Is collecting books Veeky Forumsshionable?

Orwell and Huxley are far left. Rand is a classical liberal. The others I haven't read. Not very /pol/

Only if Veeky Forums and art books.

>/pol/ books
Enjoy your shitty literature that your closet nazi hugbox forces you to read, faggot.

This

SUMMER
U
M
M
E
R

You do realize half of those are forced upon high schoolers right?

1984 and a brave new world are both essentials according to /pol/.

...

Collecting things in general is not Veeky Forums

Classical Liberalism is now the new right.

I love the meme where these try-hards jump from the antiquity to Evola

>/pol/ books
>jewish author

>defending the west
>prot shit

...

Why CPR and not metaphysics of morals. Not groundwork. That would make much more sense, no?

Lol pol reads philosophy. yeah sure. I bet you think you are so smart

fpbp

also op, your books suck

It's only pretentious if you don't actually care about reading books.

Hegel's dialectic engages directly with KrV and expands on the relationship between the noumenal and phenomenal world in PdG. Schopenhauer refers to and discusses both in WWV. Even to understand WHAT Nietzsche is getting at into Beyond G&E or the Genealogy of Morals, you need a good understanding of some stuff Kant introduces in KrV

Of course I would never dare attempt to undermine the importance of the Critiques, but you'd think Kant's directly political works would also be relevant?

...

I can smell the vape pens, flop sweat, and unwashed polo shirts from here.

...

Books aren't for vapid Veeky Forumsggots.

Siiick!

>implying there are any /pol/ books worth reading

Rand is Ancap as fuck.

It figures a bunch of proles would dream the dream of being elites of the inner party.

>not wanting to read the entire diary of a wimpy kid series
top pleb

>reactionary right
>lord of the rings
im quite conservative, and have read that entire series, yet I do not see a strong connection

Tolkien states that at the very end of the series that Frodo leaving middle earth was suppose to represent his dissatisfaction of the beautiful countryside where he lived now being turned into industrial powerhouses

Tolkien is conservative and quite a bit of a Luddite, but "reactionary right" is a big misreading. Hell, reading "Leaf by Niggle" or "On Fairy Stories" and he sounds like a dirty hippie, if a super Catholic one.

>Tolkien states that at the very end of the series that Frodo leaving middle earth was suppose to represent his dissatisfaction of the beautiful countryside where he lived now being turned into industrial powerhouses
No, he didn't.

But I'll let him speak for himself. The following is an excerpt from Tolkien's foreword to the second edition of Lord of the Rings:
>(...) it has been supposed by some that 'The Scouring of the Shire' reflects the situation in England at the time when I was finishing my tale. It does not. It is an essential part of the plot, foreseen from the outset, though in the event modified by the character of Saruman as developed in the story without, need I say, any allegorical significance or contemporary political reference whatsoever. (...) It has indeed some basis in experience, though slender (for the economic situation was entirely different), and much further back. The country in which I lived in childhood was being shabbily destroyed before I was ten, in days when motor-cars were rare objects (I had never seen one) and men were still building suburban railways. Recently I saw in a paper a picture of the last decrepitude of the once thriving corn-mill beside its pool that long ago seemed to me so important. I never liked the looks of the Young miller, but his father, the Old miller, had a black beard, and he was not named Sandyman.

Tolkien was a conservative Catholic. He was not opposed to industrialization, so his inclusion as a member of the "reactionary right" under this label is an objectively ahistorical falsehood.

Tolkien did, however, think dimly of magic (as opposed to the "craft" of the elves, et al.), which he compared to technology implicitly.

Oh, and here is some more relevant quotes that I should've left in my other post:
>As for any inner meaning or 'message', [The Lord of the Rings] has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical.
>Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always havedone so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.
In other words, if Tolkien had made such a statement about the supposed "hidden meaning" of Frodo's leaving Middle-Earth, or about what this "represented," he would have contradicted his own long-held principle of dislike for allegory to make a rather shallow and ridiculous point about how industrialization imposed by a vengeful wizard on a bunch of hobbits is bad to begin with until the vengeful wizard gets his and things go back to normal, more or less, except some of the houses look different.

Hmm. No, I don't think so. He wrote in his notes on the differences between "creation" (that is, what can be done by God/Ilúvatar alone) and "sub-creation" (that is, the arts and crafts of mortals and elves), and he didn't really come down with a categorical negative on sub-creation at all: coming from an author, that would have been really strange!
No, he opposed the ways in which beings like Melkor/Morgoth and Sauron attempted to "create" things themselves, attempting to usurp Almighty God, the only Creator. Pay attention: Aulë forms the Dwarves in hubris before the coming of the Children of Ilúvatar, and Ilúvatar says this to him:
>'Why hast thou done this? Why dost thou attempt a thing which thou knowest is beyond thy power and thy authority? For thou hast from me as a gift thy own being only, and no more; and therefore the creatures of thy hand and mind can live only by that being, moving when thou thinkest to move them, and if thy thought be elsewhere, standing idle. Is that thy desire?'
Aulë repents, comparing himself to a child imitating his father, and offers to destroy the dwarves, but Ilúvatar has compassion and gives the dwarves life.

Compare with Melkor's rebellion during the Ainulindalë. He, like Aulë, is incapable of "true" or "full" creation:
>And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.'
In other words, Tolkien's impression of "sub-creation" is consistently ambiguous: it's laudable, in how it can be used to convey truth, beauty, and craft; but it can be dangerous if one becomes over-attached to it or prideful. The Rings of Power and the Silmarils were all great crafts that pulled their owners into trouble: that's not a statement about technology, it's a statement about pride.

Only if you read them.

>magic (as opposed to the "craft" of the elves, et al.)
In Tolkien, magic IS craft. If you're really good at making swords, eventually you wind up making stuff like Sting. The whole "glowing around orcs" thing isn't the result of an enchantment placed on an ordinary sword, it's the result of Sting being a really really well-made sword. It's just another feature, like it being sharp. And if you're literally the best at making gems (and you have access to the light of the Trees), you can make the Silmarils. So right off the bat you don't know what you're talking about when you're talking about "magic" in Tolkien.

I've misplaced my secondary reading list red: Tolkien, magic, technology, and art, but your statement on pride jives with my thinking (which, on reflection, isn't too dissimilar to yours), though I hadn't thought about pride in particular. Instead, "truth, beauty, and craft," indeed sub-creation, is undertaken to glorify god. Magic or technology used in the pursuit of this is good, whereas the magic or technology of Sauron and Saruman—to control or master—is bad. I don't think Tolkien used "magic" in a positive sense anywhere, though.

>I don't think Tolkien used "magic" in a positive sense anywhere, though
I don't have the means to prove this purely semantic point wrong right now, but I can tell you that magic is treated positively.
I don't have the text on me right now, but there's a sequence in The Two Towers were Galadriel literally mocks the hobbits for their simplistic use of "magic." Rereading that would be helpful. In terms of explicitly good use of magic, there's plenty: the Veil of Melian, Gandalf's magic, the magic duel between Luthien and Sauron, etc. So I'm going to repeat myself by saying that magic itself (if maybe not the word "magic", though I doubt it) is treated as potentially good OR bad in Tolkien.

...