soil for a great culture that could await its time. Can it be that this fact is not yet understood? The imperium Romanum that we know, and that the history of the Roman provinces teaches us to know better and better,—this most admirable of all works of art in the grand manner was merely the beginning, and the structure to follow was not to prove its worth for thousands of years. To this day, noth ing on a like scale sub specie aeterni has been brought into being, or even dreamed of!—This organization was strong enough to withstand bad emperors: the accident of personality has nothing to do with such things—the first principle of all genuinely great architecture. But it was not strong enough to stand up against the corruptest of all forms of corruption—against Christians....

[1/2]

>>19964675
These stealthy worms, which under the cover of night, mist and duplicity, crept upon every individual, sucking him dry of all earnest interest in real things, of all instinct for reality—this cowardly, effeminate and sugar-coated gang gradually alienated all “souls,” step by step, from that colossal edifice, turning against it all the meritorious, manly and noble natures that had found in the cause of Rome their own cause, their own serious purpose, their own pride. The sneakishness of hypocrisy, the secrecy of the conventicle, concepts as black as hell, such as the sacrifice of the innocent, the unio mystica in the drinking of blood, above all, the slowly rekindled fire of revenge, of Chandala revenge—all that sort of thing became master of Rome: the same kind of religion which, in a pre-existent form, Epicurus had combatted. One has but to read Lucretius to know what Epicurus made war upon—not paganism, but “Christianity,” which is to say, the corruption of souls by means of the concepts of guilt, punishment and immortality.—He combatted the subterranean cults, the whole of latent Christianity—to deny immortality was already a form of genuine salvation.—Epicurus had triumphed, and every respectable intellect in Rome was Epicurean—when Paul appeared ... Paul, the Chandala hatred of Rome, of “the world,” in the flesh and inspired by genius—the Jew, the eternal Jew par excellence.... What he saw was how, with the aid of the small sectarian Christian movement that stood apart from Judaism, a “world conflagration” might be kindled; how, with the symbol of “God on the cross,” all secret seditions, all the fruits of anarchistic intrigues in the empire, might be amalgamated into one immense power. “Salvation is of the Jews.”—Christianity is the formula for exceeding and summing up the subterranean cults of all varieties, that of Osiris, that of the Great Mother, that of Mithras, for instance: in his discernment of this fact the genius of Paul showed itself. His instinct was here so sure that, with reckless violence to the truth, he put the ideas which lent fascination to every sort of Chandala religion into the mouth of the “Saviour” as his own inventions, and not only into the mouth—he made out of him something that even a priest of Mithras could understand.... This was his revelation at Damascus: he grasped the fact that he needed the belief in immortality in order to rob “the world” of its value, that the concept of “hell” would master Rome—that the notion of a “beyond” is the death of life.... Nihilist and Christian: they rhyme in German, and they do more than rhyme....

[2/2]

Section 62 of The Antichrist:

—With this I come to a conclusion and pronounce my judgment. I condemn Christianity; I bring against the Christian church the most terrible of all the accusations that an accuser has ever had in his mouth. It is, to me, the greatest of all imaginable corruptions; it seeks to work the ultimate corruption, the worst possible corruption. The Christian church has left nothing untouched by its depravity; it has turned every value into worthlessness, and every truth into a lie, and every integrity into baseness of soul. Let any one dare to speak to me of its “humanitarian” blessings! Its deepest necessities range it against any effort to abolish distress; it lives by distress; it creates distress to make itself immortal.... For example, the worm of sin: it was the church that first enriched mankind with this misery!—The “equality of souls before God”—this fraud, this pretext for the rancunes of all the base-minded—this explosive concept, ending in revolution, the modern idea, and the notion of overthrowing the whole social order —this is Christian dynamite.... The “humanitarian” blessings of Christianity forsooth! To breed out of humanitas a self-contradiction, an art of self-pollution, a will to lie at any price, an aversion and contempt for all good and honest instincts! All this, to me, is the “humanitarianism” of Christianity!—Parasitism as the only practice of the church; with its anæmic and “holy” ideals, sucking all the blood, all the love, all the hope out of life; the beyond as the will to deny all reality; the cross as the distinguishing mark of the most subterranean conspiracy ever heard of,—against health, beauty, well-being, intellect, kindness of soul—against life itself....

This eternal accusation against Christianity I shall write upon all walls, wherever walls are to be found—I have letters that even the blind will be able to see.... I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough,—I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race....

And mankind reckons time from the dies nefastus when this fatality befell—from the first day of Christianity!—Why not rather from its last?—From today?—The transvaluation of all values!...

>>19964636
>>19964640
>>19964641
>>19964645
>>19964675
>>19964681
>>19964686
Is it okay to report it for spam?

>>19964437
>leftists understanding heidegger

>>19964692
I know it's difficult to read anon, but you should try it. Here, I have a short one, just for you. I hope you can get through it:

Section 2 of The Antichrist:

"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...."

>>19964702
Why instead of telling people where to read fragment you are referring, you post everything here? You think posting more text adds you more validity?

>>19964664
Are you from Ecuador by any chance?

>>19964702
Bro no one is reading your crap. That's not how you argue you low IQ faggot

Kenneth Roberts.

In his book "Why Europe Leaves Home" he argues that immigration to the U.S. from anywhere but Northwestern Europe will result in a dysgenic mongrelization of America. He also has extensive comments on jews, and refers to them as "human parasites" multiple times. In his book "Black Magic" he calls Fascism a "rational approach to government".

He's mainly known for his well researched historical fiction novels of 18th century America, and they are excellent books full of interesting points of view, adventure, and love of one's country, if not its government.

