/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4283238]

I'd like to continue our discussion about traditionalist / conservative / reactionary literature. Moreover, let's expand the list in this picture.

DISCLAIMER: Please respect all global rules. Keep civil. Refrain from racism, shit-posting, /pol/ meme-spamming, etc. This thread is intended as a forum to discuss and recommend traditionalist/reactionary authors, literature, and philosophy.

NOTE TO JANITOR: The last thread was posted in good faith, for the purpose of discussing a large subset of literature and philosophy. Threads on anarchist and socialist literature appear fairly regularly on /lit/. Any shitposting should be the responsibility of those who shitpost, not those seeking civil conversation. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.4283326]

Where's WB Yeats?

[Anonymous No.4283331]

I'd like to know the reasoning behind putting Blake in there.

[Anonymous No.4283341]

>>4283326
Also "Patriarchia, or the natural power of kings" by Robert Filmer and Jean Bodin's "On sovereignty".

[Anonymous No.4283349]

...and WIL PYNCHON APPEARS!

Revolted yet, "them"?

[Anonymous No.4283370]

>>4283238
What about Ernest Gellner?

[Anonymous No.4283389]

I just finished reading some of Joseph de Maistre's work. His Considerations on France was a pretty good traditionalist perspective on the revolution.
link to his work:
http://maistre.ath.cx:8000/

[Anonymous No.4283462]

I'm interested in reading Julius Evola. Which of his books should I start with?

[Anonymous No.4283473]

>>4283462
His trilogy: Men Among the Ruins or Revolt Against the Modern World first, then Ride the Tiger.

[Anonymous No.4283480]

>>4283473
>>4283462
I agree that his trilogy is the best place to start, however each book is more suitable as a introduction for certain readers.
If you're more interested in philosophy (especially existential) start with Ride the Tiger
If you're more interested with history or his concept of tradition start with Revolt
If you're more interested with politics then start with Men Among Ruins

[Anonymous No.4283483]

I'm quite interested to see when Evola's more 'pure philosophic' works will come out such as the Phenomenology of the Absolute Individual. Although he says in Path of Cinabar that he overcame philosophy and rejects these former views, it would still be interesting to see his arguements

[Anonymous No.4283525]

>>4283480
>>4283462
>>4283473
I would also add that if you're more interested in religion and esotericism then Guenon would be the best place to start, since almost all of Evola's views on these subjects are influenced in some way by Guenon's analysis of modernism and tradition, despite their later disagreements on action vs. contemplation.

Pic related is Guenon's most accesible work.

[Anonymous No.4283595]

This list definitely needs Leo Strauss and David Bell.

[Anonymous No.4283670]

>>4283525
>despite their later disagreements on action vs. contemplation.
I've recently started reading Guenon and have noticed this distinction between the two, although find myself on Evola's side of the fence because of my unfortunate tendency to disproportionately favor contemplation in my everyday life.

[Anonymous No.4283681]

>>4283670
If you had a tendency towards contemplation then you would favour Guneon, not Evola, as the latter was in favour of action.

[Anonymous No.4283875]

>>4283238

storm of steel was fiction?

[Anonymous No.4283877]

>>4283331

According to the chart it's due to his religiosity. It's arguable that he had some proto-libertarian views, but he could equally be construed as being to the left I guess.

[Anonymous No.4283882]

Needs this: http://matthewgleslie.com/post/31114643460/the-dark-enlightenment-the-complete-series-by-nick

The Dark Enlightenment/Neoreaction is all that's left of the right now.

[Anonymous No.4283897]

>>4283238
not this thread again

[Anonymous No.4283901]

>>4283875
It saw many editions and they were all portraying subtly different things

[Anonymous No.4283916]

T.S Eliot racist?

[Anonymous No.4283919]

>>4283916
Quick Google and apparently he was a racist anti-semite.

Also, fuck, Hannah Arendt is a bro:
>Hannah Arendt discounted Martin Heidegger's Nazi sympathies by arguing that an ''inclination toward the tyrannical could be demonstrated theoretically in many of the great thinkers.

[Anonymous No.4283920]

>>4283916
No he's dead

[Anonymous No.4283921]

>>4283919
>Hannah Arendt is a bro:

Well, she fucked Heidegger, so she's kinda biased when she protects him

[Anonymous No.4283927]

>Glass Bead Game
>Nietzschean

bitch you best be joking, it may have a character based on Nietzsche's personality, but why on earth is this book on this list

[Anonymous No.4283995]

>>4283916
Just read his fucking poetry and you'll find yourself thinking "Man, this guy really did not like Jews."

[Anonymous No.4284319]

>>4283919
>Arendt is a bro
are you 12?

[Anonymous No.4284335]

>>4283681
I am in favor of action, perhaps I should have made it clearer that I dislike my current proclivities.

[Anonymous No.4284385]

>>4283919
But.. but.. my world view...
But I guess all that shit was after "The Wasteland" anyways.

[Anonymous No.4284386]

>Pound
>not batshit
>Hamsun
>no markers
Who made this key?

[Anonymous No.4284600]

>>4284385
Sadly, racism wasn't always viewed as inherently anti-intellectual, but you can rest assured that you live in the "right" time period where it is.

[Anonymous No.4284772]

>>4284600
>Sadly, racism wasn't always viewed as inherently anti-intellectual
>sadly
Except it's not inherently anti-intellectual.

