/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7036205]

let's talk about right-wing literature (although i'm more interested in philosophers) and not just posting the famous chart, but expanding our knowledge on books, writers and thinkers

[Anonymous No.7036226]

Are there any good memoirs written by former SS men?

Preferably not too gung-ho "HITLER DID NOTHING WRONG," and more on the side of "we were just trying to stop Bolshevism, man" kind of thing.

[Anonymous No.7036264]

>right-wing anything
I remember being 12 yo, mate. Diversity is the best thing to society and its future, so go back to /pol/.

[Anonymous No.7036270]

[Anonymous No.7036291]

>>7036205

I was thinking of creating a replacement for this chart, focused more on the philosophy and "conservatism", and taking out stupid shit like Savitri Devi. Here's my list thus far:

Aristotle
Cicero
Aquinas
(Machiavelli)
Filmer
Hobbes
Hume
Burke
(Federalists?)
De Maistre
Hegel
(Nietzche?)
Schmitt
Strauss
Oakeshott

Anybody I'm missing

[Anonymous No.7036297]

>>7036291
But the only guys on that list that could be called conservative or right-wing in any sense, is Hobbes and Burke, and maybe Aristotle.

[Anonymous No.7036306]

>>7036297

In what sense are the rest not right wing?

[Anonymous No.7036321]

>>7036297
I think a right (or left for that matter) wing reading list doesn't necessarily have to contain authors that are explicitly right wing
that being said it's fairly easy to label something right wing in a world where defending masculinity is seen as right wing

[Anonymous No.7036325]

>>7036291

OP here

I'd be nice to have a replacement (if not, a improvement)

I'd add Julius Evola, La Rochelle, Ludwig Von Mises

[Anonymous No.7036340]

>>7036325

By La Rochelle do you mean La Rochefoucauld? I have no idea who that is.

[Anonymous No.7036353]

Your first mistake is not elucidating what you take right/left to mean. The second mistake is applying the dichotomy anachronistically or where it is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.7036355]

>>7036226
I'm currently reading pic related, I've only started. From the reviews I've read it makes you empathize with Hess.

[Anonymous No.7036360]

>>7036264
What are you preferred gender pronouns?

[Anonymous No.7036369]

>>7036353
obviously the dichotomy means different things at different times but I think the unifying (but not defining) factor is the argument for aristocracy and elitism in general
but yeah you can't contain the entirety of right wing thought and history into one brief list

[Anonymous No.7036372]

>>7036369
>I think the unifying (but not defining) factor is the argument for aristocracy and elitism in general
That's wrong dumb dumb

[Anonymous No.7036375]

>>7036372
what would you say it is?

[Anonymous No.7036378]

>>7036353

I don't think anachronism is really a problem. No, Aquinas isn't really a conservative or right wing, because those terms would make no sense at the time he was writing. But his writings are relevant to conservatism today, which makes them worth today.

[Anonymous No.7036379]

>>7036375
Right : conservative
Left : progressive

[Anonymous No.7036382]

>>7036321
what are some good books that defend traditional masculinity?

I've read The Way of Men and A Sky Without Eagles by Jack Donovan, and I'm looking for more stuff like this.

Is he the vanguard or is there a deep vein of masculine authors I'm overlooking?

[Anonymous No.7036386]

>>7036379

Rousseau is pretty important for the left wing, but he certainly didn't believe in progress. He was, however, an egalitarian which is a less ambiguous reason to call him left wing.

[Anonymous No.7036392]

>>7036378

*worth reading

[Anonymous No.7036394]

>>7036379
buzzwords that mean nothing
>>7036382
idk it depends how you define masculinity
try Meditations maybe?

[Anonymous No.7036397]

>>7036386
Hello! Parla usted inglese?

In the context of the times he was progressive.
You can't talk about left/right politics without acknowledging the context of time period.

[Anonymous No.7036405]

>>7036394
left/right political dichotomy isn't buzzword you absolute mong

[Anonymous No.7036412]

>>7036405
no but to imply that right = preservation of the status quo while left = departure from status quo is silly

[Anonymous No.7036414]

I just finished reading ride the tiger today, thought it was kind of genius actually

[Anonymous No.7036421]

>>7036340

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Drieu_La_Rochelle

[Anonymous No.7036438]

"Right-Wing" literature stopped existing after the French Revolution and the Enlightenment.

