/lit/ - Literature

>>22448225
The problem with your question is that there's no one far right ideology. Ironically, current day far right thought is probably far more diverse than anything you can find on the left or in liberalism. Today, "far right" is just an umbrella term for people who disagree with communism and liberalism. Just listing all the currents would probably take too long and I am likely to make omissions. Listing all the relevant texts would be just too much of a chore. You are a 21st century man though, so I am sure you can research these on your own.
>20c style Third Position (fascism, NatSoc, NazBol etc)
>WN/Identitarian, French New Right, ethnopluralist stuff, maybe even Duginism etc
>nRX
>Traditionalists, legitimists etc
>TradCaths, Orthotrads, theocracy supporters
>HBD science guys
>Nietzsche-inspired people (Spencer is probably the most famous one)
>Plain old nationalists with various ethnic sympathies
There's also the more dilettantish, infotainment type people like BAP "vitalists", haplogroup enthusiasts, Indo-European prehistory specialists etc. Some also aren't any explicit "ists". I would consider Keith Woods one of the most influential people in the sphere, even though he's not any "ist", except perhaps nationalist. Despite that, he's one of the few with a serious philosophical foundation in that milieu.

>>22448225

>>22448225
Nietzsche, Evola, Guénon, Mishima, Cioran, Nick Land, Bataille, Spengler, Jünger, etc

>>22448617
Keith woods is a confirmed ethnonationalist/3p

>>22448653
Yeah but he's a good bit different from the 3P guys I am thinking of. Picture Cultured Thug or those guys who've read like every NS book, ever.

>>22448617
You can list a shit ton of variants of socialism, communism, liberalism, feminism, etc Doesn't mean leftism is too diverse to be coherent

>>22448225
Meme tier question = meme tier answer. You should unironically include bronze age pervert and Ann Coulter.

>>22448225
Look! I found a picture of you online OP. Only reason to be right winged is if you’re part of the bourgeoisie otherwise you’re just getting cucked.

Only one I have on my phone, I'll post more from my desktop

>>22448816
didn't make any of these charts, can't endorse everything about them

>>22448824

>>22448827
As >>22448617 said, 'far right' is a pretty wide tent, encompassing a range of ideas or tendencies

>>22448834

>>22448836
some southern/confederate apologist literature

>>22448837
some charts dedicated to specific influential right-wing thinkers

>>22448838

>>22448839

>>22448842

>>22448844
A chart somewhat in line with >>22448838; look into the Traditionalist school if you're interested

>>22448849
forgot the damn chart

>>22448854
All I have, hope this helps
There's a youtube channel, Skeptical Waves, who uploads tts narrations of a number of rw/political texts. If you don't like the robot voice, he usually includes a link to the book/article in the descriptions.

>>22448763
If you examine the philosophical foundations of leftist and liberal ideologies you will very quickly discover that they share the same values - material progress, comfort, liberty for the individual. Any leftists you see who follow different values are exceptional cases. One good example is Georges Sorel and his personal and ideological relationship with fascism.
Right wing ideologies on the other hand are radically different from one another. Philosophically, a BAP vitalist has absolutely nothing in common with an nRX HBD autist or a monarchist Legitimist. Their values, social vision, and conception of the individual are entirely different.

>>22448225
It's probably better to read a range, rather than confining yourself just to the far right.
Moderate right liberalism:
>Burke - Reflections on the revolution
>Fukuyama - End of History and the Last Man
>Hobbes - Leviathan
Reactionary right-wing
>De Maistre
>Richard Weaver - Ideas Have Consequences.
20th century far right / fashy
>Schmidt - Crises of Parliamentary Democracy
Then there's also the geopolitical stuff. Realists could be considered right wing in so far as they are skeptical towards liberal idealism in the realm of foreign affairs, to view everything in terms of clashing interests & power balancing, but they're not necessarily illiberal.
To name a few authors ranging from the classical to modern day:
>Thucydides
>Machiavelli
>Mearsheimer
There's a conceptual issue in defining which thinkers are right wing.
To give one example, take a thinker like Bataille. Is his attempt to create a headless religion, an overturning of all reason, left or right wing?
He clearly self-identifies as a Marxist, and ties his fascination with the archetype of the headless God with the subversion of all authority.
Yet this interest in re-creating mythology marks him somewhat similar to fascists, and according to him those of his group had a paradoxical attraction to fascism.

>>22448617
It's kind of an interesting paradox that despite the right wing being more varied it seems to experience far less infighting than the left with its ritual virtual struggle sessions (not at all to say it doesn't experience any infighting).

>>22448885
The Left eats itself

>>22448865
>they share the same values - material progress, comfort, liberty for the individual
Those values you listed can conflict with each other. Liberty for the individual can conflict with material progress.
I don't think they all share the same values. For instance critical race theory implies the negation of fundamental liberal values--the re-prioritization of the racial group above the individual, a rejection of both the rule of law, and of liberal egalitarianism as a smoke screen for the "dominant racial class".
Liberalism seeks to neutralize differences (whether class or racial) and conflicts through rational deliberation in a democratic body & a welfare system. Whereas radical leftist strains of thought tend to view conflict as inevitable or even good.

>>22448225
Here's a list of Moldbug's posts along with everything he references.

https://archive.. ph/ FXNA0

>>22448225
start with Nietzsche
then you can go in any direction within the 'far right ideology'

>>22448885
Honestly this is probably down to the demographic unity of the far right. The left is more of a loose collection of minorities. Ultimately, I feel like most people on the right would be willing to make compromises if it would result in a right-wing dominated society. Less so for leftists who each have extreme partisanship when it comes to their interests and ideologies.
>>22448900
The only disagreement is on method, not on values. Priorities also fit into this. What was the difference between orthodox MLs and Trotskyists in the 30s? It was mostly a disagreement about which politician should be in charge, but if we had to identify an ideological core, it is simply that MLs thought the revolution should be expanded gradually and Trotskyists thought it should be expanded rapidly. That's your major disagreement between communism and its main heterodoxy. It's a simple, basic disagreement on tactics.
CRT is an interesting case because it is a clear proxy for racial resentment and ultranationalism, but ideologically and in terms of its politicised intellectuals, it absolutely is a leftist current that shares the same liberal and leftist values. CRT intersectional stuff doesn't reject liberal values - it simply claims that they are not implemented properly, and that they should be asserted more radically. CRT makes use of race but is ultimately individualist - it wants to free all individuals from race oppression by wiping it out completely. You may say that it's a dishonest ideology and I would agree with you, but it's foundational values are those of liberty, equality and fraternity. CRT people don't care about race in the same way that racialists do - they do not want to elevate the race, organise everything around race, give it order and stability. In fact, they claim that they want to fight racism. You may accuse them of cynicism, but this doesn't change the nature of the ideology.