[Anonymous No.4284810]

>>4284772

>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.4284855]

This machine-technics will end with the Faustian civilization and one day will lie in fragments, forgotten our railways and steamships as dead as the Roman roads and the Chinese wall, our giant cities and skyscrapers in ruins like old Memphis and Babylon. The history of this technics is fast drawing to its inevitable close. It will be eaten up from within, like the grand forms of any and every Culture. When, and in what fashion, we know not.
Faced as we are with this destiny, there is only one world outlook that is worthy of us, that which has already been mentioned as the Choice of Achilles: better a short life, full of deeds and glory, than a long life without content. Already the danger is so great, for every individual, every class, every people, that to cherish any illusion whatever is deplorable. Time does not suffer itself to be halted; there is no question of prudent retreat or wise renunciation. Only dreamers believe that there is a way out. Optimism is cowardice.
We are born into this time and must bravely follow the path to the destined end. There is no other way. Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii, who, during the eruption of Vesuvius, died at his post because they forgot to relieve him. That is greatness. That is what it means to be a thoroughbred. The honourable end is the one thing that can not be taken from a man. ~Oswald Spengler, Man and Technics, 1931

[Anonymous No.4284862]

>>4284772
It is, dog.

[Anonymous No.4284872]

>>4284855
>fast drawing to its inevitable close.
>written in 1931
>now 81 years later
I'd imagine that even when it hits a century people will still believe Spengler was right all those years.

Still, that's a very enjoyable read and I like the message of it. That dignity, man.

[Anonymous No.4284876]

>>4284855
Bawww ;_; its easy to say "everything must come to an end" the hindu sages has said it for 5000 years.

[Anonymous No.4284880]

>>4284872
Christtards still think the end is near. It's idiotic, but they are destined to be right at some point.

[Anonymous No.4284959]

>>4284872
The West is supposed to end sometime in 2100

[Anonymous No.4284966]

>>4284872
Great job proving that you never even read the book.

Winter of the West started in 1990 with the Gulf War, which many see as the first step towards Caesarism.

It started with Hitler but he was obviously stopped, so the march towards Empire has been delayed

We will soon enter a stage of "Pax Americana" which is Petrodollar warfare on steroids

Watch these
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaQHjzVUkNs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dpof96pVx-c

[Anonymous No.4284986]

Wait, wait, wait.

How the hell is the Unabomber on a list of right-wing literature? The dude was a primitivist, if anything - an ideology that is thoroughly connected to anarchism.

[Anonymous No.4285006]

>>4284966
We're already in a "Pax Americana" as far as most people are concerned. There hasn't been a major war in the west since WW2.

>but the war on terror and middle east "peace-keeping" operations!
Those are nowhere on the scale of other wars, and the "Pax Romana" the American's take the name from doesn't refer to a total or complete peace or absence of violence, just a relative peace between major nations.

From what I've seen too, it seems that Americans and the US in general are returning to their historical isolationism, with most of them not wanting any involvements in wars or other countries at all. It also seems to me that the world is beginning to stabilize, politically. When have we had a major country invade another country? When was the last time we lost (either it split, was taken over and divided, etc.) a major country? The World Wars were a massive game-changer, leading to a decline in nationalist attitudes and the creation of the UN, who's sole purpose is to function as a peacekeeper between powerful nations and a stabilizer.

I don't think I've said anything incorrect, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Anonymous No.4285011]

>>4283238

>control f
>no ayn rand
>mfw


yall niggas best be trolling, also inb4 faggots who have only read atlas shrugged and none of her non fiction

[Anonymous No.4285097]

>>4284986

anarchism is right wing

[Anonymous No.4285114]

>>4284986
Some traditionalists have primitivist sympathies, but don't agree with the ends of anarchism wishing for a more organic hierarchy to form in the current one's place. The Unabomber was highly critical of 'liberalism' which is probably why he was added to the list.

[Anonymous No.4285126]

>>4284810
Convincing argument, there.
>>4284986
Read his critique of leftism. He wasn't a right-winger, but his views are influential among certain currents of right-wing thought.

[Anonymous No.4285144]

>>4285097
my dick is right wing... or at least that's what some girl with a lisp told me as I plowed her swiftly from behind

[Anonymous No.4285145]

>>4284862

Let's speak candidly here: don't you think most studies have shown that genes will decide certain qualities in people? Or at least that they're likely to have those qualities?

[Anonymous No.4285502]

>>4284772
I said viewed as.

Also I think that you missed that satire in my post.

[Anonymous No.4285532]

>>4283238
these threads give me cancer

[Anonymous No.4285631]

>>4284872

Well, maybe he was. The Western culture is now without vigor, without life. Spengler's time was actually the high point of it.

The collapse of a culture doesn't mean that it ceases to exist. For example, there are still Polish people speaking Polish language and practicing Polish culture. However, with the partitions of Poland during the 18th century, the living aspect of the Polish culture was gone. Since then, Poland was just another shit hole of Europe.

Same goes for Roman civilization. Colosseum is still standing, there is still people living in the Italy, they still speak a similar language. But that's not ancient Rome anymore.

