Top 3 Reactionary Thinkers

[Anonymous No.14511279]

I feel like a man amongst the ruins. Who are the 3 thinkers I should read?

[Anonymous No.14511289]

>>14511279
Why, all you'll do is read half of the first suggestion's wiki article and then name drop him a few times here on 4channel.org over the next few months
I hate you

[Anonymous No.14511297]

>>14511289
I promise I won't. Give me those names.

[Anonymous No.14511300]

rousseau, thoreau, nick land

[Anonymous No.14511307]

The righty cant even into proactive planning and execution. Enjoy 2nd place looser.

[Anonymous No.14511310]

>>14511279
jordan peterson, joe rogan, and sam hyde

[Anonymous No.14511313]

>>14511300
>rousseau
>enligthenment philosopher
really anon, why would I read him...

[Anonymous No.14511316]

>>14511310
Hell yea

[Anonymous No.14511319]

>>14511279
A good start is reading Isaiah Berlin's lecture on Joseph de Maistre. It' provides really nice summary of his views and arguments:

http://berlin.wolf.ox.ac.uk/lists/nachlass/maistre.pdf

[Anonymous No.14511322]

>>14511310
>jordan peterson,
I cleaned my room

>joe rogan
I did dmt

>sam hyde
and I only speak in irony

[Anonymous No.14511323]

>>14511279
Plato Carlyle Yarvin in that order

Honorary mentions: Lamarck, Chesterton

[Anonymous No.14511333]

>>14511310
>no based sargon

[Anonymous No.14511335]

Oswald Spengler, Martin Heidegger, Friedrich Nietzsche (while a-political himself his thought lends itself the reactionary thinking). Don't bother responding to this post tripfag: you have already been filtered and you know who you are.

[Anonymous No.14511347]

>>14511279

[Anonymous No.14511371]

>>14511313
rousseau and thoreau both wanted to smash modernity and revert to a preindustrial state more than any self styled reactionary

[Anonymous No.14511412]

Maistre, Bonald, Donoso Cortés

[Anonymous No.14511426]

>>14511279
pic related

[Anonymous No.14511433]

>>14511307
the righty mighty bitey my bummy

[Anonymous No.14511439]

>>14511279
Emerson, Xenophon, Jünger

[Anonymous No.14511459]

>>14511279
Moses, St. John the Theologian and Heidegger

[Anonymous No.14511461]

>To give “the suffrage” to a poor man is to give him as large a part in determining that legislation which is mainly concerned with property as the banker whose name is known on every Exchange in Europe, as the merchant whose ships are in every sea, as the landowner who owns the soil of a whole manufacturing town... two day-labourers shall outvote Baron Rothschild... The bestowal upon any class of a voting power disproportionate to their stake in the country, must infallibly give that class a power pro tanto of using taxation as an instrument of plunder, and expenditure and legislation as a fountain of gain.

[Anonymous No.14511470]

>>14511439
2/
Though the problem with OP's question is that he is asking two different questions, who are the best reactionary thinkers, and who is the best to read. If he has to ask the question I assume he's asking for what he, as a beginner should read, and if so: >>14511279 Read Emerson's Self Reliance, Xenophon's Anabasis, and Jünger's Storm of Steel (the 1929 translation).

[Anonymous No.14511484]

>>14511439
>Jünger
Not a reactionary.

[Anonymous No.14511505]

>>14511484
He was an essential figure in the interwar Conservative Revolution, along with Spengler and Mann. Storm of Steel was a defining text of the movement.

[Anonymous No.14511509]

>>14511279
I assume most of us go through periods of utopian thought where we like to construct in our heads our "ideal" social order. Realise that such idealism disconnected from reality is lifeless and meaningless.
And if you're attracted to reactionary thinking - the notion of returning one's culture to a previous state - remember:
1) That previous state of one's culture, through the course of history, led it to where it is now.
2) That previous state of one's culture arose due to completely different circumstances and within a different context to those which exist now.
You would do better to pack up your pipedream of reversing the course of history to your perceived "golden age", and focus on the opportunities presented to you in the here and now.
This, for what it's worth, is a summary of part of Spengler's worldview. Anyone who reads Spengler and sees in him a reactionary, has not understood Spengler.
I'm looking at you >>14511335 you daft cunt.