>>22448965
>CRT intersectional stuff doesn't reject liberal values - it simply claims that they are not implemented properly, and that they should be asserted more radically. CRT makes use of race but is ultimately individualist - it wants to free all individuals from race oppression by wiping it out completely.
Contemporary CRT, the media and liberal filtered variety is what you describe.
Original CRT theorists like Derrick Bell explicitly rejected racial integration, believing that MLK and the Civil Right's Movement had failed.
Intersectionality as a concept, originally articulated by a group of black feminist socialists in the Combahee River Statement, can be co-opted by liberals, but seems to prioritize group affiliation over and above the individual.
>CRT people don't care about race in the same way that racialists do - they do not want to elevate the race, organise everything around race, give it order and stability. In fact, they claim that they want to fight racism.
A fair point, they do claim to be anti-racist, yet the central component of CRT was that every society is organized around a dominant racial class against an oppressed racial class.
It would follow that the liberal notion of equality under the law is a fiction, and that their end goal was either some form of racial separatism or racial dominion.
I suppose, now that I write this out, there does arise the paradox that what I describe in any other context would be considered right-wing, so maybe CRT is not a good example.

>>22448965
>CRT intersectional stuff doesn't reject liberal values - it simply claims that they are not implemented properly, and that they should be asserted more radically. CRT makes use of race but is ultimately individualist - it wants to free all individuals from race oppression by wiping it out completely. You may say that it's a dishonest ideology and I would agree with you, but it's foundational values are those of liberty, equality and fraternity. CRT people don't care about race in the same way that racialists do - they do not want to elevate the race, organise everything around race, give it order and stability. In fact, they claim that they want to fight racism. You may accuse them of cynicism, but this doesn't change the nature of the ideology
"CRT" has become a meaningless r*ghtoid buzzword ever since Rufo started using it, but the philosophy referred to is basically a spin on Democratic Socialism. What they ultimately want is to use the government to provide for people's needs through extensive nationalisation/redistribution etc. until homelessness/poverty/junemployment etc. is eliminated. There is nothing "liberal" about any of this, liberalism is the doctrine of non-interference in civil society. It's not even left-liberal - a compromise between liberalism and economic collectivism - just straight up Socialism.

>>22448905
>Moldberg

>>22448824
>>22448827
Saved and going to start buying/renting these books today. Thanks for the direction anon.

>>22448865
>Philosophically, a BAP vitalist has absolutely nothing in common with an nRX HBD autist or a monarchist Legitimist. Their values, social vision, and conception of the individual are entirely different.
They are all functionally MAGA Republicans, pro stop the steal, anti vaxx, pro Putin etc. Their ideologies don't matter, in the end they just hate liberals and the establishment and support the most anti-American and anti-West position they can find.

>>22448225
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power" - from The Doctrine of Fascism

Whenever Republicans get butthurt over being called fascists I tell them to read Mussolini and then try to tell me how their worldview conflicts in any way with Benito's

protip: they never can.

>>22449534
That’s a fake quote, and Corporatism refers to ye olde definition of corporations (guilds, basically), not an incorporated private enterprise owned by shareholders

>>22449634
>le "fake news" argument
>le "old definition" argument
found the Republican apologist. Don' t you have some trannies to demonize or something?

Mussolini also identified fascism as the logical conclusion of supercapitalism: "a capitalist enterprise, when difficulties arise, throws itself like a dead weight into the state's arms. It is then that state intervention begins and becomes more necessary. It is then that those who once ignored the state now seek it out anxiously".

>>22448225
Pick anything on the bottom of this shelf and read it. If you want recommendations:
>White Power (GLR)
This is a solid bit to understand the creation of a new american far-right in the 1950's. Rockwell points at a lot of the problems and how they're to be fixed. For a reference point, Rockwell is a centerpoint for a lot of important people after his assassination. Dr. William L. Pierce, Kurt Saxon, James Mason, David Duke, and even the guy who created the group that eventually was taken over by Harold Covington... And you may find it odd, but he was also somewhat of an ally of Malcom X because they both agreed on their plight and the cause of the plight. But outside of the US, he was in contact with big players all throughout the world, like Savitri Devi and Colin something (He helped make UK fascism cool again after Oswald Mosley was gone.), plus all of the far-right (mostly third positionist) groups from Japan to Russia and Brazil and so on.
>Oswald Mosley's Fascism 101 Questions
This book just covers the guy I just mentioned's ideas for the British Union of Fascists. This is really just a pamphlet, but it's fairly helpful.
>Feder's books
A somewhat controversial collection of three pamlphets that explain the economic policies and a few features of german national socialism.
>Myth of the 20th Century (Rosenberg)
A Jewish-German national socialist that pretty much helped lay the foundations with Hitler and friends. There's a lot on racial science here that is interesting, a lot of conjecture, but it's mostly built on then-discovered science on race.
>>22448653
Man, people kept accusing me of being Keith Woods when I post my shelf. I finally sat down and watched some of his content, and I guess I can see why, but I'm not really sure if he and I see eye to eye on everything.

