/lit/ - Literature

>>5839116
>Hesse
>right wing

topkek

>>5839148
>Not looking at the specific subcategory he is filed under.

>>5839116
basically all other worthwhile fiction is "left wing", that is why the reactionaries felt the need to make that silly chart in the first place

>>5839175
All that non-political literature sure is left wing

>Pat Buchanan next to Evola

haha communism is corny but boy rightwing shit is fucking dumb

>>5839180
Some would argue that taking an "apolitical" stance would be akin to "live and let live" which is closest to the left.

the problem is the definition of "left". to righteys its pretty much big gov, the joo, cultural mixisism, ect... it varies and is just anything that they don't like eventually.
if you define left and right simpy by looking at it from a "the people vs whoever rules (or holds any kind of power)" perspective, left can also be seen as the ones who try to gain more sovereignty and reduce the power given "entities" have over them. while conservatives lean towards old power structures (monarchy, natsoc, church), left is what tries to reduce their influence on the people.

pretty much anything that is pro-change is then to be considered left.
in that way, Brave new world (big company) and 1984 (big gov) fall into te same category even though they deal with different ideas of who is setting the rules for our enslavement.

just think about gays who want to be katholic and go to church, instead of totally rejecting it for the antigay stuff and you'll see how much that whole left/right thinking is twisted.

a chart like that in a lefty version therefore would only make sense if it was far left ideology focused. then you will find saul alinsky, naom chomsky, naomi klein, foucault and pretty much everone who opposes a right wing conservative mindset in any way.

>>5839375
Yeah I was thinking far left. But as I said, I would really love some fiction, but thanks for the suggestions

>>5839116
lmao william 'supported the french revolution' blake is on their right wing list how fucking sad and desperate are they

>>5839570
well, they are posting on an anime imageboard...

the problem is that Americans can't into political spectrum
they think Obama is left-wing
they think the German SPD and French PS are socialist ffs

>>5839570
Excuse me, but who, apart from massive edgelords, actually doesn't support the French Revolution?

>>5839596
Evolakid, aka the guy who did this chart.

>>5839594
The worst part is when they call left-wingers (USA-tier left wingers) liberal

>Leviathan

Did I fucking miss something?

>>5839596
Anyone with a brain?

>>5839596
Pretty much every sane and rational human being since 1789.

>implying Edmund Burke is an edgelord

>>5839116

Someone made one a while back. They were soliciting suggestions for a good while and I few of mine got tacked on. It was an extensive, but by no means exhaustive, list, but they gave up due to perceived lack of interest.

Might be in the sticky someplace? Otherwise, try the archive.

>>5839618
I'm assuming you haven't read the works of Carl Schmitt.

>>5839621
>>5839637
go home /pol/ ...oh yea I forgot... you don't have one anymore

>>5839596
2/10 bait, made me reply

>>5839116
Remove:
the republic
collected poems of Rudyard Kipling
The Master and Margarita
Women in Love

>>5839656
That's why we're staying here, newfriend :^)

>>5839596
Reactionaries and LARPfags.
>>5839594
Pretty much this. Murrikans shouldn't do these charts.

>>5839656
>being this retarded

You don't have to be /pol/ to think the French Revolution was mindless brutality.

>>5839670
Why The Republic?
As Leo Strauss argued, Book 8-9 is the most profound and important critique of democracy ever written.

>>5839682
Criticizing democracy isn't just something of the right wing, toadposter.

>>5839596

Yes, let's all take a moment to reflect on the genius of the revolution

http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/Fidelity_archives/parricide.html

>>5839641
Found it.

I have some suggestions for both modern/contemporary fiction and nonfiction, if anyone wants to take up the task of expanding these.
also my god the color scheme no wonder nobody wanted it

>>5839700
>culture wars
>written by an austrian noble
Oh, how unbiased. Truly an academic work.

>>5839694
This is undeniably true, however, criticizing democracy from the philosophic standpoint of a complete rejection of the concept of equality and replacing it with a legal-political hierarchy is certainly 'right-wing'.

Needless to say, however, The Republic is such an influential book that it is hard to argue that it is utterly and entirely right or left wing. It can be used to support anything from imperialism to Spartan communism.

>>5839710
Here's the other one I could find.

This one does a marginally better job of pigeonholing the post-marxists.

>>5839710
Lacks some pre marxist stuff

>>5839713
That makes sense. I get your point.

>>5839711
It's okay, I understand that you feel the need to accept authority. Good luck with that.

>>5839710
>the time machine
>the grapes of wrath
Nigga wat

>>5839711
>it's biased when a noble writes about the french revolution but objective when a plebian does it

>>5839710
Lol, such a shit tier list compared to OP

Why is leftist literature such shit?