I cannot tell you (OP) which are the most respected writers in reactionary circles, because my own sphere of interests is not in deluding myself.
Quasi-reactionary thought exists among mere conservatives, for whom the social order and mode of life they place on a pedestal still finds its expression in current politics - See the US Republicans, UK Conservatives, Australian Liberals. These are people fighting a rearguard action to maintain an ideology which was itself radical as recently as 170 years ago.
For people drawn by the allure of more ancient religious and regal institutions completely gutted of power, existing now only as husks, the realisation more readily dawns that the only way is forward. How you as an individual wish to progress, is up to you. On the surface one may believe that Spengler is at odds with Evola, or the perennialists - in reality they form a complimentary framework wherein the difference is the audience each addresses.
Spengler wrote for the man who wishes to play an active part in his culture now, with clarity of mind as to which opportunities still exist. Evola wrote for the man who - knowing themselves to be in quality, a man of a fundamentally different time - would seek to cultivate the spirit of the man of that time on an inward and individual level, to disengage from the turmoil of current events and allow them to pass unperturbed, carrying the spirit of another time through until such a time that circumstances may once again return for that quality to be outwardly expressed - but not to pursue it through outward political action at this moment, and not to imagine that this cyclic return would recover the meaningless superficial trappings of the previous culture, or represent a linear going backward in time.

[Anonymous No.14511512]

Thomas Carlyle
Joseph de Maistre
Friedrich Nietzsche
Julius Evola
Rene Guenon
W.B. Yeats
T.S. Eliot
Alain de Benoist
Guillaume Faye
Alexander Dugin
Sri Dharma Pravatarka Acharya
Jonathan Bowden

[Anonymous No.14511543]

>>14511505
And? Still not a reactionary.

[Anonymous No.14511548]

>>14511279
Homer.
Aristophanes.
Aeschylus.

[Anonymous No.14511567]

>>14511509
I agree that you cannot go back to that which has been. The 1930s were a result of EVERYTHING that came before, the High Medieval Times were a result of EVERYTHING that came before. We can only build and expand upon previous though, not replicate it. I'm not a LARPer like most people you see on /pol/. We are in the mess we are, the future will be like nothing that came before it. The only thing I wish for is that the future favors my ideals ("favors" being the key word here, because there will always be opposition).

I have, from, 5 years of deep rumination realize what's Bad and Undesirable in a civilization. The next question that I'm trying to answer, is, what's Good and desirable in a civilization? This question is much more complex, and I haven't even begun to tackle it. I have realized that history can't be my cheat sheet, I can't look back and copy everything I liked about a certain period, because there was so much going on then and there's so much going on now that it's totally incompatible to try to fit yesterday into today, or even tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.14511573]

>>14511543
If you fail to recognize the merits of heroism and bravery then you aren't a reactionary, and thus are in no position to determine what is and isn't reactionary. >>14511279 Take note, this subversive derailer does not want you to read this book for a reason. And if you are OP then i'm afraid you're too stupid to be a reactionary.

[Anonymous No.14511600]

>>14511567
>I have, from, 5 years of deep rumination
cringe

[Anonymous No.14511605]

>>14511543
He most definitely was. He’s been studied as one of the preeminent reactionary modernists of the twentieth century. He wrote tons of essays in right wing publications and expressed reactionary views especially in his earlier years.

[Anonymous No.14511608]

>>14511600
>cringe
ok, and?

[Anonymous No.14511616]

>>14511573
This is the kind of post you'd find in a deviantart roleplay session.

[Anonymous No.14511618]

>>14511567
>I have, from, 5 years of deep rumination realize what's Bad and Undesirable in a civilization.
Sitting in your room or asking questions?

[Anonymous No.14511639]

>>14511567
Here is a thought which I have considered, which you ought to as well.
Had I been born and raised in my golden age, I would have been content, I would not have asked questions, I would not have sought answers, I would have remained ignorant. The fact that the circumstances of this day and age have triggered an immune-like revulsion within that part of my being which remains ineffable, is possibly one of the greatest blessings I could have received.

It still sounds as if you are seeking to formulate a way to fix your ideal state of culture, or at least to ensure its longevity as best you can. I've come to believe that culture simply adopts the form of the men who exist in it, warts and all - and by externalising these flaws inherent within us, allow us to confront them directly. What you consider good and desirable will arise, in my opinion, when it is indeed good and desirable for it to do so.

>>14511573
I'm not that anon, but given I've also been calling people like you out on your shit for calling people reactionaries when they aren't reactionaries
>this subversive derailer does not want you to read this book for a reason
Jünger does not have to be a reactionary for it to be worthwhile reading him. Nor does Spengler, nor Evola, Guénon, de Benoist or any of the other purported "reactionaries" who have been name-dropped in this thread. In fact I would wholeheartedly encourage OP to read them all.
>>14511605
>expressed reactionary views especially in his earlier years
don't we all...