>>22449534
>leftist not understanding that time passes and definitions change
Lefties aren't worth discussing anything with. If Republicans were fascists why would they share rulership with the democratic party? Your worldview is so inconsistent

>>22449664
Taking a quote as an own, only to have no understanding of what it means. Lol, lmao.
>republican apologist
None of us are apologists for those losers

>>22448875
Ctrl+F'd "maistre" and glad at least one person here mentioned him. And this entire post is good. OP is probably a memelord but hopefully some honestly curious people will stumble upon this post. I'd skip Fukuyama though, and put some Carlyle in there.

Schopenhauer wrote an essay on his support for absolute monarchy that's not original per se, but a good summary of all the arguments someone who is pro-absolute monarchy in the 19th century would make.

>>22449664
Why do you need to be retarded in a place where people are more likely to know definitions and weight of certain words? Everyone knows that corporatism referred to guilds and democracy in a corporate structure before the LSD infused ranting of boomers decided to change the meaning because "uhh dude, like, 'corporate' is in the name." (haha your worldview just naturally accepts whatever the retarded, snowflake boomers told you.)
>In Italian, "supra" has only one meaning
Lol, anon... You're absolutely batshit crazy and retarded. Presentivism is too commonly the only lens people use to look at anything, despite the fact that everyone genuinely does know better. This means you're probably just some intellectually lazy, milquetoast marxist.

>>22449534
>Whenever Republicans get butthurt over being called fascists I tell them to read Mussolini and then try to tell me how their worldview conflicts in any way with Benito's
small government, laissez-faire economic policy, individualism, democracy, freedom of speech

>>22449130
He’s actually the best condensation of old right wing thinkers we have today. And he manages to adapt them to a modern context. You don’t have to like his prescriptions, but his analysis (especially his old blog UR) is required right wing literature for the modern day

>2023
>he still believes in the left-right dichotomy

>>22450340
If you even skimmed this thread for more than a buzzword or two, you'd be aware of the discussion transcends the silly liberal left / liberal right piss fight that you are referring to. This can be made obvious when 3p is mentioned, especially multiple times. tl;dr: You have brain worms, brother. Pay closer attention.

>>22450340
monarchist and fascist are the only right wing positions, we aren't talking about liberalism(leftist) vs communism(leftist)

>>22449017
>Original CRT theorists like Derrick Bell explicitly rejected racial integration, believing that MLK and the Civil Right's Movement had failed.
I am not familiar with Bell's work, but your own phrasing here seems to suggest that the concern is, again, methodological and not ideological. Integration is not wrong, but has instead simply "failed".
>It would follow that the liberal notion of equality under the law is a fiction, and that their end goal was either some form of racial separatism or racial dominion.
You are right about that, but just from that it does not follow that the CRT ideology and liberal ideology do not share the same fundamental values. CRT and liberalism both assert liberty, equality, fraternity. CRT simply claims that liberalism is dishonest about this. CRT is a criticism of liberalism on the basis of liberal values - it condemns what liberalism claims to offer, but apparently does not.
>>22449085
Are you posting from the 19th century? Liberals haven't been non-interventionist for a very, very long time. All liberals believe in progress and the move towards a perfect, free, equal society. They believe in achieving this via different methods than the ones the socialists would like, but the vision is the same. Ask a liberal if homeless people exist in their progressive utopia, and the answer will be a resounding "no". It's just that the liberal believes in getting there with economic growth, rehabilitative justice and psychiatric treatment rather than with redistribution of wealth.
>>22449391
Some do. Others just have very different, but still extremely coherent definitions of what the West is. I am sure that pretending the latter group don't exist makes things a lot easier for you, though.
>>22449981
I honestly wouldn't bother recommending most of those besides Thucydides, Schmidt and de Maistre. These thinkers stick out to me as offering more breadth of vision in this day and age.
>>22450309
Calling Moldbug required reading might be pushing it slightly. I will grant you that he is sometimes insightful.

>>22448787
Your childlike conception of freedom is embarrassing.

>>22450614
>I honestly wouldn't bother recommending most of those besides Thucydides, Schmidt and de Maistre. These thinkers stick out to me as offering more breadth of vision in this day and age.
Burke is definitely required reading for anyone interested in rightwing thought. It's basically the starting point.

>>22450614
>CRT and liberalism both assert liberty, equality, fraternity. CRT simply claims that liberalism is dishonest about this. CRT is a criticism of liberalism on the basis of liberal values - it condemns what liberalism claims to offer, but apparently does not.
The difference between radical egalitarianism and liberal egalitarianism is more than methodological.
Marxism seeks a total equality through state intervention and the supremacy of a singular class over another.
Liberalism by contrast prefers pluralism, that clashing interests rationally dialogue with each other and seek common ground. Equality does not need to be total, inequality can exist.
Liberalism neutralizes political distinctions (or tells itself that it does), whereas leftist thought tends to aggravate those distinctions.
I agree that both share a commitment to equality, but they have radically differing visions of what that actually means.
CRT tends to see legal equality as only an illusion by which a dominant class rules, it's not interested in rights enfranchisement by the state.

>>22448763
those are all much closer together
we live in a world where you are either in a small bubble of acceptable leftism, or you are 'far right.' 99% of everything that's ever existed is outside the bubble.

>>22448787
Communists can never imagine that other people think differently than them. They are eternal children.

>>22450736
>Burke
He’s the starting point for conservatism, which shouldn’t be confused for right wing thought more fundamentally. Burke thought maybe the Frenchies took it a bit too far with their revolution but he still conceded on the basic liberal premises. Contrast that with Maistre who rejected basically all liberal politics wholesale and thought the existence of Parliament in England was an abomination.

Don't trust anyone who claims to be right-wing who isn't pro-monarchy

>>22451422
refuted by Evola in 'Metaphysics of Power'
he shows that the early form of American republicanism was aristocratic to a certain degree

>>22450614
>Are you posting from the 19th century? Liberals haven't been non-interventionist for a very, very long time. All liberals believe in progress and the move towards a perfect, free, equal society. They believe in achieving this via different methods than the ones the socialists would like, but the vision is the same. Ask a liberal if homeless people exist in their progressive utopia, and the answer will be a resounding "no". It's just that the liberal believes in getting there with economic growth, rehabilitative justice and psychiatric treatment rather than with redistribution of wealth.
This is the usual retarded semantics argument that free market economics and the centre left are the same thing because the word "liberalism" has been appropriated by both sides.
A "free equal society" has no exact meaning and can be interpreted to mean anything. The two systems are still markedly different.