>>5839721
But that's just marxist stuff. Where are the books on fascism, national socialism, nationalism, feminism, ethnocentrism etc? Not a very balanced list.

>>5839726
>"One shouldn't forget that much of what may appear positive to us today - liberality, intellectuality, humanitarianism - had all been already brought to us by the liberal, courtly absolutism, while the French Revolution which used all these words in reality did nothing more than brutally extinguish them"
>the enlightened despots did good
>wait a sec, fuck those liberal revolutionaries, muh robespierre muh lavoisier
You should at least read what you post.

>>5839736
He's free to point out any points in the article that are factually incorrect, of course. I won't be waiting on him, however.

>>5839732
>He doesn't that Time Machine is socialist

>>5839742
>nationalism
>ethnocentrism
>fascism
>natsoc
>left
wut

>>5839737
It could use more suggestions as raised here:
>>5839742

Like I said, some dude who wanted to read some serious leftists literature started putting it together, but then every thread would descend into halfhearted, nearly off-topic debate not unlike this thread or, in the best-case scenario, people who actually knew their leftist theory would start squabbling about how to label certain writers.

Then Butterfly would come in and say some nonsense shit about Stirner.

Again, if someone wants to take up the task there's a great deal to work with.

>>5839621
>>5839637
>>5839657
>>5839676
What's with all the reactionaries on /lit/? Are you literally suggesting that things were better when human rights weren't a given and people should be arbitrarily ranked by "birthright"?

>>5839736
It's funny how you deleted your post >>5839749

Anyway, you should at least point those hundreds of articles written by "plebs" who criticize the French Revolution, and not someone who was affected by that revolution. Unless of course, you just want blatant insults.

>>5839761
>Are you literally suggesting that things were better when human rights weren't a given and people should be arbitrarily ranked by "birthright"?
This is pretty much what a lot of /pol/ actually believes.

>>5839755
Obviously some troll suggestions, but a few could be good.

>>5839761
I suspect some of them are bastards of noble families.

>>5839737
Most leftists establish the foundation of their position from their own education, either in high-school or university. There is nothing wrong with this, but the problem develops that since contemporary education focuses almost entirely on contemporary literature, for example Marx becomes seen as a 'historical/old' writer, the diversity of their readings becomes none existent-- thus the dialogue becomes a echo chamber.

On the other hand, most reactionarys, or by whatever name you wish to call them, seek out literature that by today's standards is esoteric and obscure. Through this there's a more diverse selection from various traditions and historical periods..

>>5839752
nigga u srs

>>5839752
Wat.

>>5839755
I won't make a long post on this, but you really see no similarities between those movements and the french revolution, the essence of the left? If not, carry on, by all means.

>>5839776
>>5839782

Have you actually read Time Machine?
It's pretty much a book on how the class warfare would end if nothing changes since Victorian era.

Is Chesterton really right-wing?

I think at least in today's climate he would be seen as politically and economically left-wing.

>>5839771
>Most leftists establish the foundation of their position from their own education, either in high-school or university.

And the right-wing don't? Even though historically they were more educated by virtue of their privilege?

>>5839785
With both classes degenerating into subhumanoid animals? In what way does that reinforce Socialist doctrine?

>>5839783
Not him but, this is a "leftist" chart just as the pic OP posted is "right-wing". Those are very vague terms, so the lists are about how most people see left and right-wing ideologies. If the list would apply your terms then they would be a clusterfuck.

>>5839761
Human rights are a monstrosity of the modern era.

Its a fused ideology of universalism and individualism focusing entirely on form devoid of any concrete content.

The problem with human rights is that they reject any from of national sovereignty or any purer form of democracy, not liberal democracy, but any particular expression of a peoples. They are a declaration of war against any form of community and wish to dissolve it all in exchange for a global bourgeois comfort existence.

I personally find this all utterly abhorrent. Kojeve, a philosophic leader in the move towards the EU and the UN, is a scary, scary read. I view his positions as the ultimate logical conclusion of the path of the modern world, and it is something far worse than Orwell or Huxley could ever have imagined.

>>5839761
Nice strawman.

Just because you don't support the wanton destruction of western civilization doesn't mean that you want to enslave the masses.

>>5839783
French revolution wasn't the essence of the left, but the revolutions of the XVIII century were the main basis for theorists of revolution (some of which were leftists), but the goals of the french revolution are nothing but a step toward the final revolution Marx talked about, if you wanna consider Marx as the "start" of the left (protip: he isn't).