[Anonymous No.4285839]

Bumping with Dugin giving a brief explanation of his basic idea of a new political theory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZxLxN77lF0

[Anonymous No.4286017]

>>4285502
Alright, now I get it. It seems like I read your post too fast.

[Anonymous No.4286191]

>>4283927

I agree that the Nietzschian category should be removed from TGBG, but the book does showcase what some might call a traditionalist utopian society.

[Anonymous No.4286220]

>>4284986

>Unabomber
>primitivist

Don't confuse him with that liberal hippie primitivist faggot Zerzan, who's done all he can to ride Teddy's name and infamy.

K.'s beef is with the Enlightenment, not technology. He often spoke highly of stable feudal societies.

[Anonymous No.4286225]

>>4285532

You're free to go back to your Reddit hugbox anytime, friend.

[Anonymous No.4286288]

>>4284986
the unibomber is a violent radical traditionalist

take the time to read his work before posting shit

[Anonymous No.4286326]

>>4285097
Jesus fuck kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.4286337]

>>4286220
>liberal hippie primitivist faggot Zerzan

The fact that you think primitivism has anything to do with liberalism is fucking astounding.

[Anonymous No.4286349]

>>4285097

gr8 b8 m8, although the unibomber was right wing

[Anonymous No.4286352]

>mfw there are people on /lit/ who actually believe in this shit

[Anonymous No.4286424]

>>4286337
Liberalism has it's roots in individualism, social contract theory and other such relatively modern concepts. Any self-proclaimed 'primitivist' who holds such views cannot truly be called a primitivist. Zerzan is only 'primitivist' in his desire to see the destruction of the cage of civilization.
>>4286352
As opposed to what? Dubious notions of "human rights"? Historical materialism? Class struggle? The modern religion of equality?
Please inform me on how your values are somehow rooted in 'pure' logic.

[Anonymous No.4286447]

>>4286337

At his core, Zerzan's a liberal; he's posing as a primitivist.

The proof is in his revisionist attempts to convince his readers that multiculturalism, human rights, etc. are compatible -- even essential characteristics of -- primitive communities.

He's a liberal hippie hack in primitivist costume.

[Anonymous No.4286539]

>>4285532
Hopefully it's terminal. :^)
>>4286352
What do you want people to believe in? Naive, feel-good humanism?

What are your rationale for rejecting these sorts of ideas, or is your response purely an emotional one?

[Anonymous No.4286543]

>>4286352
To be fair, it is 4chin.

[Anonymous No.4286548]

>>4283238
Add Might is Right and Rival Caesars.

[Anonymous No.4286551]

>>4286539
*is your rationale

[Anonymous No.4286561]

>>4283238

I believe Fernando Pessoa is a nationalist. He has a few poems that are very, very nationalist. You might want to add him. Oh and, Antuun Saadeh and his manifesto of the Syrian nationalist socialist party is also very good if you're looking for NatSoc without the anti semitism

[Anonymous No.4286563]

>>4286424
>As opposed to what? Dubious notions of "human rights"? Historical materialism? Class struggle? The modern religion of equality? Please inform me on how your values are somehow rooted in 'pure' logic.

2edgy4me

nobody wants you in our frat, because you're ugly and fat

[Anonymous No.4286567]

>that feel when you realise far right aristocratic vitalist authoritarian political philosophies are the truth and the light
>that feel when you stop grasping for Zizek's boner in the slimy forest of Marxist circlejerking
>tfw everything suddenly makes sense

I'm so glad I'm not a pussy leftist anymore

[Anonymous No.4286573]

>>4286567
>Tfw you realised God exists

[Anonymous No.4286577]

>>4286567
It's a glorious and yet despairing feel.

[Anonymous No.4286598]

>>4286577
"The truth will set you free. But first it will piss you off."

[Anonymous No.4286737]

Muh Lizard Joo Conspiracy, muh white superiority, muh cultural degeneracy

[Anonymous No.4287021]

>>4286567
>tfw extreme right-wingers identify with aristocratic ideals
>tfw they don't realize they would be crushed as plebs just as much as their hated left-wingers in a truly aristocratic socal orders
>tfw useful idiots

[Anonymous No.4287046]

>>4286424
>Please inform me on how your values are somehow rooted in 'pure' logic.
Why should he inform you on a claim he didn't make? Why should our values be rooted in "pure" logic?
>What do you want people to believe in? Naive, feel-good humanism?
Why not? It's broadly the belief of most people in the west in the time of greatest stability, prosperity, and achievement of basic human dignity in western human history. If this belief system is not one of the causes of the present state of prosperity (and most historians would agree that it is one of the causes), it certainly doesn't work against it.

>What are your rationale for rejecting these sorts of ideas

The bloody lessons of history.

>or is your response purely an emotional one?

What's wrong with an emotional response?

[Anonymous No.4287150]

Are The Man in the High Castle and Fatherland any good?

I've always wanted to read some good alternate history stuff.

[Anonymous No.4287176]

>>4287150

Man in the High Castle is great. It's my favourite PKD.