>>22450614
>Some do. Others just have very different, but still extremely coherent definitions of what the West is. I am sure that pretending the latter group don't exist makes things a lot easier for you, though.
It doesn't matter what their definition of the West is, what they want is its destruction and the birth of a multipolar shitty world.

>>22450340
you'd have to be brain damaged to think monarchy is a viable form of government. Class consciousness is unironically still smarter than 99% of political theory

>>22448225
>I know of culture of critique and evola and that's it
Lol. Lmfao

>>22451574
>you'd have to be brain damaged to think monarchy is a viable form of government.
are you 100% historically illiterate?

>>22448906
I've never read Neitzsche. Recommend me the best book by him.

>>22451597
>I've never read Neitzsche
Lol. Lmfao

I think to understand the right you first need to understand history
Failure to do so leads to saying things like
>you'd have to be brain damaged to think monarchy is a viable form of government.
The number one problem in all modern political discourse is having a completely modern, incredibly narrow perspective confined entirely within the modern framework, which is totally fake and insane.
Read about old societies, their rise and fall, war, defeat, church, heroes, and villains. Get some perspective. Reading 21st century author X talk about 20th century issue Y for the millionth time doesn't do much.
tldr start with the greeks

>>22451574
> Class consciousness
You know this isn’t applicable to 99% of human history, right? Whereas monarchy is, has been, and will always be practiced because it is simply natural

>>22451632
It's not applicable to any part of history. Marxist class analysis is objectively useless.

>>22451597
you can start anywhere really - except Zarathustra and Will to Power

Beyond Good and Evil/Twilight of Idols is probably good start. Then move onto Genealogy of Morals/Gay Science

>>22451073
You are misunderstanding Marxism. Marx did not aim to create a prescriptive system - he wanted to describe reality as objectively as he could. Marxism doesn't differ from liberalism in asserting the primacy of a single class. It asserts that every system has a dominant class, and that the bourgeois dominates in liberal democracies. It also asserts that via historical development, the bourgeoisie will be superseded by the proletariat and complete liberation, including economic liberation, will be granted to everyone. The fundamental values of both liberalism and Marxism - liberty, equality, fraternity - remain the same. Although I am not entirely sure why you brought up Marxism here, since we were trying to look at CRT, which is slightly different.
>CRT tends to see legal equality as only an illusion by which a dominant class rules, it's not interested in rights enfranchisement by the state.
It is not? Then what is the goal of CRT? Here's the CRT perspective: all inequalities are due to systemic oppression. If we want to have equal freedoms for all, we need to erase these inequalities. And they do lobby the state for it. Affirmative action, DEI, HR departments, subsidies, reparations etc.
>>22451539
Where? I read the whole collection and remember no such thing. I do agree that Evola acknowledges more options than just monarchy, though.
>>22451565
It has meaning in the heads of the policymakers and the people who vote for them. If you're such a stickler for precision, then answer me this - where do you see these 19th century non-interventionist liberals, and are they in power? Your position is absurd.
>>22451572
OK NAFO.

>>22448225
Just drink a lot of beer and hit your trailer trash wife

>>22452074
lmao putler lost

>>22452198
Cool. Is that sufficient distraction from your empty life, bootlicker?

>>22448824
No one is going to read these and remain on /pol/. /pol/ is about emotion, feel feels, rage. Tucker is a god there. Gavin McInnes was always popular. Funtes has threads. These people have more in common with Rachel Maddow or Cornell West, as news cycle of the week outrage pornographers and tribalistic hetman than Kant, Hegel, or Aristotle.

Aristotle himself isn't for any one type of governance like Plato is, but rather observers that a well ordered democracy > a bad king and a good king > a bad aristocracy, etc., noting strengths and weaknesses of each, their good forms and their decayed forms.

Aristotle would say modern partisans fail by trying to think of the success of failure of political systems only in terms of final cause and desire. "If things are bad it is because bad people want them that way. If we just get rid of all bad people and put all power in the hands of righteous people a reign of righteousness will follow!" I'd agree that this is childish thinking and that formal causes, incentives, etc. play a key role.

Hegel defined the modern left and right, he is the ground from which the spring, and this can't be either.

>>22448827
Second, Eco being a reactionary is comically off and the quality of this second list is massively off from that of the first. It's hard to see how someone who has read and understood the "basics," wouldn't see much of the final tier we trash.

>>22452074
>Where? I read the whole collection and remember no such thing.
idk it's been a while, you'll have to sift through it yourself. but he definitely says something along the lines that limiting voting to men with land ownership = approved by evola.

I distinctly remember it because I too was surprised by such a statement

>>22452241
I am not going to read through the whole collection just for that, but going with my gut instinct, I must reject that idea. I feel like he would be more approving of the men in question are hereditary aristocrats. Otherwise, no.

>>22452074
>NAFO
>When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, they will naturally want to side with the strong horse.

This is why Russia's war has been disastrous for thirdies on /pol/. Le ebin third way alternative turned out to be a vodka fueled dementia phantasm that is getting bent over and forced fucked by a bunch of 40 year old Cold War surplus. All the glory Dugin tries to spin seems hollow when he can't keep his daughter's brains in her skull and all his great empire can manage is sending mobiks and prisoners into yet another meat wave assault backed by 60 year old tanks lol.

Your entire ideology is pathetic, weak.

>>22452253
>I must reject that idea.
continue to be a pseud then
not my problem

>>22448875
>Moderate right liberalism
>Fukuyama
I didn't read his books but if I saw an interview, he doesn't seem "moderate" to me at all, he's a typical liberal; progressive, pro-democracy and pro-globohomo.