I'll give you that nationalism has had a certain importance in some moments of some leftist movements, but generally speaking, the left HAS to be internationalist, nationalism is the creation of artificial barriers moved by interests of the state.

>>5839765
And I assume they rank themselves on top of such unequal-by-designs systems as such people often do

>>5839794
>The upper class degenerates into a idiotic almost child-like creature completely dependant on the "workers"

>While the working class degenerates into a cave-dwelling workers that can only do their job and hunt the upper class. They are inherently interested into the time machine, because it's a machine, but are too stupid to actually understand how it works or whatever.

>>5839761
so you're saying you approve of capitalist democracy where everyone is ranked by how hard they work and how much financial success they can achieve? and you call others reactionary? doh hohoho

>>5839803
So you actually support restricting people's liberty, propriety, safety and ability to resist unjust oppression? (protip: those are the human rights)

>>5839805
Nice picture. Did you know that only about 8% of people killed in the revolution were aristocrats? The majority were peasants.

>>5839793
We're not talking historically in this context.
We're talking about the current diverse selection of readings from the contemporary political position.

Today leftists are the vast majority in the Academia. Right winger's, in order to advance their intellectual position must swim against the stream and find literature they are not taught in class.

>>5839810

I've met people in real life who believe that serfdom in feudal ages was a better way of life than today.

Some people are just completely dumb.

>>5839817
> Right wing
> Intellectual swing
good one

>>5839805
I'm not the one you're replying to, but the whole French Revolutions (all of them) expanded the western civilization. Remember what Napoleon did? He was guided by the Revolution ideals. That's why there are arab and african democracies.

>>5839816
Is that supposed to make me feel better? It saddens me that so many people died during the french revolution, be they aristocrats or not.

>>5839821
And I've met people that believe everyone is equal.

It takes all types, I suppose.

>>5839814
>so you're saying you approve of capitalist democracy where everyone is ranked by how hard they work
That's the theory. We all know it doesn't happen in practice, doofus. Rich people's kids remain rich without having worked for it and benefit from a better education than poor people's kids, thus legitimating a system that naturally converges towards inequality. Do I actually have to spell out Bourdieu's stuff for you?

>>5839812
Eh. If that's what you took from it I won't argue with you. It seemed to me a genius work of speculative fiction, though entirely apolitical.

The surface dwellers weren't dependent on the Morlocks, though. They had engineered the surface ecosystem so they didn't have to work for food or shelter

>>5839815
I understand what you're sayin and I almost agree with you, but human rights more often than not are used as a justification for colonialism

>>5839815
>Liberty
>Unjust oppression

What form of liberty? Who decided it was Unjust?

These are philosophic assumptions. Most of the time they are a small, extremely small vocal minority who looks to the West for help. The legitimacy of a state is never jeopardized because it persecutes political dissidents

Furthermore it is usually us enforcing Western political ideals upon another nation which I disagree with in principle.

>>5839828
'everyone is equal'
This statement doesn't make the slightest sense and really sounds like a strawman.

>>5839829
do you not realize that communism was actually a reactionary attempt to roll back capitalism and return to a kind of serfdom? how can you not see that was really what was going on there

>>5839823
That's not expanding western civilization, that's proliferating it. Democracy is not something the west should be proud of.

>>5839822
Wut.

>>5839834
>They had engineered the surface ecosystem so they didn't have to work for food
I think you forgot the part, where Morlocks were operating the machines that delivered the food to Eloi.
Eloi are basically cattle of Morlocks. I think this is similar to what the Narrator thinks to himself, when he realises it.

Also, maybe it's because I've read it at the time I was full on commie, I always found Eloi disgusting and freakish, while I saw Morlokcs as almost graceful creatures, still having a part of humanity left in them...

>>5839841
>Democracy is not something the west should be proud of.
That's your opinion. Many right-wing (this is a vague term but I think you get what I'm about to say) philosophers and historians say that democracy is the gift brought bt the western civilization to the world.

>>5839839
I never said I was supporting communism in any way.

>>5839837
>What form of liberty? Who decided it was Unjust?
The liberties are all detailed in the declaration of human rights. To be fair it doesn't actually say "unjust".

>These are philosophic assumptions. Most of the time they are a small, extremely small vocal minority who looks to the West for help. The legitimacy of a state is never jeopardized because it persecutes political dissidents
I'm not following you there. Elaborate please.

>>5839761
Yes in fact, I think things would have been better.

>>5839853
>Many right-wing (this is a vague term but I think you get what I'm about to say) philosophers and historians say that democracy is the gift brought bt the western civilization to the world.

