/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5396608]

Does /lit/ have a left-wing reading chart similar to the attached pic?

[can you fuck off No.5396616]

can you fuck off

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.5396642]

lolwhat, since when blake is a right wing poet

[Anonymous No.5396672]

>>5396642
The list is stupid and was always stupid. A lot of it is either not right wing or not worth reading, and if such a list was required it could be a whole lot shorter.

[Anonymous No.5397294]

I don't believe there's much of a literary tradition to the conservative stance or to populism. Sometimes you will see an American commie eater regurgitate a Burke or a Montesquieu but for the most part they are doing so without intent or notice. They only books remotely related to philosophy that all the staunch conservatives have read are Plato, Clausewitz, Liddell-Hart and Edward Luttwak. I'm talking from my real life experience. The /pol/ lads are all abject lumpens who do not possess the patience to read anything. Take Anders Breivik: you had his fabulous conservative literature listed on facebook because he likes "conservative philosophy". But in court he was forced to reveal he's never read any of the books he has listed. The only thing he has read is wikipedia and the paranoid bigotry blogosphere.

[Anonymous No.5397360]

That image has unintentionally done a remarkably good job as bait for pretentious underread retards like >>5397294 to make fools of themselves

Yes OP, there are one or two floating around of fairly high quality. Might be on the wiki.

[Anonymous No.5397462]

>>5397360
There's "underbread" and "underthread" but "underread" is not a word.
>high quality
Extrapolate on this. That you have Saul Alinsky, Che Guevara and Amy Goodman on it, is it good or is it bad? What's your criterion for good? Good literature or representative of what all your "leftists" read? Right they're reading Piketty. I've seen people shoving around a fairly decent story by Pelevin on this American pro-democratic party blog. It's from the Ananas Water collection. Go into the people that you're calling "leftists", make list and do with it is whatever it is that you autists do with your lists.

[Anonymous No.5397469]

>Ernst Junger
>right wing
No one who has read The Forrest Passage can sincerely believe that

[Anonymous No.5397483]

>>5396608
The left has about a hundred good books for every one the right has, and even still the right has to appropriate a bunch of shit that's hardly "right wing". A left wing reading list would either so fucking large as you be ridiculous, or something leftists could never agree on due to their being too many excellent books to choose from and selection coming down to taste.

[Anonymous No.5397493]

>>5397483
This depends entirely on your definition of left and right.

[Anonymous No.5397496]

>>5397462
please stop

>>5397493
this

[Anonymous No.5397498]

>>5397469
Or take Marmorklippen. As I said, the conservative party people don't need to read. They're bureaucrats. They aren't intellectual. /pol/ muppets don't read for a different reason. They are getting high on attention and you're not getting any shouting insults into a book.

[Anonymous No.5397518]

>>5397496
What is it that pains you? If you are not articulate enough to explain it try a different board.
>>5397493
you have the wisdom of falcon

[Anonymous No.5397520]

>>5397469
He was a conservative, as was the secret germany circle. I think right wing and left wing are poor terms to categorize people by.

[Anonymous No.5397529]

>>5397483
What do you mean by "left"?

[Anonymous No.5397530]

>>5396608
No, because "left-wing" is an incoherent category and charts are faeces.

Theses Feuerbach, Gotha Programme, Socialism Utopian and Scientific.

[Anonymous No.5397537]

>>5397530
It's horrible to see that. Please delete that awful post.

[Anonymous No.5397540]

>>5397498
>>5397469
you're both retards who don't know anything about junger if you think he wasn't 'conservative' in at least some important senses, or politics if you either think conservative intellectuals are rare or frankly if you even care about such asinine divisions

you criticise /pol/ for being juvenile and you're both fucking high schoolers or undergrads who want to have big hot shit opinions before having read anything

>>5397520
this though

[Anonymous No.5397553]

>>5397520
Conservative is a very poor term to categorize people by as well.

[Anonymous No.5397556]

No, the whole reason that chart exists is Ecuador of how saturated academia is with left-wing works. When everything from Livy to Clifford the Big Red Dog is analyzed from a Marxist perspective and the far left is the favored topic of the university forum, that's when a list encompassing right wing intellectual works is created.

[Anonymous No.5397601]

>>5397540
just
>insults
>insults
>insults
By the sound you do have the very best credentials to speak about high schoolers.
>you either think conservative intellectuals are rare
How's Stahlgewitter different from, say, the Volakolamsk Highway? How is the one more conservative than the other? Without a context none of these descriptive terms make sense.

