/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17708524]

Besides Maistre, Evola and BAP, what is some essential, hardcore, in-your-face trad /lit/?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.17708534]

The wicked queen has a brother into that junk.
He wants to be hardcore

[Anonymous No.17708535]

>>17708524
>de Maistre
>Evola
>BAP
One of these things is not like the others.

[Anonymous No.17708536]

If you want to be Trad, why not just read actual traditional books like Homer, Kant, or Dante

[Anonymous No.17708541]

>>17708524
Shitty bait

[Anonymous No.17708550]

there is no good trad literature because literature is art and reactionaries cannot into art, only shitty regurgitation of bygone ideas that are bygones for a reason... it's a contradiction in terms

[Anonymous No.17708552]

>>17708534
butters, from one "appreciator-of-attractive women"-person to another, do you find the wicked queen hot too?

[Anonymous No.17708564]

>>17708524
All schlock. Read a real philosopher.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.17708574]

>>17708552
She’s very nice looking. Political immaturity, and the fact she’s a married bourgeois, doesn’t mean I can’t look.
Haven’t actually fanaticized about her though

[Anonymous No.17708580]

>>17708524
Bap isn't trad at all. He literally calls himself a part of the "futurist right"

[Anonymous No.17708584]

>>17708535
None of these are alike at all
>Catholic Monarchist from the early modern period
>Right wing esoteric magician
>Academic faggot larping as a bodybuilder

[Anonymous No.17708587]

>>17708550
>reactionaries

[Anonymous No.17708594]

>>17708524
Start with the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.17708596]

>>17708587
what are traditionalists if not reactionary larpers

[Anonymous No.17708600]

>>17708550
>reactionaries cannot into art

[Anonymous No.17708601]

>1960s
>tradition

[Anonymous No.17708605]

>>17708535
Is it BAP because he's talentless?

[Anonymous No.17708612]

>>17708550
>reactionaries cannot into art

[Anonymous No.17708622]

>>17708605
Yes because >>17708580

[Anonymous No.17708626]

>>17708612
Exactly

[Anonymous No.17708627]

>>17708550
Yup that's why stalinist russia reached the peak of human art.

[Anonymous No.17708632]

>>17708626
Funny that you didn't quote my Baudelaire pic, you're a dishonest fraud.

[Anonymous No.17708637]

>>17708550
Ah yes, because getting rid of traditional values has gone great hasn’t it? Also, don’t forget to invest in bulletproof glass for your car, you disgusting fucking urbanite

[Anonymous No.17708646]

>17708632
Baudelaire wasn't a reactionary, retard

[Anonymous No.17708649]

>>17708637
>because getting rid of traditional values has gone great hasn’t it
they weren't "gotten rid of" by a masked zionist cabal, they sunk into irrelevance naturally ergo the term traditional
go back to pol retard

[Anonymous No.17708660]

>>17708649
So what do you call those who are forgotten?

[Anonymous No.17708661]

>>17708660
i call them poltards >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.17708663]

>>17708637
>getting rid
We didn't get rid of them, people just naturally realized they were BS just like with religion, the death of God is the death of tradition as well and there's nothing you can do to stop it. There's no believing in Santa Claus again

[Anonymous No.17708673]

>>17708627
Stalinist russia was traditionalist in many aspects

[ironic poster No.17708675]

>>17708637
yes now that there are no reactionaries we have the best art

[Anonymous No.17708690]

>>17708596
>what are traditionalists if not reactionary larpers

[Anonymous No.17708701]

>>17708675
There's still kitsch "trad" garbage like pic related being made for faggots like you though.

[Anonymous No.17708732]

>>17708675
The fact you think your cherrypicked image stands for all modern art is just laughable, and really shows the overall ignorance regarding art of /pol/tards. You don't really care about "art" beyond petty virtue signaling.