Who are these people? Libertarians and Traditionalists both hate democracy and Republicans, well their whole point of existing is to limit democracy, to give the people an elite representative to make sure the elite are well cared for, instead of letting the people govern themselves.

>>5839834
Wells was really good at throwing socialism ideals and beliefs into his novels. When the sleep awakes being a good example, since it almost blatantly tells you that the aristocrats are evil, while also saying that putting in a new aristocrat isn't much better.

It's also somewhat implied that the the aristocrats went on to become the Eloi, and the workers went on to become Morlocks.

>>5839853
That's nice for them. I'd rather say the only valuable philosophical tradition would be the gift the west brought to the world, but hey letting plebs and oligarchs decide for everyone is pretty cool too i guess

>>5839875
>being against the aristocracy is socialist
Huh?

>>5839853
Literally no serious philosopher was pro-democracy, except for Rousseau, but he was a commie faggot anyway.

>>5839865
And I assume you would have placed yourself on top of such a situation?

>>5839878
>plebs
>only valuable philosophical tradition
What a whole load of opinions

>>5839882
Purely capitalist aristocrats, I hadn't specified. They were running things like the factories of the industrial age, where it cost slightly more to live there than what you were paid

>>5839872
>Who are these people?
Many "republicans" (not the US party) are somewhat right-wing. I mean almost every founding father could fall under that description. Trying to balance between "democracy" which is supposedly rule of mob and "republic" which can be as bad if the representative body is too far from their voters.

>>5839883
>Literally no serious philosopher was pro-democracy
Who is Kant?

>>5839884
Why is this always the first, and only, response? How many noblemen do you think post on 4chan? He obviously believes it would be better overall.

>>5839884
I agree with him, and I wouldn't. It's just childish to go HUR HUR UR JUST SELFISH whenever someone opposes egalitarianism.

>>5839884
No, there are far more talented, intellegent and educated people out there.

>>5839852
>I always found Eloi disgusting and freakish, while I saw Morlocks as almost graceful creatures, still having a part of humanity left in them..
Yeah I don't know about that. The Time Traveller had a romance with one of the Eloi and described them as cute and innocent. He described the Morlocks with complete physical revulsion every time he saw them, though acknowledged they had a shred of intelligence left in them.

I just reread it, and I am convinced that the work was not more or less sympathetic to either side of the class struggle, but presents that future as an inevitable, tragic progression from the state of Industrial England.

Since there are many reactionaries and muh elite class fags here, would any of you recommend me a book that defends the rich people?
I've only read pro-monarchy books and I'm tired.

>>5839883
Democracy was a pretty alien concept, even in the 18th century.
>but the greeks
Their concept of democracy is only vaguely related to ours.

>>5839884
there are plenty of arguments for the simplicity of peasant life, and also consider this: if you find serf life so awful isn't that an implicit admission that life for "the poor" under capitalism is actually pretty fricken sweet?

>>5839887
>"the people" aren't plebs by definition
ayy lmao

also I'd like to hear about this philosophical tradition that's even within the same ballpark as the west, it would be like discovering that gnomes were real all along and nobody told me

>>5839902
Which monarchist works have you read?

>>5839710
>>5839721
I wish this stuff had more about non-Marxist flavors of socialism, i.e. Fourier, George, Keynes/Minsky, that kind of stuff. Marxism-Leninism and anarchosocialism aren't the only two perspectives on the left, even the non-liberal left. Just my 2c.

>>5839891
'Overall' is a meaningless term. There are only people, everything else is a construction of the mind. Inequality by design literally means not caring about a majority of the people.

>>5839900
>The Time Traveller had a romance with one of the Eloi
I think it was more a interest in her, because he saved her from drowning. Like more of a how an older brother would look for his baby sister...
He does lose interest in her, when he realises just how stupid and useless she is.

>>5839902
Nobles and rich aren't the same, anyone with a basic knowledge of history should realize this even if they're bluepilled as fuck(sorry for the usage of that buzzword but it gets the point across)

>>5839890
>Who is Kant?
Literally from kikepedia :
>Kant opposed "democracy" – which, in that era, meant direct democracy – believing that majority rule posed a threat to individual liberty. He stated, "…democracy is, properly speaking, necessarily a despotism, because it establishes an executive power in which "all" decide for or even against one who does not agree; that is, "all", who are not quite all, decide, and this is a contradiction of the general will with itself and with freedom."[9] As most writers at the time he distinguished three forms of government: democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy with mixed government as the most ideal form of government.

>>5839905
Democracy in philosophy is very precisely defined. I think you're confused because so many non-democratic countries today claim to be democracies.