[Anonymous No.5397609]

>>5397556
Livy was quite the historical materialist. And he described class wars, too. He was a Marxist, alright.

[Anonymous No.5397621]

>>5397553
Seemed to work for Anders Breivik.

[Anonymous No.5397629]

>>5397520
He was a Stirnerist. Eumeswil sums up what politics meant to him.

[Anonymous No.5397630]

>>5397601
>By the sound you do have the very best credentials to speak about high schoolers.
yea verily, quite whilst rather, please exposit further on thine opinions mine gentlesir

you type like a faggot and you're also a retard

>How's Stahlgewitter different from, say, the Volakolamsk Highway?
i dunno, how about the fact that when he wrote it he was part of the CONSERVATIVE REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT, a group of prussian CONSERVATIVE nationalists directly opposed to leftist political movements in postwar germany

durrrrrrr maybe try reading more than his two most popular works, the only two ever mentioned on /lit/, before pontificating like a fag

[Anonymous No.5397656]

>>5397529
In favor of dismantling hierarchy.

[Anonymous No.5397685]

>>5397630
>yea verily, quite whilst rather, please exposit further on thine opinions mine gentlesir
>you type like a faggot and you're also a retard
>i dunno, how about the fact that when he wrote it he was part of the CONSERVATIVE REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT, a group of prussian CONSERVATIVE nationalists directly opposed to leftist political movements in postwar germany
And that way you are trying to prove me how you are not a high schooler?

[Anonymous No.5397707]

>>5397656
Dismantling the estates of the realm? How completely preposterous!

[Anonymous No.5397739]

>>5396608
Heinlein is right wing and listed as a fascist when he's a individualist, self-deterministic, free-love, anti-racist, small gov hippy?

[Anonymous No.5397743]

>>5397685
>be in right-wing paramilitary freikorps organisation postwar, with the guy who wrote 'The Third Reich' and the guy who legally justified Hitler's absolute dictatorial power
>be darling of conservatives and benign reactionaries for over 60 years
>be suspected of fascist sentiments by extremely prominent leftist intellectuals despite opposition to populism
>die
>within fifteen years, retarded people are claiming my war memoir was some kind of dispassionate realist tale of resignation and i might have been a leftist
>the one i wrote while i was in a freikorps organisation with 3/4s of the far right-wing nationalists in germany
>begin spinning around in circles

[Anonymous No.5397867]

>>5397743
>be in right-wing paramilitary freikorps organisation postwar
Well, there you go: You do yourself allow for non-paramilitary left-wing freikorps, as well. I would call Sturmabteilung Roßbach "para" military. They military leftists and his involvement there was pretty short.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels also published a nationalist newspaper demanding, amongst other things, a Ständestaat and a genocide for all of the Slavs. Stalin was involved in the church and, perhaps, in the okhranka. The Polish trade unions of the communist era were christian and national. There are a plenty of christian trade unions in America, as well. So: You're not getting us anywhere.
>who legally justified Hitler's absolute dictatorial power
Hitler... that does ring a bell. Ah. I know it: It's the socialist tyrant of Germany! It is their Caesar; One of their Populares. Anyhow, the Ermächtigungsgesetz was pushed without the involvement of Ernst Jünger. So: go read a book on history and a manual on style. Dictatorial power is unlimited by definition.

[Anonymous No.5397885]

>>5397743
>be in right-wing paramilitary freikorps organisation postwar
Well, there you go: You do yourself allow for non-paramilitary left-wing freikorps. I wouldn't call Sturmabteilung Roßbach "para" military. They were military leftists and Jünger's involvement there was, anyhow, pronouncedly short.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels also published a nationalist newspaper demanding, amongst other things, a Ständestaat and a genocide for all of the Slavs. Are they right or left? What about Stalin? He was involved in the church at first and he was a nationalist through and through. Just read his early poetry! He plans for the minorities of every kinds have not been exactly rosy either. We aren't getting anywhere.
>who legally justified Hitler's absolute dictatorial power
Hitler... that does ring a bell. Ah. I know it: It's the socialist tyrant of Germany! It is their Caesar; One of their Populares. Anyhow, the Ermächtigungsgesetz was pushed without the involvement of Ernst Jünger. So: go read a book on history and a manual on style. Dictatorial power is unlimited by definition.