For example one can historically see this change:

pre-revolution and concurrently to it: Philosophic-religious justification for Absolute Monarchy. (Burke, De Maistre)

post-revolution: Justification for Republican Tory-ism , defined by enlightenment values (Hume, Kant, Hegel, Rousseau)


The most elusive is reactionarism which was was never a legitimate movement, for example Nietzsche is not exactly a reactionary but an aristocratic anarchist with more in common with Machiavelli (grand politics) than Junker. Junker on the other hand advocated a purely Platonic republic built on common values.

Another aspect of this misunderstanding is that Nazism and Fascism were confused for reactionary movements (i.e. traditionalism) when in fact they were the penultimate expression for the Enlightenment. (culminating in techno-scientific nihilism as Heidegger discovered)

A good deal of this opposition is found in Thomas Man's book The Magic Mountain, especially Enlightenment Humanism vs. Communitarian traditionalism. But it is a fact that traditionalism was never a movement in politics,but an incarnation of various "resistances" against Capitalism (Catholicism is especially noteworthy for it's resistance to the new order of things)

[Anonymous No.7036453]

>>7036382

[Anonymous No.7036457]

>>7036438
>"Right-Wing" literature stopped existing after the French Revolution and the Enlightenment.
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.7036466]

>>7036386
>but he certainly didn't believe in progress.
By "progressive" I don't mean necessarily wanting progress, but wanting to change the status quo.

>>7036412
>is silly
It's the correct definition.

[Anonymous No.7036474]

>>7036457

If you want proof, take any "right-wing" author after the French Revolution, and you will find out that they are all spawns of the Enlightenment.

Since today nobody is seriously advocating a return to absolute Monarchy (which it too was effectively part of the Enlightenment) everyone both left and right has retreated to defending Enlightenment values.

For example non-Enlightenment traditionalism is Islamic fundamentalism, or the Ayatollah of Iran, it is a way for a retro-active return to a past system of governance, so much so that even Foucault was impressed by this demolition f the enlightenment in Iran, that he congratulated the Islamic Revolution there.

[Anonymous No.7036488]

>>7036474
The enlightenment is not left-wing.

You can't go back that far and say "everything which differs afterwards is left-wing". Otherwise you could say that civilization is left-wing while banging two rocks together in a cave is right-wing.

[Anonymous No.7036525]

>>7036205
>Starship Troopers
>fascist
Holy shit fuck off whoever made this chart. It's literally Athenian Democracy - the citizen-soldier governs and assists in controlling the State, the civilian is free in terms of social movement so long as they dedicate themselves physically to the preservation of the State.

Anyways is Monkey House any good? I read Slaughterhouse 5 recently and, while I like Vonnegut's style the story felt sort of indecisive about what the point was.

[Anonymous No.7036551]

>>7036488

The Enlightenment is neither right-wing nor left wing, it a system of thought, more specifically of "reason". For example both Kant and de Sade are part of the enlightenment even tough they have nothing politically in common.

[Anonymous No.7036912]

dsf

[Anonymous No.7036949]

That chart is in desperate need of revision.

[Anonymous No.7036983]

>>7036297

De Maistre literally invented conservatism, Nietzsche's actual political views were pro-aristocracy, anti-nationalist, anti-equality, anti-feminist, anti-socialist, etc, and Schmitt( who just completed what De Maistre started) and Strauss were the poster boys for 20th century conservative intellectualism.

>>7036438

>Another aspect of this misunderstanding is that Nazism and Fascism were confused for reactionary movements (i.e. traditionalism) when in fact they were the penultimate expression for the Enlightenment. (culminating in techno-scientific nihilism as Heidegger discovered)

Yes, this part is spot on.

But "Right Wing" literature doesn't exist until after the French Revolution and the Enlightenment, you are mistaking it's birth for it's death. You have Reactionary writers all throughout in the 19th and 20th century , and still do today. Donoso Cortes, De Bonald, Lammenais, Evola, Maurras, Schmitt( early works), etc. There was also the Catholic Neo-Scholastic revival which transfused Scholasticism into political Catholicism in the 19th century as well- even if the movement never really made the impact it was supposed to. These days we even have those " Dark Enlightenment" guys. Reducing all conservatism to a raw return to absolute monarchy is silly. One needs to only be convinced of the reality that sovereignty is immutable and undivided so to be conservative. There has been persisting right wing skepticism of Republicanism since De Maistre, and there have been legitimate conservative political groups like Maurras' Action Francaise, even if they were a failure politically.