>>5839906
>there are plenty of arguments for the simplicity of peasant life
No, there's really not. There are, however, sheltered suburbanites viewing the old agrarian poor through rose-tinted lenses. You forget that every single work of literature that depicts the happy peasant farmers was written by aristocratic and middle class authors looking at them from the outside.

And besides, that's a moot point. It's impossible to turn back the hands of time and modern farming technology makes a peasant class completely obsolete

>>5839906
I agree that capitalism in the past has shown remarkable qualities, such as increasing the standards of living and education levels of everyone (albeit even more for rich people), but it's showing its limits now: while it was pretty obvious that anyone in the industrial revolution would have had a better life at the end of it than at its beginning, and that one's kids would have had a better life than oneself (which is one of the main legitimations of capitalism), there's no such guarantee nowadays.

Please explain how Leviathan is nor collectivism 101

TT: http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/touching-the-raw-amygdala-an-analysis-of-liberal-debate-tactics-preface/

>There is some limited evidence that individuals process incoming information differently. It has been shown that those with low dopamine function tend to show high levels of activity in parts of the brain associated with self awareness, social behavior, and perceptions of environment, and that this is different from those with high dopamine function, who tend to be more task-focused and rule oriented in matters of competition. If, as we assert, Liberals exhibit lower dopamine function, this would explain our inability to reach consensus in debate, even when facts are clear, and conclusions inevitable.

>>5839710
>>5839721
Is there any Agrarian Socialist fiction?
Or like a specifically left-wing Walden sorta book?

>>5839910
>placing oneself above "the plebs" by the use of such a pejorative term
>placing one's philosophical tradition above the rest
Yeah, opinions.

>>5839905
No, Greek democracy is where our democracy comes from in terms of idea, not so much application due to there being lets say 50 million people in an average country.

>>5839914
So far the most interesting was The English Constitution by Bogehan.
>>5839923
I know, that's why I'm asking about books that defend the rich people, not the nobles. I should have been more accurate. It is "books that defend the non-noble upper class".

>>5839942
nice blog citation bro. I bet you actually think that proves anything?

>>5839924
>kikepedia
opiniondiscarted.jpeg.wav
Yeah, he was against "direct democracy" but for representative republic, which is what modern democracy actually is.
>>5839905
>Their concept of democracy is only vaguely related to ours.
The Greeks had two concept of democracy. One as practised by the Athens, and the other that Aristotle and other wrote about. Well they were same thing, but it was seen differently. Most Greek philosophers, that are important hated democracy and saw it as one of the worst political systems. But the actual historical evidence kind of contradicts that, actual democracy wasn't worse than Spartan system which was hailed as the best thing ever...

>>5839939
it's a nominally collectivist defense of autocratic state power. same way the free market is a nominally collectivist defense of individualism and corporate power

what matters is the argument he's making, not what terms he couches it in. at least that's why I'd consider Leviathan right-wing

>>5839863
>Actually accepting the premises of the UDHR.

Like I've said earlier, such principles are both universalistic, meaning that they apply to everyone and both no one. To develop the perfect state of "Man" does not mean you have done anything substantial for creating a better place for, as an example, Persians. Universal political ideals negate the very concrete differences between peoples and nations which are essential to them. They destroy pluralistic diversity.
They are also Individualistic. This means that they places each and every individual as an atom, outside of their historical and social context. By doing so you are disregarding the very nature of what it means to be a person if you believe there is a 'state of nature' or any of that speculative nonsense. The fact is that man views his participation in communities as integral to his very being. He is not a rational machine who seeks his own profit and pleasure; such a idea regulates man to a position far beneath his own dignity.
This being said, that is why I see no legality nor philosophic legitimacy in anything the UN does.

In regard to your question; when the news declares that someone in a far off land is being 'oppressed', it is usually a extremely small minority in a state that is being governed sufficiently well. I was making a leap and disagreeing with the usual consequence of such 'oppression', that being of course military intervention or economic sanctions.

A state has every right to protect its survival against what it views as internal threats. Just because it shut its Twitter off for a few weeks does not mean that anything terrible is occurring in this country.

>>5839946
Congratulations, you've just discovered subjectivity. Now tell me about the gnomes I want to hear about the fucking gnomes

>>5839953
It proves quite literally just what I posted before, thanks.

The proof's here, kids, look at this guy...he just proved a ridiculous 2/10 bait theory

>>5839943
>Is there any Agrarian Socialist fiction?
What you're looking for is Social-Realism. A lot of books within this genre are dealing with peasant problematic. But you should note, they're not romanticising it.
A lot of early modern literature from my country falls into this category, but I don't know how much of it is translated into English.