[Anonymous No.5397938]

>>5397885
>still unfamiliar with Conservative Revolutionaries
>arguing against the person who has been saying from his very first post that left and right are stupid categories, by saying that left and right are stupid categories
>using tenuous connection between socialism and.. populism? to meaninglessly namedrop the roman populares (si artem lingua ostentare inaniter volabis, te gratificabo)
>completely non sequitur mentioning the nazis' rise to power, in german
>non sequitur responding to hitler's dictatorial power, presumably missing the reference to schmitt

stopp!

[Anonymous No.5397969]

>>5397938
If you'd call Caesar a "conservative" go find yourself a thread on /b/!

[Anonymous No.5397984]

>>5397938
parenti pls go

[Anonymous No.5397986]

>>5397739
>Heinlein is right wing
>individualist, self-deterministic, free-love, small gov
Yes. These are all textbook libertarianism.
>hippy
>pic related

[Anonymous No.5397988]

>>5397984
meant for >>5397969

>>5397986
that's why it's so fucking stupid

cortes is on there and he's a classical liberal, even libertarian, who is droning on about murdering all the leftists who would dare be revolutionary against the state

[Anonymous No.5397998]

>Left-wing
>Why?

Read this: http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/05/credo-a-nietzschean-testament/

Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noM_3mVdf8M

[Anonymous No.5398013]

>>5397739
have you even read starship troopers?

[Anonymous No.5398019]

>>5397986
>pic

>>5397988
>a classical liberal, even libertarian
You don't understand libertarianism.

[Anonymous No.5398025]

>>5398013
>belief in semicompulsory military service automatically makes one fascist regardless of any other opinions

[Anonymous No.5398037]

>>5398025
>starship troopers is about free love, tolerance, small government and is for hippies

[Anonymous No.5398049]

>>5398037
I've actually only read ST but I keep hearing everywhere that his works tend farther to the left.

[Anonymous No.5398063]

>>5397938
>>still unfamiliar with Conservative Revolutionaries
do explain
>>arguing against the person who has been saying from his very first post that left and right are stupid categories, by saying that left and right are stupid categories
No. You're saying Jünger is a "conservative" "rightist" opposed to "leftwing" political movements. Which is nonsense. It was a small national antiimp liberation movement like those that would appear in the entire third world.
>>using tenuous connection between socialism and.. populism? to meaninglessly namedrop the roman populares (si artem lingua ostentare inaniter volabis, te gratificabo)
Lingua should be in the genitive. Are you, perchance, American?
>>completely non sequitur mentioning the nazis' rise to power, in german
This is getting silly now. The Ermächtigungsgesetzt is what gave Hitler dictatorial powers and it is in no way related to Ernst Jünger. There was no reference to Carl Schmitt. Den kenne ich sehr gut, du kommunistisches Schwein.

[Anonymous No.5398072]

>>5398037
Of course it's for hippies, alias the völkisch movement.

[Anonymous No.5398085]

>>5398063
junger was in a conservative palingenetic nationalist movement, the hallmark of weimar (and interwar, and to some extent just prewar) right wing philosophy, with comparatively little explicit support on the left

i'm saying that it's not a grand affront to say "junger was conservative", at least with proper qualifications, and that such qualifications aren't even necessary if you just take a flexible stance to the right/left dichotomy and interpret OP's chart as "people interested in works vaguely considered 'right' might be interested in these works or works by these authors'

lingua is an ablative of respect

>and it is in no way related to Ernst Jünger.
hence 'non sequitur', more latin 4 u

>There was no reference to Carl Schmitt
>>5397938
>the guy who legally justified Hitler's absolute dictatorial power
In July 1934, [Schmitt published] "The Leader Protects the Law (Der Führer schützt das Recht)", a justification of the political murders of the Night of the Long Knives with the authority of Hitler as the "highest form of administrative justice (höchste Form administrativer Justiz)".

LICK MY BALLLLLLLLLLS

[Anonymous No.5398153]

>>5398085
>junger was in a conservative palingenetic nationalist movement, the hallmark of weimar (and interwar, and to some extent just prewar) right wing philosophy, with comparatively little explicit support on the left
But he was the left.
Who else? What? Stalin?
Of course he was a leftist if he got involved with the national socialist movement and all his philosophy is therefore leftist philosophy.
>i'm saying that it's not a grand affront to say "junger was conservative", at least with proper qualifications, and that such qualifications aren't even necessary if you just take a flexible stance to the right/left dichotomy and interpret OP's chart as "people interested in works vaguely considered 'right' might be interested in these works or works by these authors'
Since the term is meaningless it's not a grand affrondtto say the same thing about every other author in existance - Lunacharskiy, for example. Or Alexander Bek.
>In July 1934, [Schmitt published] "The Leader Protects the Law (Der Führer schützt das Recht)", a justification of the political murders of the Night of the Long Knives with the authority of Hitler as the "highest form of administrative justice (höchste Form administrativer Justiz)".
And where is Jünger?
Are you trying to appear smarter than you are to an internet stranger right now? Your real life must be a terrible mess. Lest you rethink it nobody's gonna ever lick your balls, expect, maybe, for your dog. Go get a dog.