[Anonymous No.4287537]

>>4287046
>If this belief system is not one of the causes of the present state of prosperity
Our prosperity has made us gluttonous and complacent; we have forgotten the values of our forefathers in the pursuit of pleasure and comfort, but we have found neither and become weaker for it.
>It's broadly the belief of most people in the west in the time of greatest stability, prosperity, and achievement of basic human dignity in western human history.
Yet for all these things the West has the highest suicide rates of any region and arguably of any time period. Why is that exactly? Perhaps material want is not the sole factor in satiating human desire?
>The bloody lessons of history.
What lessons? Modern conflict (this includes everything from the French Revolution onward) is by far the most destructive, bloody and efficient ever conceived and enacted in history. Your pseudo-values are directly responsible for more carnage and tears than any other system, religion or regime you care to name.

[Anonymous No.4287544]

>>4283916
He references Jews as rats a LOT in his poetry
Still a great poet tho

[Anonymous No.4287834]

>>4287537
>Our prosperity has made us gluttonous and complacent; we have forgotten the values of our forefathers in the pursuit of pleasure and comfort, but we have found neither and become weaker for it.
Can you become more meaningless please?

>Yet for all these things the West has the highest suicide rates of any region and arguably of any time period. Why is that exactly?
Nobody knows, but there are a myriad of possible explanations. Can you verbalize why your's superior?

>Perhaps material want is not the sole factor in satiating human desire?
Great insight right there.

>What lessons? Modern conflict (this includes everything from the French Revolution onward) is by far the most destructive, bloody and efficient ever conceived and enacted in history.
Which can all be easily linked to the increase in capacity of weapons. I mean fucking honestly, do you actually think if you'd give modern weaponry to some ancient civilizations they wouldn't have used it? Some magical-mystical understanding, some ancient values and hierachies would prevent them from doing so?

>Your pseudo-values are directly responsible for more carnage and tears than any other system, religion or regime you care to name.
Yawn and fart. Such a statement can only be credible if it comes from a source with an extreme high level of understanding of human affairs - such a person does not exist.

This is why your lot is never taken seriously. All you have are assertions wraped in an air of mysticism and are driven by strong emotions of pseudo-realism ('wow I'm such a realist', 'I see the truth because of my highly developed sensitivities - I can divine the world, trust me. Nothing self-serving here.').

[Anonymous No.4287858]

>>4286548
seconded

[Anonymous No.4287892]

What about Lampedusa's "The Leopard"?

[Anonymous No.4287976]

>>4285144

[Anonymous No.4288009]

>>4287858
>>4286548
Desmond advocates amoralism and psychological hedonism. These aren't right-wing or reactionary by any measure.

[Anonymous No.4288032]

>>4286548
>>4287858
might is right is amateurish.

[Anonymous No.4288037]

>>4286563
>no argument

[Anonymous No.4288048]

>>4287537
>Our prosperity has made us gluttonous and complacent
1) What evidence do you have of this?
2) Why would our supposed present state of gluttony and complacency be worse than what came beore?

>we have forgotten the values of our forefathers

Why should we not forget the values of our forefathers? What's valuable about them? Anyway, personally, I try to keep as much as I can to the values of my forefathers, as long as they do ot come in contradiction with basic humanistic values, both my direct forefathers (father/mother, grandfather/mother, etc.), and historical ones (the historical populations from which I can plausibly assume I'm descended from), I just try not to confuse the values of my forefathers with values forced upon them by their rulers and oppressors, since I am descended from peasants, petty artisans & small-time merchants, native americans, , and going further back in time, black slaves & jewish marranos. There is very little (probably none) of noble or aristocratic blood in me, so I care very little for the self-serving propaganda they used to prop themselves up at the expense of the rest of society.

> and become weaker for it.
Again, evidence? Western nations can easily bend and manipulate third world nations to their will, via violence, or even just economic shenanigans, and the cold war has ample evidence of this, or even fuck them up real good, just look at what the U.S. did to Iraq and Afghanistan, those countries are in shambles.

>Yet for all these things the West has the highest suicide rates of any region and arguably of any time period.

You win some, you lose some. I'm willing to accept modernity with all its benefits at the cost of its drawbacks. I do not mean to imply that the present state of affairs is perfect, it isn't, and we should work to eliminate these drawbacks, but I'd rather not throw the baby with the bathwater. There are so many metrics by which modern western societies are leagues ahead of any other, including but not limited to, literacy rates, rates of primary, secondary, and tertiary education completed, people above the poverty line, infant mortality, life expectancy at birth, crime rates, guarantee of human rights, etc., etc., etc., that the cost of higher suicide rate seems so small compared to the benefits.

> Modern conflict (this includes everything from the French Revolution onward) is by far the most destructive, bloody and efficient ever conceived and enacted in history.

That may well be, but generally speaking the general level of violence in society (including wars, obviously) has been decreasing, at least according to Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature ( If you know of Literature that disputes his claims, I'd be interested in it)

> Your pseudo-values
Why are they pseudo-values instead of values? What's pseudo- about them?

>any other system, religion or regime you care to name.
I can easily name Marxism-Leninism & Fascism.

[Anonymous No.4288052]

>>4287021
>crushed as plebs

Most people that advocate it realize that they would have some sort of status in an aristocratic society.

I myself wouldn't want aristocracy, it think we can do better, but the want for it stems from a want of return to the strength and order that aristocracy provides, and which social democracy desecrates.

[Anonymous No.4288057]

So is Constitution of Liberty any good?
Anyone read it?
Especially if I'm a bit more lef-leaning fre market anarchist with foucauldian tendencies?