>>5839954
>opiniondiscarted.jpeg.wav
relax, it's a maymay
>Yeah, he was against "direct democracy" but for representative republic, which is what modern democracy actually is.
When we're talking about democracy in philosophical terms or as an ideal, we're talking about direct democracy. A republic is not a democracy.

Anyway, your point is moot since Kant was a monarchist.

>>5839973
>A republic is not a democracy.
I agree with that statement.
>Kant was a monarchist.
Was he?? Shit I might have mixed something up. I was pretty sure he was writing about republics in his Essay on perpetual peace.

>>5839965
>I was just pretending to be stupid etc etc

>>5839983
You still don't get it...the only way to win this game is not to play, every time you reply...the theory gets more validity.

...but you can't stop.

>>5839175
That chart is shit and barely reflective of right wing thought. It's a leftist (mis)understanding of right wing notions.

>>5839997
I've read about 10 works from here and they are pretty right wing.

>>5839997
And what would you have put on their instead, Anon?

>>5839997
Oh come on now.
That chart, despite its endless criticisms, is quite good.

What would you consider proper right wing literature?

>>5839710
McLuhan shouldn't be on that list. He was a conservative catholic. He believed that modern media was destroying western civilization, and to study media was the best way to combat this change.

>>5839916
I'm right there with you. It's a matter of someone doing the work to put it together.

>>5839957
>Universal political ideals negate the very concrete differences between peoples and nations which are essential to them. They destroy pluralistic diversity.
Ah, but it seems you're assuming such differences are (i) natural, (ii) unchanging and never meant to change and (iii) objectively better overall (sorry for the pedantic listing, I can't find a better way to present it). (i) makes a sort of assumption that goes straight down to biology which my own scientific background tends to make me disagree with, (ii) is demonstrably false and (iii) requires some sort of subjective philosophical stance on which we can agree to disagree.

>This means that they places each and every individual as an atom, outside of their historical and social context. By doing so you are disregarding the very nature of what it means to be a person if you believe there is a 'state of nature' or any of that speculative nonsense. The fact is that man views his participation in communities as integral to his very being. He is not a rational machine who seeks his own profit and pleasure; such a idea regulates man to a position far beneath his own dignity.
Except you are abstracting notions such as "community" and "social context" as if they existed outside of people themselves. The fact is, there are no such things; we only make them up as some sort of sociological model, so to speak. In other words, every individual must be considered as an atom, because there's nothing else to consider; what you've described only exists as a result of these atoms interacting with each other, it isn't part of them.

So, fellow reactionary bros, what's your favorite piece of literature? Fav non-fiction? Alternatively what are you reading now?

My favorite piece of fiction is The Adventorous Heart by Ernst Junger. Its the most beautiful synthesis of the warrior and intellectual lifestyle I've read. Its the book that inspired me to become an Officer in the Canadian military/
Currently reading Demons by Dostoe.

Favorite non-fiction is Schmitt's Nomos of The Earth. Presents a legal interpretation of history that is both drastically different that the 'Howard Zinn' model and drastically convincing.
Currently reading: Schmitt's On Dictatorship

>>5840064
>A state has every right to protect its survival against what it views as internal threats.
Like I've said before, you seem to consider a state as an entity of its own right, when it is really a bunch of people interacting in different ways, with some people being on top. From this point of view, all I see is some people restricting the rights of other people for their own interests (or some other motive of their choosing), which I don't see as legitimate from the individual's point of view.

>>5840064
In regard to your first paragraph.
1) Such differences are natural. It is natural for man to create communities based upon the distinction of who is their friend and who is their enemy. Aristotle's maxim, man is a political animal is relevant here.
2) Never said anything about unchanging. However, this is related to (3), if you are a person who exists in a community/culture that is perishing this would be absolutely a negative fact.
3) Better insofar as people find meaning in them. People live their lives in their own culture, history, tradition. To say that this is meaningless is to remove something crucial, something that they hold onto very dearly.

2nd point.
Things such as tradition, culture, and historical continuity do exist. To suggest that they don't is simply false. I think you're blatantly wrong, we aren't born into a vacuum, we are born into a particular set of determining factors that influence us greatly in a positive way. These things have been created by my Father and his Father and so on. They exist independent of me.

>>5840008
>>5840020
>>5840023
I'm just trying to fit into the /lit/ mindset of everything I don't create is shit and wrong

>>5840068
The state is an entity that protects the political order it is founded upon.
It exists for a proper purpose, the establishment of law and legal order in the concrete space which it entails.
Likewise with what I said about tradition and culture, the state exists prior to the individual. Its military, legal structure and civil infrastructure has been built and cannot be simply viewed as a manifestation of the people currently in power.
The man honors the position, not the other way around.