[Anonymous No.17708743]

>>17708701
>kitsch
i see this word a lot, which seems to mean any art that isn't violently offensive to the senses or that doesn't induce some kind of schizophrenia or confusion. why do modern artists hate the thought of aesthetic beauty (or, failing beauty, at least being tolerable to behold)? why isn't there a little voice in the back of their heads telling them that historians of the future will say things like "...and here you can see a clear example of the degeneration of art near the turn of the 21st century, when everything turned into fucking gibberish"?

[Anonymous No.17708744]

>>17708649
>>17708663
Nice same fag. They where gotten rid of, through both lack of maintenance and through active measures (encouraging of looser relational and sexual limitations, secularization of the family and media, and the laissez-faire attitude towards moral degeneracy).
>the death of God
You can’t kill God. But you can only condemn yourself to burn internal in the depths of hell. Enjoy your time there
>Tradition is irrelevant
Is that what your sociology teacher drilled into your head, as you got into thousands of dollars of debt? Or did you come up with that moronic observation on your own?
>>17708701
>w-what is this? It’s an actual painting, where the artist took time and energy to create a work that he felt represented his beliefs and ideals? That’s so lame. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go visit real art, like pic related

[Anonymous No.17708749]

>>17708673
You'd get in trouble for saying that in stalinist russia.

[Anonymous No.17708759]

>>17708550
>reactionaries cannot into art
if you use the word "into" like this then literally everything you say is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.17708769]

>>17708744
Why would I even give that painting the time of the day when Caravaggio exists? I'm glad you want art to stay the same for all eternity (and luckily for you, some people also do, which means you'll never stop seeing revivalist shlock like that), personally I'd like to see something different. The good thing is that there's no one deciding what art you should make for you now, so you're essentially complaining about nothing, since the art you like is still being made. You're just mad you don't get modern art and can't stand people enjoying something you can understand. Pathetic.

[Anonymous No.17708777]

>>17708744
Here's your """trad""" art btw, maybe Evola really was based after all!

[Anonymous No.17708785]

>>17708744
why would you need maintenance or active measures to uphold the truth? self-own
>>17708759
kys

[Anonymous No.17708787]

>>17708777
fucking kek did he really? holy shit i had no idea

[Anonymous No.17708798]

>>17708732

[Anonymous No.17708805]

>>17708785
(You)

[Anonymous No.17708806]

>>17708744
>through both lack of maintenance
That means they were not worth maintaining. You need to go back to pol immediately.

[Anonymous No.17708822]

guys can we get a real discussion instead of just name calling and basedjak reacting? This seems like a big waste of our precious lives.

[Anonymous No.17708834]

>>17708550
Congratulations, you triggered the chuds. Now what's the next step in your master plan???

[Anonymous No.17708839]

This entire thread is full of glowies. JUST FUCK OFF CIA NIGGERS FUCK OFF FUCK OFF FUCK OFF LEAVE MY FUCKING BOARD ALONE GLOWNIGGERS

[Anonymous No.17708844]

>>17708550
One dimensional childish semiotics of le mean conservatives that are anti-art and anti-cultural expression pushed by think tanks financed by ideologue plutocrats only work on the most primitive of subhumans. The Catholic Church and other traditional conservative institutions have been in the vanguard of scientific and artistic development for most of human history until extremely recently. The Da Vinci's, Michelangelos, Caravaggio's and Hyeronimosu Bosch's of the world all worked for the Church at some point and produced utilitarian, religious art that was and still is the pinnacle of artistic technique.

What are the great developments of secular art? After the enlightenment and the "natural" departure of art away from the religious and traditional structures, the evolution of lefitst philosophy naturally opposed to objective order and the concept of objective hierarchies of quality devolved art into the allegedly experimental modernist movement, only to destroy even that into the post-modernist cope that we have nowadays into the form of abstract expressionism full of obscurantism that we can use to pretend that Basquiat had some talent.