[Anonymous No.4288077]

>>4288057
>Especially if I'm a bit more lef-leaning fre market anarchist with foucauldian tendencies
wat

[Anonymous No.4288083]

>>4288077
I meant left...
But I guess that's not the only problem that you have with that sentence.

Basically what I meant was, is this book still readable if you're not on the right side of political spectrum?

[Anonymous No.4288098]

>>4288052
Most people that advocate it realize that they would have some sort of status in an aristocratic society.

Realize or wish?

> from a want of return to the strength and order that aristocracy provides
Seriously? Are you fucking kidding me? Aristocratic regimes were deeply unstable, constantly at war with each other, riven by civil wars and slave/peasant uprisings. The only stable regimes of the sort that I can think of were in East Asia (Tokugawa Japan and some chinese dynasties, but they always ended in massive amounts of bloodshed). Of course, social democracy is too young to definitely say how strong or stable it is, but up until now it has a pretty good track record.
To say that social democracy "desecrates" (I love that word, you can practicaly taste the resentment against the triumph of modernity contained in it, and it is sooo delicious!) the strength and stability of aristocratic regimes is a statement astounding in its mind-boggling historical ignorance.

[Anonymous No.4288110]

>>4288083
I don't know why it wouldn't be readable if for nothing else only to point out to yourself how much you disagree with it. I haven't read it so I can't offer any in-depth commentary, still if I were to read something I suspect I wouldn't agree with - like Marx, it wouldn't be a matter of taste but a judgement on whether I care enough to sink the amount of time needed into something of that length just to illuminate the depths of my disagreement. By that it basically comes down to length, to density, and to your personal ambitions and free time.

[Anonymous No.4288118]

>>4288110
Well the thing is, if it's also written in a boring way, if it's about something you don't agree with it's so much harder to read it.

[Anonymous No.4288121]

>>4287021
When I think of a right winger, I think of a honest, hard working, Christian. A man of the soil, probably a farmer, someone who gets dirty and has grit and self-perseverance. I don't think of someone laughing in his office on his fat ass throwing darts into a pile of random stocks.

[Anonymous No.4288123]

>>4288118
Yeah, that's why I said it depends on density amongst others.

[Anonymous No.4288194]

>>4288121
>When I think of a right winger, I think of a honest, hard working, Christian. A man of the soil, probably a farmer, someone who gets dirty and has grit and self-perseverance. I don't think of someone laughing in his office on his fat ass throwing darts into a pile of random stocks.

Both are standard stereotypes of right-wingers, respectively from sympathetic and antagonistic points of view. But I specifically wrote extreme right-wing, not right-wing, which has different associations.

>honest, hard working, Christian. A man of the soil, probably a farmer, someone who gets dirty and has grit and self-perseverance.
The only particularly right-thing about that image is christianity, yet there are a lot of honest, hard working, Christian left-wingers.
If you come down here to Latin America, that image (with christianity and everything) is the archetypical Campesino of which many left-wing movements seek reinvindication.

[Anonymous No.4288200]

>>4288194
>Christian left-wingers.
This. Christian Socialist are the best socialist.

[Anonymous No.4288224]

>>4288121
The Right wing is 100% incompatible with Christ.
>A man of the soil, probably a farmer, someone who gets dirty and has grit and self-perseverance.
>yfw the left in the Americas has its largest contingency with peasantry and farmers and the right is still trying to kill them wherever, however they can.

[Anonymous No.4288240]

>>4288224
the political right wing is corporate socialism

[Anonymous No.4288246]

>>4288240
Is this the new /pol/ raid technique? Just throw words together and bewilder everyone with nonsense?

[Anonymous No.4288256]

>>4288246
You should come up with something else than blaming everything on /pol/ raids by now. It's /lit/ not /lib/.

[Anonymous No.4288259]

>>4288224
I was curious about it and just looked it up, but can't see any statistics or information regarding what political viewpoints most farmers hold. However, it does seem that the most agricultural states (midwest and south) seem to be the most conservative or "right-wing"

[Anonymous No.4288315]

>>4288224
You're conflating bourgeois capitalism with social conservative/'reactionary' values.
>left in the Americas has its largest contingency with peasantry
I think you actually have to work to be considered a 'peasant' and as this (>>4288259) anon points out, most farmers trend right-wing.

Rural = predominantly right-wing (traditionalists, reactionary and social conservatives)
Urban = predominantly left-wing (idealists, "world-improvers" and leeches)

Honestly, there is no true representation of right-wing or left-wing in liberal democracy, only a revolting chimera in the middle.

[Anonymous No.4288622]

>>4288315

*tips fedora*

[Anonymous No.4288628]

>>4288622
I don't think you understand the concept of fedora.

[Anonymous No.4288630]

I don't know if calling Conrad an imperialist is at all accurate.

[Anonymous No.4288645]

>>4288630
He comes from an aristocratic background?

[Anonymous No.4288653]

>>4288645
Have you read Heart of Darkness?

[Anonymous No.4288660]

>>4288009
reactionaries are bigger faggots than I thought

[Anonymous No.4288692]

>>4288032
*tips fedora*

[Anonymous No.4288695]

>>4288660
Don't you have a Stirner thread you should shitposting in?

[Anonymous No.4288732]

>>4288645
Isn't he a Pole? "Aristocrats" were like 87% of the Polish population.