>>5840067
I'd consider myself a conservative rather than a reactionary (and adore Weimar Schmitt). My favourite novel is Vanity Fair and my favourite non-fiction is Oakeshott's On Human Conduct.

I think it's about time someone set up an artificial nation to test types of governance.

>>5840145
There have been shitloads of countries that already tested all the possible types of governance. Unless you're talking about some shitty paleo-conservative country, then it has been already done.

>>5840020

Not Op but:

Replace the Republic with Aristotle's politics since its more (unambiguously) conservative and I think many of its arguments are still the basis of conservatism in contemporary society.

Also replace Hobbes, maybe with Patriarcha? Although Hobbes appears very illiberal at first glance he lays too much of the groundwork for liberalism for me to really think of him as a conservative.

De Maistre should probably be on there.

Also, Storm of Steel isn't really fiction.

>>5840109
>Things such as tradition, culture, and historical continuity do exist. To suggest that they don't is simply false. I think you're blatantly wrong, we aren't born into a vacuum, we are born into a particular set of determining factors that influence us greatly in a positive way. These things have been created by my Father and his Father and so on. They exist independent of me.
Tradition, culture and historical continuity only exist because of other people. There's no history before 5000 BC because people didn't wrote down anything. You learn about your culture and traditions because of what other people tell you. Even your ability to read about history and culture is determined by your education and thus other people. These things you describe aren't floating in the air, independently of people. Change the people, you change them (yeah this is basic Orwellian stuff but you get the point). Remove the people, you'll leave what historians call a gap (for instance we'll never know what culture and traditions people had before 5000 BC, they simply vanished because there are no, well, people to remember them and write them down). I'm not saying they are meaningless (just like gravity isn't meaningless because it's simply a result of mass, excuse my gross analogy), only that they are a consequence of people interacting with each other and it is the nature of these interactions (and thus the nature of each individual) that matters first and foremost.

>>5840131
>Likewise with what I said about tradition and culture, the state exists prior to the individual. Its military, legal structure and civil infrastructure has been built and cannot be simply viewed as a manifestation of the people currently in power.
That's only the theory. In practice, you need, as I've said, people to enforce all these things. It only exists through the people (oh fuck now I'm parroting Rousseau) and its inherent qualities depend on its people.

>>5840131

>The man honours the position

Didn't Machiavelli say that, as he was literally making the opposite point? He meant that it was the skill and artifice (virtu) of the man holding position that imbued it with its real power, and not the position granting power to the man.

>>5840166
Your point is besides the argument.
I'm stating the political-legal value of tradition-history.
Whether history is objective or not, is not up for discussion.
Furthermore, I could respond by simply giving a vice versa argument; i.e. the person cannot exist without the community. If you consider Rousseau a intellectual support look into his Emile and see how you will strongly disagree with him.

If you believe your belief in the metaphysical primacy of the individual gives you legitimate authority to disband and usurp traditional governments and culture around the world, I would argue that you are sorely mistaken.

>>5840297
>I'm stating the political-legal value of tradition-history.
But I'm not denying this value; I'm simply stating such value only stems from the individuals themselves.

Problem with most right wing/conservative thinking is that it's always one group that 'needs to get its shit together'.

Very vulgar statement here, but I think this summarizes it.
Instead of addressing inherent problems in the system, it's mostly a "whodunnit" case for them instead of analyzing the problems as endemic to the very structure.

>>5840297

Please, who are all those dudes in the pic?
I know the last one is Evola.

>>5840224
>muh satire

>>5840351
Blue is Carlyle and red is De Maistre

>>5840341
The problem with leftists is they are political creationists who think they are fit to diagnose established components of a complex social organism as 'problems' for arbitrary reasons and fuck up the entire thing by trying to 'fix' them because they think they are clever.

>>5840341
>>5840367
The problem with generalizing one side is that you fail to accurately represent their viewpoint in totality

>>5840297
>If you believe your belief in the metaphysical primacy of the individual gives you legitimate authority to disband and usurp traditional governments and culture around the world, I would argue that you are sorely mistaken.
I only think that individuals should be given the right to overthrow other individuals (which set themselves up as "states") if they are dissatisfied with them. I never talked about interventionism, if that's what you were hinting at.

>>5840351
Green is Junger
Orange, is Erik von Leddihn

>>5840341
In other words, it's a misapplication and overuse of essentialism over arbitrarily defined groups that somehow are given an abstract existence over the people they are composed of.

>>5840367

And you are?

Also, inequality isn't an imagined problem. Neither is alienation, neither is discrimination etc.