>>22452273
Fukuyama was literally a key thinker for the Neocon movement, a student of Huntington. He's only "liberal," in the strange world where not sucking off Trump = liberal. Of course, in this world Mattis, Barr, Espers, McConnell, McCain, Romney, both Bushes, and Reagan if he were alive, are all "liberal RINOs,"

>>22448225
My perception of the right wing ideology is "natural hierarchies are good"

>>22452289
>Neocon movement
so it's trotskyite?

>>22452289
Anyone who stands for capitalism, progressivism, and democracy is, in my opinion, a liberal. Trump is too. You are an NPC caught up in fake politics.

>>22452263
>makes a weird claim about an essay collection
>refuses to cite the relevant passage and essay
>proceeds to call me a pseud
Marvellous. Carry on.
>>22452258
Russia is not 3P and has no ideology. Both sides are liberal democratic clown states waging a self-proclaimed "anti-fascist liberation war" against the other. You are vicariously living out your bizarre political fantasies through a spectacle of smoke and mirrors. What is worse, this is the norm for NAFO people like you, wholly lacking in sobriety or civility of any kind.

>>22449799
Damn I used that green foclóir in school

>right-wing philosophy thread
>it's full of impotent retard circlejerking about how diverse their beliefs are

>>22452398
>frogposter
>desperately smugposting for no reason despite being an impotent retard

>>22452074
>It has meaning in the heads of the policymakers and the people who vote for them. If you're such a stickler for precision, then answer me this - where do you see these 19th century non-interventionist liberals, and are they in power? Your position is absurd.
They call them neoliberals (sometimes neoconservatives) now. Lower taxes. privatisations, liberalisation of collective bargaining. Liberals are still non-interventionists as they have always been. But because left-liberals are called liberals in Anglo countries you think it's all the same thing.

>>22452788
I am familiar with neoliberalism, but neoliberalism is still a 21st century ready ideology, not a 19th century one. Thatcher smashed the old British model but still didn't mess with the NHS. The neoliberalism of people like Reagan and the Bushes still didn't stop government intervention in the economy and investment into stuff like DARPA, Google, etc. Affirmative action, hate speech laws, quotas on company boards - none of these things are classically liberal.

>>22452885
>I am familiar with neoliberalism, but neoliberalism is still a 21st century ready ideology, not a 19th century one. Thatcher smashed the old British model but still didn't mess with the NHS. The neoliberalism of people like Reagan and the Bushes still didn't stop government intervention in the economy and investment into stuff like DARPA, Google, etc.
It's a matter of degree of course, you don't need to be Herbert Spencer to count as a liberal economically.
>Affirmative action, hate speech laws, quotas on company boards - none of these things are classically liberal.
These are all leftist policies unless the company quotas are instituted by the companies themselves.

>>22452918
>It's a matter of degree of course, you don't need to be Herbert Spencer to count as a liberal economically.
You contradict yourself. Earlier you defined "left liberalism" as the "compromise between liberalism and economic collectivism" but now you seem to be implying that even people like Thatcher and Reagan are "left liberals" in your view. As for the question of what "left liberalism" is, that is even sketchier and meshes even more poorly with the way you otherwise stick to precise definitions. It seems that even in your own view, the difference between leftism and liberalism is neither firm nor substantial.
>These are all leftist policies unless the company quotas are instituted by the companies themselves.
If they are all leftist policies, how come they were instituted by liberals? Don't you see the obvious problem there? Or do you mean to tell me that people like Obama are leftists?

>>22452976
>You contradict yourself. Earlier you defined "left liberalism" as the "compromise between liberalism and economic collectivism" but now you seem to be implying that even people like Thatcher and Reagan are "left liberals" in your view. As for the question of what "left liberalism" is, that is even sketchier and meshes even more poorly with the way you otherwise stick to precise definitions. It seems that even in your own view, the difference between leftism and liberalism is neither firm nor substantial.
Everything exists on a spectrum, of course. Reagan and Thatcher and liberals. Joe Biden is clearly much further to the left than them, so a left-liberal. And Bernie is a socialist or at least a socdem on steroids.
If the presidential candidates were Joe Biden and Nikki Haley, would you consider their economics to be the same ideology? Haley is a liberal, Biden mixes liberalism with economic nationalism.
>If they are all leftist policies, how come they were instituted by liberals? Don't you see the obvious problem there? Or do you mean to tell me that people like Obama are leftists?
Well Obama is a left-liberal. He supports moderate affirmative action but not Newsom-style corporate quotas.

>>22452307
>The politics that encompasses 95% of people's opinions and 100% of elected officials is actually fake politics.
>Neo-monarchism, fascist, tradshit, which largely only exists online, almost exclusively populated by single young men is, in fact, the real politics.
>We must collapse civilization because we feel like losers. But uhh, we are also the hard men who make good times !

>>22453666
He didn't type all of that. Why are you throwing a school shooter tantrum about what that poster didn't say? You OK? Parents ignoring you again?

>>22451539
Evola was a crypto leftist

>>22448225
Right wing is everything that isint propagandas about the new world order and the destruction of humanity
So just find something you like that does not force you to like it

>>22448617
>There's also the more dilettantish, infotainment type people like BAP "vitalists", haplogroup enthusiasts, Indo-European prehistory specialists
Kek accurate, all of these are tranny larpers. The wannabe hbd dudes with "esoteric" reading are also noteworthy, usually a combination of haplotards and IE larpers

Maybe the writings in Italy during its rise? You bunch are retards of the highest caliber. Left wing people are actually able to figure where to go for their readings. You could argue right wing stuff is "pushed down" in favor of leftist writings, but with computers that shouldn't be an issue.

>>22453666
Have you no shame? You come into a thread where you know the culture is high, and instead of reflecting; you engage in nonsense and post chug memes. Seriously, I would be embarrassed to believe that Trump, Reagan,McConnell, McCain and Busch are right wingers.