[Anonymous No.4288769]

Some more books for the list:
René Guénon's Crisis of the Modern World.
Critics of the Enlightenment: Readings in the French Counter-Revolutionary Tradition by Christopher Blum.
Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France.
The Revolt of the Elites: And the Betrayal of Democracy by Christopher Lasch.
Nobilitas: A Study of European Aristocratic Philosophy from Ancient Greece to the Early Twentieth Century by Alexander Jacob.

[Anonymous No.4288802]

>>4288769
Burke and Guenon are already there

[Anonymous No.4288808]

>>4288802
I actually looked for Guenon but missed him, must be a bit tired.
Either way the other three are pretty good as well.

[Anonymous No.4288812]

>>4288769

[Anonymous No.4288987]

>>4286563
>>4286737
>all this damage control

[Anonymous No.4289243]

>>4288987
>damage control

You're definitely going to have to go back to /pol/, if you start bringing this silliness here.

[Anonymous No.4289251]

>>4289243
Yeah, because the people he was quoting are such quality posters...

[Anonymous No.4289279]

>>4288987
>implying reptilians don't real

[Anonymous No.4289282]

>>4289251
You're right, /lit/ is terrible.

You should leave, there are better places with finer minds.

[Anonymous No.4289302]

Where are the enlightened French?

[Anonymous No.4289332]

>>4283238

Thomas Mann openly advocated democracy and liberalism and joined the German Liberal Democrat party. How is he right wing? Y'all don't know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.4289336]

>>4289332

Just to add to this: So did Hesse. A lot of Germans hated him because he critisized the Nazis. He was literally getting death threats. This shit is embarrassing, even for /lit/.

[Anonymous No.4289340]

>>4289336
Being right wing is embarassing in any context.

[Anonymous No.4289351]

>>4289340

i disagree. i really like mishima although i consider myself rather left if anything at all. my problem is that this list is just plain wrong.

[Anonymous No.4289360]

>>4289332
>>4289336
The men may have held these views, but their perspective works hold merit and consideration for those of the Right.

[Anonymous No.4289361]

>>4289332
Earlier in his life Mann was influenced by Spengler- Buddenbrooks and Death in Venice can both be viewed as "reactionary", portraying the decadent culture of the german upper-class.
>>4289336
Again, no one is claiming that the one author you know anything about on the list is a fucking Nazi. His work contains undoubtably Nietzschean influences and themes and, for better or for worse, Nietzsche is crudely associated with the "right-wing". It's out of convenience. As is the whole entire chart.

[Anonymous No.4289364]

>>4289336

By the way, Carl Schmitt also openly opposed the Nazi party. The more I'm looking at this list the less sense it all makes. I can 100% agree on Ernst Jünger, atleast early Jünger. Later on he became really resigned and was really more balanced than right-wing inclined. But yeah to sum this up this is a fucking shit list op please get those authors I mentioned off of it so you don't spread misinformation on this board.

[Anonymous No.4289365]

Right-wing academia doesn't exist which is the main reason the left is shitting all over you as we speak.

[Anonymous No.4289374]

>>4289332
>>4289336
Aside from Savitri Devi and Francis Parker Yockey, every author on the chart was critical of the Nazis to varying degrees. Since when was explicit and categorical Nazism the ultimate litmus test for being a right-winger?

I also don't see why it's impossible that a liberal or democrat couldn't necessarily express ideas and sentiments that are appealing to the reactionary mindset. Peoples ideas are not isolated in ideological echo chambers, it's only natural that there's some overlap even between authors whose politics are diametrically opposed in practice.

[Anonymous No.4289375]

>>4289364
Maybe you should look a bit harder at the chart, Schmitt is marked as "fascist" and not "nazi", we explicitly avoided the "anti-semetic" label.

God, when will you retards learn that the only bad thing about these threads are your idiotic recurring objections

[Anonymous No.4289378]

>>4289360

no, not at all. SOME of their works might be called traditionalist but that doesn't have shit to do with right-wing.. If you can actually elaborate on this subject I'll gladly listen but if you don't have anything to say then don't try to call me out.

I do agree on the Nietzsche influences but just because you were inspired by someone who can be considered right-wing doesn't mean that you yourself are. As I said I really like reading Mishima but I'm far from a fascist.

[Anonymous No.4289394]

>>4289361

Death in Venice deals with his own homosexuality, how can you call this reactionary, especially considering those times and the opinions right-wingers had on gay people...

>>4289374

it's not impossible, not at all, I just don't see it. I haven't read all of Manns or Hesses work but nothing I have read so far pinpoints to the political right, I'm sorry.

>>4289375

I think Schmitts interest in fascism was more aesthetically than politically but yeah opinions. Actually the worst thing about those threads are completely irrelevant discussions about fascism itself, discussion of this list is what this thread was made for

[Anonymous No.4289397]

>>4289378
"right-wing" is a shitty vague umbrella-term which apparently you alone have a wildly different and incredibly narrow definition for, so every single thread and the chart itself clarify it with "traditionalist / conservative / reactionary."

>As I said I really like reading Mishima but I'm far from a fascist
Literally all of the authors on this chart are worth reading despite your political ideology. If you are particularly inclined towards one, however, you can pick up on the subtle traits of the authors that harbor the same inclinations. that's the purpose of the chart and the categorizations within the chart.

please, just get out.