I've begun recording his "Arundel" as an audiobook. Part of my effort to preserve and make accessible media relevant to dissidents of the the current year. It concerns Colonel Benedict Arnold's (a trusted officer under George Washington's command) march on Quebec in 1775. I recommend any of Roberts' book to people wanting an entertaining and educational entry into early American history and some of its lesser known heroes and victims.

>Prologue
https://voca.ro/17pA6TWcAav8

>Chapter 1
https://voca.ro/1dZBRpc0C09G

>Chapter 2
https://voca.ro/1hS8ZwDTd4kz

>>19964437
Kaczynski was a literally ecofascist, Cioran constantly voiced his support for nazism a fascism. David was an unapologetic Francoist.

Try doing something some research next time before you spout your snarky opinions.

>>19964766
>Cioran constantly voiced his support for nazism a fascism.
Only in his youth. After the war he was completely disillusioned

>>19964766
>Kaczynski was a literally ecofascist
No he wasn't. Linkola, maybe, but definetly not Kaczynski.

>>19964773
Everyone's dillusioned when they lose

>>19963558
De Sade was proto-fascist. Nietzsche was proto-anarchist among the commune. But you don’t get what I mean. This >>19963722 should clarify it enough

Curzio Malaparte

You're a pseud if you haven't read Kaputt

>>19964936
De Sade was a satirist

>>19964773
Kek of course he was after getting BTFO you fucking retard

>>19964307
>he was on the left
Are you daft? He was explicitly anti-leftist. He had criticisms of the right, but he was ultimately anti-left.

>>19964207
You are wrong. Send him a letter.

Bukharin
Thatcher M.
Deng, Xiao and Ping (Uyghur NatCom)
Trakl
Heym
Benn
George
Gernhardt
Bernhard
Spence
Rilke (look it up)
Walker
D.E. Steyn (Israeli Fascist Socialism)
M. Oxlong
Joachim Schnitzelnatzi von und zu Pitzburg am Palü

>>19966020
anarchism is always left, even when you're le based and redpilled.
not like every leftist is anti leftist against every other left he isn't a part of ....

>>19964936
literal midwit take

>>19963465
>Far-right intellectuals

>>19966128
He wasn't an anarchist. You sound like you only know him through ebin anprim memes.

>>19966155
Or, you know, that direct quote that the Übermensch is a cross between an aristocrat and an anarchist, and so Nietzsche is an advocate of a sort of rightwing anarchist after the commune has formed and allowed such a person to roam free.
Right and left mean nothing till you open the hood and loot at the workings of it.
You rightwingers know Trudeau and Obama are on your side, right?

>>19966453
Kek, reading comprehension 0. He's talking about Ted Kaczynski

>>19966505
Oh. Meh. Didn’t follow far enough. Not a comprehension problem.
Ted is anprim of a sort. I’d classify as mostly rightwing. He’s supposed to be against socialism? Probably a wish for people to kill each other till there’s less people is all.

>>19964745
Lmao I know that you don't argue using sources, you don't have to tell me. If you read what I posted then you would know that in no conceivable way is Nietzsche a leftist. He was fundamentally opposed to the driving force of the modern left, which is, the value of equality. Which if you had read what I sent, you would know that Nietzsche hated it, it was among his biggest critiques of Christianity He was, fundamentally, an aristocratic radicalist. Most of his criticisms that could be levied against Christianity, could be applied at an even greater extent to the modern left. The modern left has somehow managed to take the slave morality of Christianity, adopt it, and develop it even further. This is similar to the same way in which Nietzsche accused Christianity of doing to Judaism and Paganism. Most burger atheists have no idea how much influence the Christian religion has had on their minds, beliefs, values and culture. Modern morality just takes the equality aspect of Christianity, and then accuses the old Christians of not being 'progressive' enough (Christian enough) under this new definition. Or they will say that they are 'bigots'. The left wing has somehow managed to create an atheistic slave morality. We have seen God die, but people have instead come closer and closer to the last man. Now it is not, "you cannot do x because God said so", instead it is "you cannot do x because you cannot do x".

>>19966579
>He was fundamentally opposed to the driving force of the modern left, which is, the value of equality.
I already know that but that doesn't mean I'm going to read your shitty rant or the crap you've been dumping

>>19964728
No one here reads unless it is literally put in front of them like liquefied food for the elderly.
>>19964636
I don't care enough to do any of that. I wasn't sure anyone would care enough to even read my post let alone actually want to know where exactly it came from. It's not worth the effort.

>>19963465
How do we feel about pic related and Greene's other books?

>>19964936
oh yeah is that why nietzsche was disgusted and horrified by the paris commune?

>>19966149
Are you saying Heidegger was not far right?

>>19967748
And why he tried to wrap his head around an aristocratic kind of anarchist? Yeah.
Funnily enough he was also against the idea of evolution, but that’s just what the Übermensch is. An evolutionary step. Certainly above states and capitalism, and that’s exciting to a wide variety of anarchists

>>19963465
I can't believe no one has listed some of the most important of the last 100 years
Carl Schmitt
Oswald Spengler
Giovanni Gentile
Nick Land
Arguably, also Hannah Arendt

>>19963558
He thought fascists we're bugmen

>>19964381
You can't be American and far-right by that logic. The US is a nation of immigrants. Some as recent as a few decades ago. This kind of far-right only makes sense for people native to the land, like Europeans in Europe or Asians in Asia.

>>19964463
Yes. He viewed resentment, equality and weakness as something lower, all of which are things that a Marxist would agree with. He favored strength, survival of the fittest, etc as something more noble. The whole master morality vs slave morality is against left-wing thought.