In face of a cliff the only path is to return. Anti-traditionalist thought and so called philosophies of progress and evolution have only devolved the objective quality of all things to the point of begging on their knees that objectivity is rejected in all areas.

[Anonymous No.17708909]

>>17708822
I agree. Also, what is this image?

[Anonymous No.17708910]

>>17708844
>muh objectivity
Wow, so objective that people managed to move away from it.

[Anonymous No.17708917]

>>17708844
>The Catholic Church and other traditional conservative institutions
The church is traditional in retrospect but at the time they were indeed a scientific vanguard... and they owe it to their monopoly on education and literacy. The rest of your post is cringy conjecture. I bet you really thought this was some silver bullet.

[Anonymous No.17708928]

>>17708524
sorry, what literary work(s) are you discussing here?

[Anonymous No.17708934]

>>17708524
What happened to women?

[Anonymous No.17708945]

>>17708934
Feminism. It's being made more and more evident that women simply shouldn't have rights. They're mentally children and that's how they've been traditionally treated as. You can see what disaster women's rights have driven us into now.

[Anonymous No.17708966]

>>17708626
He's literally written operas. What have you done lmao

[Anonymous No.17708971]

>>17708550
>reactionaries cannot into art,
don't liberals say form follows function?

[Anonymous No.17708981]

>>17708966
>operas
The talentless hack's preferred format

[Anonymous No.17708997]

>>17708917
Being a scientific vanguard does not make an institution non-traditional or conservative, the only reason you think so is because you got an extremely simplistic, reductionist view of the world instilled into you, to the point of genuinely believing in some kind of monopoly on literacy from the Church, falling into the same abstract primitive symbols of the powerful all-encompassing church that ruled everything around it as some sort of Dystopic despotic force.

[Anonymous No.17709015]

>>17708822
Having the same stupid arguments here every day is a big waste of our precious lives, which is why I post basedjak instead

[Anonymous No.17709020]

>>17708997
>genuinely believing in some kind of monopoly on literacy from the Church
There is no belief here. Unlike you my worldview is grounded in reality. History proves you wrong, unless of course you are referring to the artists of the renaissance, whom are transformative and transgressive by nature- in which case your whole point about traditionalism falls apart.

[Anonymous No.17709028]

OP I told you last time to stop posting your shitty twitter profile. America, in any stage of its history, is strictly incompatible with Traditionalism.

[Anonymous No.17709064]

>>17708844
>After the enlightenment and the "natural" departure of art away from the religious and traditional structures, the evolution of lefitst philosophy naturally opposed to objective order and the concept of objective hierarchies of quality devolved art into the allegedly experimental modernist movement, only to destroy even that into the post-modernist cope that we have nowadays into the form of abstract expressionism full of obscurantism that we can use to pretend that Basquiat had some talent.
Great post overall, I think this paragraph is the core of everything: liberalism or leftism or progressivism or whatever is opposed to excellence in its very heart, because the concept of excellence is intimately linked to hierarchies and thus to inequality. In the end art is no other thing than imprinting order to a chaotic mass, like the angel of Michelangelo is an expression of the divine order over the raw matter represented by the marble block. What you have after denying order is disorder, the primal mass, the space of infinite possibilities. The anti-art: if everything can be art, art no longer exists.

[Anonymous No.17709083]

>>17708536
None of those are books.

[Anonymous No.17709099]

>>17709064
>the concept of excellence is intimately linked to hierarchies
open a history book, monarchies collapsed precisely because they stifled excellence

[Anonymous No.17709104]

>>17708596
NO STOP YOU CAN'T JUST ENJOY THAT WHAT ABOUT MY COMMUNIST RHETORIC

[Anonymous No.17709130]

>>17708580
>futurist right
No such thing. The left-right terms originate from French revolution and, in essence, left equals progressivism and right equals conservatism/reactionism. Therefore BAP is a leftist, just like Nietzsche is a leftist, even though they are both considered "politically-incorrect" by modern "leftists" (faggots).