[Anonymous No.5398165]

>>5398153
> Of course he was a leftist if he got involved with the national socialist movement and all his philosophy is therefore leftist philosophy.
Hey everyone, Hitler and the Nazis were leftists. Now you know.

[Anonymous No.5398169]

>>5398153
sure if you want to be like a radical contrarian or something (which seems to be what you're going for, so i can't even tell if we're fake-arguing at cross purposes anymore) but my original point was simply against people who were shallowly interpreting e.g. marble cliffs as blanket anti-authoritarianism

regarding the final quote/response, i am too lazy to reconstruct the exchange, but i mentioned that junger was in a group with several people including schmitt ("crown juror of the third reich" etc.).

[Anonymous No.5398198]

>>5396608
Question: Why is T.S. Eliot's poetry labelled as anti-semetic/racist. Was there something I missed?

[Anonymous No.5398202]

>>5398169
>crown juror
Stop trying, kraut. You cannot into English. It didn't take a Schmitt for a Louis Napoleon so it's more than silly to place him as some kind of a big bad father of all things that are somehow wrong with Germany.
I know this kind of inquisitorial thinking was popular amongst post-war krauts because they had to blame something irrelevant. So they went for the evil ideas of evil people like schmitt.
>>5398198
by whom? go and look it up. I have never heard of that.

[Anonymous No.5398208]

>>5398165
Of course they were leftists. They're best described as the European offshot of the Progressivism of Teddy Roosevelt. Now tell me how the Roosevelts are not leftists, bro.

[Anonymous No.5398214]

>>5398202
again i think you think i'm arguing something that i'm not because your reply (like several others, and like i imagine mine are appearing to you) seems non sequitur, since i'm literally a nazi myself

>>5398198
same as many other things on the chart, he was mentioned in the thread and presumably OP selected his most famous work or something? either way, he did have some fairly extreme views in his private correspondence

[Anonymous No.5398225]

>>5398214
You are a nazi who also wants to be conservative? Tough luck.
>extreme views in his private correspondence
like what?

[Anonymous No.5398251]

>>5398198
>I haven’t read “The Waste Land” for a year, and I never did bother to check all the footnotes. But I will hazard these statements — Eliot contains the same ecstatic vision which runs from Münzer to Yeats. However, he retains a grounding in the social reality/order of his time. Facing what he perceives as a choice between ecstatic chaos and lifeless mechanistic order, he accedes to maintaining a separation of asexual purity and brutal sexual reality. And he wears a stoical face before this. Read his essay on Tradition and the Individual Talent, as well as Four Quartets, when he’s less concerned with depicting moribund Europe, to catch a sense of what I speak. Remember how I said there’s a certain kind of conservatism which I respect more than bourgeois liberalism — Eliot is of this type. Of course, the dichotomy he maintains is reactionary, but it’s due to a deep fatalism, not ignorance. (Counter him with Yeats or Pound, who, arising from the same milieu, opted to support Hitler and Mussolini.) And this fatalism is born out of the relation between fertility and death, which I touched on in my last letter — life feeds on itself. A fatalism I share with the western tradition at times. You seem surprised at Eliot’s irreconcilable ambivalence; don’t you share this ambivalence yourself, Alex?

[Anonymous No.5398261]

>>5398251
Good quote. Doesn't answer why Eliot is apparently racist. I knew he was reactionary, but reactionary and racist are not the same thing.

[Anonymous No.5398283]

>>5398261
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/16/magazine/bigotry-in-motion.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._S._Eliot#Allegations_of_anti-Semitism

[Anonymous No.5398333]

>>5398283
Alright, thanks.

[Anonymous No.5398482]

So many of these opinions are retarded. Claiming that there is no "right wing" literature and only those who wrote on the total of being "against hierarchy" are intelligent or worth reading is ignorant.
People implying Junger wasn't conservative, that tells me they haven't read anything by him and just go off of blog posts or project the shit out of his work

[Anonymous No.5398534]

>>5397707
You don't dismantle the estates. You just change their members.

The aristocracy becomes organized crime, the clergy and the Church becomes the bureaucracy and the State and everything goes on as always.