[Anonymous No.4289406]

>>4289394
>I think Schmitts interest in fascism was more aesthetically than politically but yeah opinions
confirmed for never having read schmitt

[Anonymous No.4289407]

>>4289374

oh and just for
>I also don't see why it's impossible that a liberal or democrat couldn't necessarily express ideas and sentiments that are appealing to the reactionary mindset

the DDP (deutsche demokratische partei) was considered completely leftist and actually emerged from multiple far-left to left-wing people's parties.

[Anonymous No.4289411]

>>4289364
Early Junger wasn't a nazi either. He was a Kaiserreich/ Preußen old guard type from day one.
And Schmitt was quite right-wing even if you think his nazism is in question.

[Anonymous No.4289414]

Left- or right-wing thinking has no place in literature as it's just a political tool to demonize and distinguish yourself from opponents.

[Anonymous No.4289415]

>>4289397

the chart is literally named 'chart for right-wing literature' and thomas mann was confirmed to be fully supportive of the political left. i don't care what you think about the term. if it's just a shitty vague umbrella term then might aswell rename that list. also there's no need for getting so upset, I'm just voicing my opinion here, which is completely legitimate even if you think it's garbage, friendo.

[Anonymous No.4289423]

>>4289407
I'm aware of that, and it changes nothing about my statement.

[Anonymous No.4289425]

>>4289411

hence why i said jünger is the only author i would categorize as right wing? i never said anything about him being a nazi. schmitt was quite right wing and his nazism isn't 'in question', you can just read his wikipedia entry which will tell you that he openly dismissed both the NSDAP and the KPD because they were too extreme, even though he had a thing going for fascism.

[Anonymous No.4289431]

>>4289423

would you say that him having some ideas that could be classified as reactionary is enough to put him on a list dubbed right wing literature though?

[Anonymous No.4289432]

>>4289415
every single one of the threads were titled "Traditionalist / Conservative / Reactionary Literature", it's mentioned in the OP of this thread, and it's mentioned in the description immediately below the title of the chart. Your opinions, like your retard eyes, unable to focus on anything but skim over the slightly-bigger shiny red letters, are not founded on reality.

and again, later in life he was supportive of the political left, big wow. that doesn't mean the views he espouses or the perspectives he takes in his writing can't be politically reactionary. multiple people who have actually read thomas mann have suggested him in the earlier iterations of this thread.

[Anonymous No.4289438]

>>4289425
>Schmitt joined the Nazi Party on 1 May 1933.[10] Within days of joining the party, Schmitt was party to the burning of books by Jewish authors, rejoicing in the burning of "un-German" and "anti-German" material, and calling for a much more extensive purge, to include works by authors influenced by Jewish ideas.[11] In July he was appointed State Councillor for Prussia (Preußischer Staatsrat) by Hermann Göring and became the president of the Vereinigung nationalsozialistischer Juristen ("Union of National-Socialist Jurists") in November. He also replaced Hermann Heller as professor at the University of Berlin[12] (a position he held until the end of World War II). He presented his theories as an ideological foundation of the Nazi dictatorship, and a justification of the "Führer" state with regard to legal philosophy, in particular through the concept of auctoritas.
>Half a year later, in June 1934, Schmitt became editor in chief for the self-published[13] newspaper "Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung" ("German Jurists' Newspaper");[14] in July 1934, he justified the political murders of the Night of the Long Knives as the "highest form of administrative justice" ("höchste Form administrativer Justiz") and the authority of Hitler with "The leader defends the law" ("Der Führer schützt das Recht").[15] Schmitt presented himself as a radical anti-semite and also was the chairman of a law teachers' convention in Berlin in October 1936,[16] where he demanded that German law be cleansed of the "Jewish spirit" ("jüdischem Geist"), going so far as to demand that all publications by Jewish scientists should henceforth be marked with a small symbol.
>In 1945, Schmitt was captured by American forces and, after spending more than a year in an internment camp, he returned to his home town of Plettenberg following his release in 1946, and later to the house of his housekeeper Anni Stand in Plettenberg-Pasel. Schmitt refused every attempt at de-nazification, which effectively barred him from positions in academia.

[Anonymous No.4289449]

>>4289432

in a few days this thread will be gone and the only thing remaining will be the list that was compiled, so I don't see how that matters. the name is still incorrect and should be changed, if the list was called 'traditionalist literature' than i probably wouldn't have even posted.

it isn't though.

>Your opinions, like your retard eyes, unable to focus on anything but skim over the slightly-bigger shiny red letters, are not founded on reality.

that was actually kind of funny

[Anonymous No.4289455]

>>4289431
Yes. I would also reiterate that even if a given author is an out an out liberal their entire career they could still have a place on such a chart if their work held some appeal for the right-wing mindset.

Indeed this is the case with Vonnegut, but it's undeniable that Harrison Bergeron speaks to the anti-egalitarian sentiment that is pretty much universal on the right.

[Anonymous No.4289459]

>>4289438

he was an opportunist and when he realized that the nsdap was taking over Germany he just played along. again, this is not just my opinion, it's taken straight from wiki if you want to check it.