And again, also:

>you leftists fuck shit up by trying to fix the house
>right wingers don't fix shit. the shit keeps leaking, "well just fight the cold and the humidity then faggot. if I was in your position, which I'm not and never will be but still, I'd be doing something."

>>5840391
>comparing society to a house
>still not grasping the basic insight that society wasn't designed by le racist shitlord boogeyman but developed and evolved slowly over generations and developed spontaneous order by utilising more information than any one person possesses

>>5840402
Not him, but I'm curious to hear how you think society evolves, if not for people trying to improve it?

>>5840402

Where oh where do leftist scholars say bourgeois society was created ex nihilo?

Stop projecting your own creationisms where either Jews, feminists, cultural marxists or whatever the fuck your illuminati-tier explanations is where such groups constitute the source of societal ills as an alien body.

>muh organs is a better analogy

>>5840412
Competitive adoption and rejection of various norms and practices

>>5840413
>Where oh where do leftist scholars say bourgeois society was created ex nihilo?
They don't say it, but it's the unspoken assumption upon which all of their retard theories rest.

>>5840415

>le free market fixed it from stone age to rockefeller

>>5840415
thefreemarketwillfixit was a joke from 2009 /new/, you don't actually take it seriously right?

>>5840422
>implying it's different from historical materialism's le road to communism

>>5839637
>wizards, autists and Nazis living in their mothers' basements

fix'd

>>5840420

>it's an unspoken assumption

So you put words in their mouth where in fact there are none at all to prove this is an axiom among leftists.

>>5840420
>unspoken assumption
That's called a "strawman".

>>5840422
>>5840429
>thinking describing spontaneous human interaction as "le free market maymay" is a good argument against the theory of evolution by natural selection

>>5840430

Except historical materialism allows for more than just competition as the moving factor in history. ( f.e. the commons )
Cooperation is as important as competition in history.

You don't even need to read Marx to agree with this. A reading of Weber will give you the same observation.

>>5840439
Please stop trying to apply very basic biological principles to human norms. I physically cringe every time I read broscience like this.

>>5840439

>Hayek
>brought to you by the reader's club that claims lazy niggers make capitalism impossible

>>5840441
>there is no cooperation in the free market
>the free market doesn't encompass marxism
You're pretty sold on your marxist theory, tavarisch.

>>5840445
Sorry. Tell me which leftist mumbo-jumbo intersectional power analysis you want me to use instead

>>5840445
>Please stop doing thing it hurts my feelings
I agree with your position but that's a shitty way of arguing for it.

>>5840439

Explain to me how humanity remained stagnant for tens of thousands of years if we are designed to be the genitals of 'progress'?

Libertarians really can't into basic history for one fucking moment.

>>5840457
>>5840458
The point is that it's unscientific garbage. It doesn't hurt my feelings but my sense of basic scientific rigour.

>>5840464
>it hurts my abstract feelings
Still seeing just shitty arguing for our position

This thread is still a few posts removed from: "explain to me niggers then".
But we're getting there.

>>5840466
What the fuck? How is scientific rigour related to my feelings? What I've been trying to tell you is that you have no idea what you're talking about because your understanding of evolution probably stopped at high school and you think that's enough to draw retarded analogies, but I, as someone from the fucking field, am calling you out on your bullshit.

>>5840476
Oh, you're in the field? Amazing! Have you ever published major works on social science or won a Nobel Prize in economics though?

>>5840473
10/10

>>5840483
How does any of that relate to evolution, a fundamentally biological/mathetmatical issue?

>>5840476
Errr, it's not a scientific analogy. Evolutionary theories in political theory predate Darwin.

>>5840494
"Natural selection" though is a Darwinist notion at core.

>>5840495
No it isn't. Spontaneous progressive order through competition and unguided experience - ie natural selection - is a running theme in eighteenth century political thought (eg Mandeville, Smith, Ferguson, Burke etc)

>>5840476
>someone from the fucking field, am calling you out on your bullshit.
Oh, you're a STEMlord? Why not just keep your fedora out of big boy subjects like politics?

>>5840511
Oh great, there goes the false dichotomy. Only Americans would think of categorizing everything like that.

>>5840507
That's not exactly natural selection in the Darwinist sense of the term.

>>5840507
>>5840520
Actually it's not at all related to Darwinist evolution. Just because "stuff changes lol" doesn't make it less so.

>implying a vonnegut novel about state capitalism is right wing
lol, shitlist


also, is Dostoevsky really right wing? I haven't read Demons...

>>5840590
Dostoevsky was a monarchist and an Orthodox Christian.

>Right Wing Literature
>No Rothbard

>>5840772
>selling children is cool
>conservative

err no