[Anonymous No.14511655]

Carl Schmitt
Machiavelli
Cioran

[Anonymous No.14511708]

>>14511573
In that book he literally says heroism is dead dumbass.

[Anonymous No.14511965]

>>14511509
Spengler's worldview is at odds with the traditionalists. Evola thinks time is cyclical, that things will eventually get better, while Spengler thinks time is linear, that things will never get better again.

[Anonymous No.14511983]

>>14511335
Neetchan explicitly hated reactionaries actually

[Anonymous No.14511988]

>>14511965
So Spengler has a Christian conception of time and Evola has a Pagan, got it.

[Anonymous No.14511991]

>>14511279
Reading to reinforce your ideology is not a very intelligent move.

[Anonymous No.14511995]

>>14511965
Things will never get better for the West, because it's a dying organism. There will be other organisms

[Anonymous No.14511998]

>>14511988
No. The key element of the orphic mysteries was to break the cycle of rebirth.

[Anonymous No.14512023]

>>14511991
>Reading to reinforce your ideology is not a very intelligent move.
to be fair I consume more Lefty media than Right Wing, for entertainment purposes. I have in the past 5 years had a dramatic transformation in my conception of the world.

I have grappled with other ideologies and come to realize that I disagree with them on a fundamental metaphysical level.

I'm totally at odds with Materialism, for instance. I derived my political beliefs from Metaphysics, so I think I'm on a sound foundation.

[Anonymous No.14512030]

There is not a single reactionary in this thread including op. Read the greeks, the bible, and hobbes. This is all that is necessary.

[Anonymous No.14512036]

>>14512023
>to be fair I consume more Lefty media than Right Wing
Like what?

[Anonymous No.14512037]

>>14511998
>orphic mysteries was to break the cycle of rebirth.
I do not know what that means, but what you explained in your previous post aligns perfectly with what I said. Christians too believe in linear time and that we are headed for the end times. Pagans believe in cyclical time.

[Anonymous No.14512047]

>>14512037
>I do not know what that means
Fuck off then, you don't know anything.

[Anonymous No.14512063]

>>14512047
>Fuck off then
Is that the best you got? lol Just because I haven't read Spengler means I don't know anything, can you be more autistic?

[Anonymous No.14512078]

>>14512036
>Like what?
I'm not going to engage in your bait.

[Anonymous No.14512107]

>>14512078
Because you're a lying /pol/tard that has never read a book.

[Anonymous No.14512128]

>>14512107
>Because you're a lying /pol/tard that has never read a book.
I love how I saved myself time and energy by unmasking your malignant intentions with one simple comment. Leftists are so predictable.

[Anonymous No.14512142]

>>14511279
Nicolás Goméz Dávila
Martin Heidegger
Oswald Spengler

[Anonymous No.14512147]

Guenon

[Anonymous No.14512149]

>>14512128
>Leftists are so predictable.
I am a great deal farther to the "right" than you are. It turns my stomach to see you schizophrenic nazi youth LARPERS pretending to be traditional when all you want to do is crawl back into the primeval forest and live like degenerate niggers. I can hardly wait for a mighty sovereign to take hold of this dying civilization and publicly execute every last one of you degenerates. You will bend the knee.

[Anonymous No.14512157]

>>14512149

[Anonymous No.14512170]

>>14512149
t.

[Anonymous No.14512178]

>>14511991
People only say this when someone is reading books about something they disagree with.

[Anonymous No.14512196]

>>14511279
you're trapped in the ruins of your brain after years of indoctrination by teenage frogposters

[Anonymous No.14512223]

>>14511335
Neet was explicitly against reactionary thought. The best examples of modern reactionaries are Lewis, Tolkein, and Chesterton, who all felt that man should return to his village so to speak, and live for love of thy neighbor. Neet was unbelievably critical of this way of thinking, and felt that the tower of babel could be built so tall that a few choice individuals could leap from it and fly around the heavens.

[Anonymous No.14512248]

>>14511371
please read an author before commenting on them.

[Anonymous No.14512517]

>>14511279
Heidegger and Spengler should surely be in the running

[Anonymous No.14512533]

>>14511279
Obviously, the most important 3:
>Rene Guenon
>Julius Evola
>Oswald Spengler

Other important people worth reading:
>Arthur Schopenhauer
>Friedrich Neitzsche
>Martin Heidegger

[Anonymous No.14513087]

Most people ITT do not have a single idea of what a reactionary is, except that guy.
>>14511412
No protestant or neopagan can be a reactionary.