[Anonymous No.4289462]

>>4289455

not too versed on either vonnegut or bergeron so i cant comment on that but im sure you have good reasons to think what you think

[Anonymous No.4289466]

Add this to picture

[Anonymous No.4289470]

>>4289459

Nevertheless, in December 1936, the SS publication Das schwarze Korps accused Schmitt of being an opportunist, a Hegelian state thinker and basically a Catholic, and called his anti-semitism a mere pretense, citing earlier statements in which he criticized the Nazis' racial theories. After this, Schmitt resigned from his position as "Reichsfachgruppenleiter" (Reich Professional Group Leader), although he retained his post as a professor in Berlin, and his post as "Preußischer Staatsrat". Although Schmitt continued to be investigated into 1937, further reprisals were stopped by Göring.[17][18]

i can find quotes, too :-)

[Anonymous No.4289473]

>>4289449
good thing the description beneath the title of that list..

>Literature that, by virtue of subject matter, setting or authorial background preach reaction against modern-day society or explore what are commonly held to be "right-wing" ideals of tradition and conservatism.
>Yes, we know "right-wing" is a vague and contradictorily-applied term, that's why we have a key.

..will still be there to refute the pedantic argument you turned to after every other one of your points were proven wrong

fuck i've been rused hard, haven't i

[Anonymous No.4289562]

>>4286352
Its a methodology to perceive the world. We deserve to hear every argument for a better society no matter how batshit. Also it can help in fiction writing.

[Anonymous No.4290484]

The Rage Against God - Peter Hitchens
The Abolition of Britain - Peter Hitchens
The Abolition of Liberty - Peter Hitchens

All these are great, conservative works.

[Anonymous No.4290495]

>>4289365
don't expect anything to change. right wingers aren't exactly known for their intelligence

[Anonymous No.4290510]

>>4290495
those who can't do, teach

[Anonymous No.4291024]

>>4290484
>neo-cons
the less of these authors on the chart, the better

[Anonymous No.4291338]

>>4288256
>implying yuo don't browse /pol/

[Anonymous No.4291340]

>>4288256
>implying you don't browse /pol/

[Anonymous No.4291453]

>>4283238
Remove Vonnegut and I'll take your list a little more seriously.

[Anonymous No.4291577]

William Blake is considered conservative? Lord help me!

[Anonymous No.4291581]

>>4288645
What is with your wild generalisations? Aristocracy can only be one way?

[Anonymous No.4291582]

>>4290510
Those who spout that quote, browse /pol/.
I thought this thread might be interesting as I'm new to /lit/ then I looked through the posts and OH GOD NO MAKE IT STOP. I have having to be tolerant because I'm a lefty. Sometimes I just want to swift kick most of you.

[Anonymous No.4291612]

>>4291582
>I hate having to be tolerant because I'm a lefty

Your age is showing.

[Anonymous No.4291678]

Lord of the Flies, William Golding
King Solomon Mines, Rider Haggard
A Clockwork Orange, Anthony Bugress

[Anonymous No.4291681]

>>4291612
How old do you think I am?

[Anonymous No.4291785]

>>4291024
Peter Hitchens isn't a neo-con. He's a paleoconservative.

[Anonymous No.4291793]

>>4291681
19-21, young enough to think you know shit

[Anonymous No.4291822]

>be fascist as fuck
>read pathologies of fascism
>one of the highest indicators of fascism or any related populist jingoist phenomenon is the "othering" of everything that is offensive or annoying to the in-group as some single convenient term, like jews, communists, capitalists, etc.
>browse /lit/ and read actual leftists' posts
>/POL/ /POL/ DETECTED GET OUT /POL/ DO I SMELL /POL/ TIME TO GET BANNED /POL/ I SENSE YOU HAVE /POL/ IN YOUR BLOOD KLAUS MEASURE HIS SKULL
>mfw leftist philosophies are ruined by being the natural destination of retards like this who would have been the most slavish rally-attending nazi if their circumstances were different
>mfw leftists are 2% philosophers and 98% the worst kind of fascist, the mindless footsoldier who just joins an ideology because its the targeted out-group (e.g. self-proclaimed right-wingers) is so marginalised and disallowed that it is completely safe to kick it while it's down

[Anonymous No.4291844]

>>4291793
I'm older than that. Guess again.

[Anonymous No.4291852]

>>4291822
>>>pol

[Anonymous No.4291865]

>>4291822
Kinda this, I'm a freelance journalist and did an article on extreme right wing group and talked to the countrys security service. The guy who was an expert on extreme right told me that there is literally no telling if the people who join go extreme left of right. They are just lost and need a group to find identity, usually through the exclusion of others.

He then ranted on about most of society being sheep and how people thrive on excluding society into parts because the brain works by organizing things into categories, where you are always the good one.

Therefor democrat good, the opposite bad, if you are a democrat. And vice versa for republicans. Only thing to do is to question not morals, but yourself constantly.

However I'm not a fascist, I see myself as healthy reactionary and moderately conservative, extremely libertarian on some issues and socialist on others. But yeah, I really dont like the /pol/-shaming either.

[Anonymous No.4291867]

>>4291822
tu quoque

[Anonymous No.4291870]

>>4291844
Okay, now I just feel sad for you.

[Anonymous No.4291871]

>>4283238
No Nozick? What the hell is wrong with you people?

Also, half of this lit isn't conservative, much less conservative canon.