>>22449391
Completely false, I am a HBD autist and hate America, whites, Trump, shitlibs, and hope you all get slaughtered by cartels
BAP is a zionist

>>22454033
Also christianity and America in its entire history, not just weimerica.
BAP also loves shitmerica. He just dislikes leftards. Migapedes do the same

>>22453900
>Left wing people are actually able to figure where to go for their readings
/leftypol/ and discord, where they read nothing besides maybe marx and lenin (both mogged by Chadlin)
Leftists aren't people btw

>>22452074
>Marx did not aim to create a prescriptive system - he wanted to describe reality as objectively as he could. Marxism doesn't differ from liberalism in asserting the primacy of a single class. It asserts that every system has a dominant class, and that the bourgeois dominates in liberal democracies. It also asserts that via historical development, the bourgeoisie will be superseded by the proletariat and complete liberation, including economic liberation, will be granted to everyone.
Marxism is both descriptive and prescriptive. It's a common Marxist talking point that it's purely descriptive, but anyone who has read Marx knows that's just not true.
He clearly argues for the supremacy of the proletariat in the manifesto. It's not merely descriptive.
He believed first the proles would have to have absolute power, then afterwards eventually the state would transition to one of total equality.
>The fundamental values of both liberalism and Marxism - liberty, equality, fraternity - remain the same.
Sorry but that's just not true. What matters is the interpretation of those values, and they are radically different.
Liberalism as stated aims for pluralism, a capitalist society wherein you have broad freedom in the private sphere.
Marxism by contrast does not care as much about individual/personal freedoms.
>Although I am not entirely sure why you brought up Marxism here, since we were trying to look at CRT, which is slightly different.
I brought it up to demonstrate the differences between more radical leftist thought v.s liberalism. We can return to CRT though if you want.
> Here's the CRT perspective: all inequalities are due to systemic oppression. If we want to have equal freedoms for all, we need to erase these inequalities. And they do lobby the state for it. Affirmative action, DEI, HR departments, subsidies, reparations etc.
Again you are confusing the contemporary media rendition of CRT with the o.g CRT.
It's not interested in legal equality. It like Marxism, from which it draws inspiration, sees legal equality as illusory.
The things you listed I would think of as more liberal policies in so far as they aim at integration/assimilation.

>>22452273
>he doesn't seem "moderate" to me at all, he's a typical liberal; progressive, pro-democracy and pro-globohomo.
Pro-democracy and pro-capitalism; he was the model for an entire generation of neocon interventionist foreign policy in the U.S.
By comparison to the left he's a moderate, but it goes without saying though that terms like "moderate" are relative.
A far-right person is bound to see a neocon's positions as "extreme" or even leftist. Whereas a leftist would look at his positions and view them as conservative.

>>22452307
>in my opinion
It's not an opinion, it's just a fact. Pro-democracy, pro-capitalism, and anything "progressivism" IS liberalism. Period. Anyone who says otherwise does not know the traits of democracy and is politically illiterate.
>>22454078
>A far-right person is bound to see a neocon's positions as "extreme" or even leftist. Whereas a leftist would look at his positions and view them as conservative.
This is exactly why the concept of "right" and "left" isn't important, except being used with a specific marker / agreed upon understanding. Saying "Left liberal" and "Right liberal" are better than just saying "far-left" / "left" / "right" / "far-right". This is why people like me explicitly state "Liberal worldview" instead. This is also why some people will say things like "false dichotomy", because it is a false dichotomy. There is a reason why american republicans think nazis are "leftists" and american democrats think nazis are "right wingers". National socialists are neither, they're against the liberal worldview. This is what we generally refer to as third position. Anti-marxist. Anti-liberal. Anti-capitalist.

>>22453900
Right-wingers are inherently anti-intellectual and thus uninterested in actually understanding the world. They prefer cultivating schizo myths among one another which is why their beliefs are easy to disseminate through memes

>>22448617
This is correct. I'm Orthodox and I don't relate with any of the other groups INCLUDING with "tradcaths" which apparently are in the same team as me to others. I find most of these groups very similar to communists/leftists/liberals in that they have a strong satanic element.

>>22453685
To be fair, school/store shootings seem to be the main cultural output of the far, anti-democracy, anti-capitalist right. Like didn't another shoot up a Dollar General last week? Then there was the supermarket. The Walmart. The Food Truck fest. It's either that or churches.

It does tend to discredit an ideology. Like, outside of edge teens, who the fuck takes Ted MORE seriously because he thought the logical outcome of his diagnosis of modern society was to mail bombs to random people, including trying to blow up a random airliner with children on it in flight lol.

>>22454232
>>22454157
>enter a thread about political theory
>ignore every post discussing the topic
>call others anti-intellectual
Bugmen always try to flip the table when the conversation doesn't go their way

>>22454253
>"Acktually, all the conservative parties in North America and Europe aren't real conservatives, real conservatism is the hyper-unrealistic ramblings of these few fringe groups."
Calling this dumb isn't really a reach.

Calling Fukuyama a liberal is dumb. Saying people like Reagan, Thatcher, Enoch Powell, Goodhart, Scruton, Huntington, Oakeshott, etc. liberals is dumb. You can disagree with their beans of conservatism, claim that Thatcherites in particular placed too much emphasis on the promises of market liberalization and not enough on culture, religion, and families, but at the end of the day it's still dumb to call them liberals. It's a sort of "No True Scotsman," fallacy that seems sure to exclude any intellectual of heft from being "conservative," within the last half century or more.

>>22452273
Fukuyama is a right-Hegelion. I think to call him a neo-con is unfair simply because most neo-cons were incredibly unrealistic/idealistic in how they viewed the world, while Fukuyama is a pragmatist realist who just so happens to be best known for his one super idealistic thesis. And even if the "End of History," thesis was flawed, it has some good points. No international movement that is broadly seen to be legitimate has emerged to challenge liberal democracy. Nothing like communism, or the reactionary defense of monarchism exists today; the closest is radical Islam and it's hardly a real competitor. Even states diametrically opposed to the liberal democracies still couch their criticism in liberal democracies own terms. Strongmen still take the title of president and have rubber stamp legislatures, they don't name themselves king, or emperor, or tsar. When they attack the West they do so by pointing out that the West fails to live up to its own standards ("and you lynch negros, you have an implicit ruling class"), tactility acknowledging that the values of liberalism are the yardstick by which to measure success, even as they excuse deviations by claiming those standards are unrealistic. Strongmen claim they are strongmen now only in order to control disorder and fight off foreign oppression, so that, one day, they can accomplish largely the same goals that liberal democracy lays out.

And in any event, the Last Man thesis is spot on in describing the rise of the "Manosphere," authors like Jack Donovan, the huge market for tactical gear, tactical baby carriers, consooming a warrior image, etc. Men who now have their subsistence needs met are lashing out for purpose, meaning— or as Hegel put it, recognition.

Fukuyama's best work is actually his two volume opus on "how do high standard of living states get that way." It's not so much his original theses that are great here, they are decent, but that the work is an encyclopedic view of all theories of state development since antiquity, that carefully compares them against the evidence of history.

But unlike partisan hacks, Fukuyama can also engage earnestly with the left, particularly because Hegel is a common bridge. Honneth, the surviving hierophant of the Frankfurt School is also a Hegelian, and is Freedom's Right is worth a read. Notably, you'll find no critical theory or SJWism. The shit that gets associated with the Frankfurt school is bizarre given they were "Western Marxist," that is, on the right fringe of the left. Honneth drifts further right with his Hegelianism and is actually probably not that far from later Fukuyama except on policy minutea.

Which is all to say, The Philosophy of Right is the greatest work of conservative political theory in history and probably also the greatest work of liberal political theory in history. It transcends and sublates our current divisions as much as it helped create them.

>>22451641
>not applicable to any part of history
that seems obviously wrong. If you're at the bottom of the socioeconomic pyramid the only viable way to better yourself is to organize

>>22454315
>at the end of the day it's still dumb to call them liberals
NTA but every single person you mentioned approved of democracy, equality (under the law), capitalism, and various freedoms, or some variance of this. All of those things are the cornerstone of liberalism.
Right wing liberalism? Sure. Conservatives? Sure. But conservatives after the 1930s were *almost* exclusively liberals, and after 1940s, they were exclusively liberals.
Look at america. Do you know how the neocon was created? They're just disillusioned liberals. But they are still liberals, they just are leaning more towards protectionism and being closed off a little more than the other liberals they're part of. They still like "freedom of speech" and so on.
Do you know absolutely anything, anything at all, about any political theory? Even a small crumb of anything? Even what I just said. You can literally just repeat it back to me, I'd be surprised if you even can do that, at this point.

>>22454370
That's not what Marxist historical analysis is. Marxist historiography sees all of history as a predefined linear trend. What you're suggesting (social classes, used broadly, banding together to act in their own interests) is not only something that can't happen, but it needs to be prevented from happening. Communism is dependent upon the formation of The Working Class. If fishermen or the Chinese or any other social class view themselves as a class rather than as part of The Working Class then that gets in the way of achieving Communism.

>>22454315
>>22454380
Fukuyama is a Liberal because he's a Liberal. He is absolutely aghast at the idea of a nondependent judiciary, state controlled media, or a state budget not in the hands of a parliament.

>>22454348
BTW, the Philosophy of Right is suprisingly accessible for a Hegel book. It's certainly not easy, and you'll want to read some articles too (Wood has some good stuff on how Hegel sees the market as an early super fan of Adam Smith but also as a Keynesian centuries before Keynes).

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/pr/prconten.htm

Just bear in mind that Hegel's prefaces and introductions are always brutal and that his method is to start out in the most abstract, basic level possible, and progress through details from there. It gets easier as you go. The parts on how criminals have a "right to be punished," is great, and he makes a great argument against only focusing on recidivism and social outcomes when it comes to justice, as to do this is to treat the criminal like an animal to be trained.

Hegel is also fairly unique in being a married major philosopher, and one with several children and an, by all accounts, happy marriage. He has a whole section on the family, a topic largely overlooked in political philosophy, which is largely written by single men (and when women write, single women).

Also, bear in mind that Hegel did have to pass the censors so some criticism of the state is a bit esoteric. He definetly does NOT think the Prussian state of the 19th century is the pinnacle of possible human society. He likes a about Prussia, but not all of it; he was a reformer in the end. He's also a little less coherent on how the balance of power between the monarch and the legislature should play out. He offers a great critique of "checks and balances," foreshadowing current US gridlock and culture wars, advocating for an organic unity in the state, but doesn't fully pull off the mechanics of this.

>>22454380
>Conservatives? Sure. But conservatives after the 1930s were *almost* exclusively liberals, and after 1940s, they were exclusively liberals.

Isn't it a little disingenuous to say "real conservatives are conservative non-liberalism," when such a thing hasn't existed for almost an entire century.

Liberalism won. Hardly anyone advocates for a command economy anymore and absolutely no one serious advocates for the return of heredity professions, guilds, and special legal and economic privileges for a nobility.

Likewise, WWI sealed the deal on some form of republicanism.

>>22454397
class consciousness as the only credible way to organize political interests /=/ marxist theology
>f fishermen or the Chinese or any other social class view themselves as a class rather than as part of The Working Class then that gets in the way of achieving Communism.
How ridiculous an example given this has never happened

>>22454423
>class consciousness as the only credible way to organize political interests
Yes, this is literally the point of Marxism. This is literally the entirety of Marxism. A global Working Class is the only way to achieve Communism. That is the entire impetus for "Marxism" as a theory to exist, because Marx believed this to be true.

>How ridiculous an example given this has never happened
People organize along religious, professional, racial, and ethnic lines all the time. If it never happens, why is it so important for Marxists to prevent it from happening?

>>22454418
>Isn't it a little disingenuous
No, it isn't. You have different eras of "conservativism". In the 1800's, most conservatives were effectively monarchists. Conservatives are just reactionaries of a given time period. My entire point here is that: Being a conservative and a liberal do not contradict one another.

>>22454397
>Fukuyama is a Liberal because he's a Liberal
Yes. That's what I just said, anon. Did you not read or what?

>>22454348
>Fukuyama is a pragmatist realist who just so happens to be best known for his one super idealistic thesis
But he spends a whole chapter in "End of History" critiquing realism for not considering ideas...

>>22450309
He leaves a particular ethnic group put of his analysis, rendering him useless in understanding modern political motives. How can you even broach a subject like neoconservativism without acknowledging said particular ethnic groups' overrepresentation in said Ideology?

>>22448225
Hitler, Rosenberg, Junger, George Lincoln Rockwell, Dr William Luther Pierce

The political spectrum is really a slippery slope isn’t it? Anon asks for right wing books and anons rec far right books.

>>22454450
You seem to be disagreeing over the term liberal, which has many meanings. In the context of political economy, "liberal," is still used broadly to describe market economies (but still inclusive of social democracies with large welfare states and robust market regulations) and some form of elected government.

But in politics, and not just popular politics, but political theory writ large, "liberal," is more commonly defined in opposition to conservatism. In our epoch it denotes greater acceptance of minorities, less strict gender roles and norms surrounding sexuality, and generally more left leaning economic policies. These two definitions aren't exactly contradictory, but they get close.

Conservatism itself is even more explicitly defined across various eras as an opposition to progressive and liberalizing tendencies. So yes, at one point both definitions of "liberal," coincided quite well. The free market meant an end to special noble economic rights, the idea that only someone of specific birth could import certain goods or own certain types of factories, as well as the deconstruction of the hereditary guild structures. Conservatives fought this shift and the move to elected government.

But this hasn't been the case for over a century. Hence, when people use the term "liberal," in the sense you mean it, they almost always phrase it as "classical liberal." Classical because it represents the liberal ideas of a past epoch.

To be conservative is, essentially by definition, to oppose the liberals of one's own era, even if it often means fighting for the status quo that past generation's liberals achieved in forcing upon society.

A support of strong property rights and markets free of (much) regulation has been a conservative position for about 150 years, while socialism, the liberal position, has been in favor of more state control. The Revolutions of 1848 are probably the tipping point here. And while nationalism was also a radical liberal force originally, it hasn't been so since the collapse of the Austrian and Ottoman empires.

So, IDK, if you insist on using a word based on what it meant 100 years ago, instead of what it means today, you can't be too upset if people fail to understand you. Certainly the most common usage of "liberal," today is not "classical liberalism," which is largely taken for granted, at least its core principles if not its exact shape, by both modern liberals and conservatives. And in a thread asking about "conservative writers," where, again, conservativism is largely defined in terms of the liberalism of its era, it is clearly going to throw people off if you refer to leading conservative thinkers as "liberals," instead of "classical liberals." But again, even pointing out that any post 1945 thinker is a "classical liberal," is largely redundant unless you're talking in the pro-Soviet, Marxist contingent, which held out a bit longer.

>>22454656
Reagan, Burke, and 19th century reactionary monarchists share something more in deep in spirit with each other than their particular feelings towards market liberalism and republicanism. The same is true of the sans coulettes and modern leftists, even if they'd be diametrically opposed on some issues.

>>22453910
>Seriously, I would be embarrassed to believe that Trump, Reagan,McConnell, McCain and Busch are right wingers
>trying this hard
we get it, you are so far far far right that you fell off the spectrum and your ass got impaled on a panzerfaust

>>22454033
No I don't think so. You spend your days talking about trans beers, nonwhite immigrants, the death jab (tm) and how Putin is oppressed by the evul West like every other HBD r*ghtoid outside a few cool libertarians.

>>22448225
I'm not sure what you're aiming at. If you want to figure out what kind of ideology the far right has then you shouldn't read anything because the far right doesn't read. You should just watch whatever bullshit YouTuber they praise. You might read theie books or maybe someone's ideology they ride on such as Dugin or Guillaume Faye. Generally Arktos books are the things that fall into that category.

But if you want to subscribe to that kind of ideology I recommend you read the classics and subscribe to them and not try to deconstruct them like a french pedophile. Finally, you should read Nietzsche and Spengler and there you'll get all the critique of decadence that was or ever will be valid.

>>22454656
You're quibbling over semantics like a retard.
Supports free-market liberal democracy = liberal.
There are major differences between left-liberals v.s conservative liberals today, but they share the underlying belief in the free-market, democracy, rights-language, and usually some variant of social contract theory.
No one is denying that in the American context Reagan is considered conservative.
I have no clue what you are sperging about here, very strange post.
>But again, even pointing out that any post 1945 thinker is a "classical liberal," is largely redundant unless you're talking in the pro-Soviet, Marxist contingent, which held out a bit longer.
How is it redundant? While as a system liberal democracy today is pre-dominant, there are plenty of thinkers in the 20th century who were not liberal.
Marxists, fascists, traditionalist Christians, communitarians, etc.

>>22452321
>he's so fragile he can't search the index of Metaphysis of Power for America/Democracy as it would hurt his ego
sad pseud!

>>22453704
Evola is really good at identifying the 'higher' or 'noble' strains in any given society, while simultaneously identifying 'what' caused the degeneration

>>22454253
I'm >>22454157 and I made only one post and it doesn't do what you claim it does

>>22448225
https://
discord
gg/yNnD5n7y

>>22454137
>>Right-wingers are inherently anti-intellectual and thus uninterested in actually understanding the world.
oops you made a mistake.
understanding the world doesn't go thru ''ideas'', contrary to what atheists keep saying

>>22452074
>>You are misunderstanding Marxism. Marx did not aim to create a prescriptive system - he wanted to describe reality as objectively as he could. Marxism doesn't differ from liberalism in asserting the primacy of a single class. It asserts that every system has a dominant class, and that the bourgeois dominates in liberal democracies. It also asserts that via historical development, the bourgeoisie will be superseded by the proletariat and complete liberation, including economic liberation, will be granted to everyone.
Yes of course marxism being created by the bourgeoisie itself shows it's a just theater.