Which books do fascists read?

Which books do fascists read?

Other urls found in this thread:

ia802709.us.archive.org/27/items/GottfriedFederManifestoForTheAbolitionOfInterestSlavery1919/Gottfried Feder - Manifesto for the Abolition of Interest-Slavery (1919).pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engelbert_Dollfuss
realhistorychannel.org/MEINSIDE.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=PO6Zk5qkYcA
youtube.com/watch?v=q6c_dinY3fM
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Emmanuel_III_of_Italy
twitter.com/AnonBabble

The Communist Manifesto.

they don't read books they burn them

Starship Trooper

my diary desu

that image describes pretty well how I feel about antisemitism

after hearing for the hundredth time that "of course, such-and-such non-Nazi antisemitism has to be reevaluated in light of the horrors of the Holocaust" I must say I'm getting very bored of it. it should be self evident to anyone who reads English or French antisemites from the prewar period that they were fundamentally unlike the Nazi antisemites, and that however much they mistrusted Jews they weren't genocideurs.

just because they didn't kill 6 million people doesn't make them unretarded

many of them were a great deal smarter than you are

That didn't keep them from getting their cities raped and their women leveled

>smarter than me
>fell for the joos meme

Sad!

Revolt Against the Modern World
The Decline of the West
For My Legionaries
Western Civilization Bites Back
The Waste Land
The Cantos
Beyond Good and Evil, Geneology of Morals, & Zarathustra (which they misinterpret)

underrated

>which they misinterpret
To be fair, so does everybody

Nietzsche apparently, since all of the 20th century fascists read him.

>which they misinterpret
Not saying they don't, but Nietzsche's philosophy does end on a rather authoritarian note. His philosophy in practice will always end up at some fascist or near-fascist cultural premise.

Really?

All 20th century intellectuals read Nietzsche. He remains the most important philosopher post-Kant.

Infinite Jest

Superhero comics and harry potter

Dindu Nuffin: The Story of Michael Brown

game of thrones and the hunger games

why though? He's a poor philosopher.

Nietzsche is a poor man's Stirner

right before they throw it in the banned book list and bonfires?

Daily reminder that national socialism is the illiterate man's fascism.

...

got to understand the enemy

For starters:
Reflections on Violence
Rerum Novarum
Manifesto of Futurism
Manifesto of the Futurist Political Party
Constitution of Fiume
Manifesto of the Italian Fasci of Combat
Manifesto of Fascist Intellectuals
The Doctrine of Fascism

stirner is almost as retarded as all his edgelord community college drop out fans

...

...

> (^:

How does it feel that your troll comments don't get you any replies except this one?

The Qur'an.
I'm not joking, some young fascists do.

Ludovici is the only right-wing writer I've actually been impressed by, and I say that as a self-confessed classical liberal.

He is good, but there are better ones.

Such as ?

Mircea Eliade, though this is a man who admitted in his Portugal Journal he wouldn't be entirely disappointed if all European governments turned socialist.

He was old right; un-doctrinaire, intelligent, "traditional" and orgiastic, but nonetheless he was of the Right.

I have that Norse mythology book; it's a poor bunch of retellings.

It's quite strange that a man who holds similar beliefs to that of the far-right is fine with socialism invading Europe. Did he perhaps change is views sometime in his life?

>right-wing
>tumblr
Really makes you think

Has anyone posted Rules for Radicals yet? Seems like the contemporary fascist cookbook.

>their cities raped and their women leveled
>women leveled

Sounds like heaven

One of these has it, or both

>Which books do fascists read?

Judging by the picture in your post, OP, I think the book you are looking for is the book about how to defeat international bankers by breaking debt interest slavery that was written by Gottfried Feder, I linked to it below:

ia802709.us.archive.org/27/items/GottfriedFederManifestoForTheAbolitionOfInterestSlavery1919/Gottfried Feder - Manifesto for the Abolition of Interest-Slavery (1919).pdf

Hitler is not a "Fascist", he is a "National Socialist", Mussolini's Italian Fascism and Hitler's National Socialism were originally enemies, and Mussolini almost went to war against Hitler because Austria had a Fascist government controlled by Austrian Fascist dictator Engelbert Dollfuss:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engelbert_Dollfuss

who was preventing the Austrian Germans from voting in a plebiscite to become a part of Germany again. Hitler made an anti-Fascist speech against the Fascist dictators Dollfuss and Mussolini that is quoted in this book:

realhistorychannel.org/MEINSIDE.pdf

>fascists
Depends on your definition but consider what i'm about to say.
>do
Present tense so you should ask somewhere on tumblr. Ask feminists or SJWs. Not even joking oh the hilarity of it all. They attack and shutdown/silence anyone they call "fascists" but the irony is they are the fascists .

Harry Potter, Eat Pray Love, Twilight, and Books from the 50 Shades series.

They read the same books (you) do

>They read the same books (you) do

And what books would those be?

youtube.com/watch?v=PO6Zk5qkYcA

mosley

Why?

The main critique is that he wasn't an academic/systematic philosopher, which in my eyes has always been a compliment rather than a short-coming.

>Ask feminists or SJWs. Not even joking oh the hilarity of it all. They attack and shutdown/silence anyone they call "fascists" but the irony is they are the fascists .

SJW's have nothing to do with Mussolini because SJW's are non-orthodox Marxists that follow the teachings of the "Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism" as explained in this video:

youtube.com/watch?v=q6c_dinY3fM

SJW's are not Fascists because Italian Fascism supported a system of monarchy where Italy was ruled by King Victor Emmanuel III, see:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Emmanuel_III_of_Italy

I have never seen an SJW advocate that their government should be ruled by an Italian King, but in Italian Fascism, the King of Italy was Mussolini's boss and Victor Emmanuel III actually fired Mussolini from his job as "Duce" because Mussolini was losing to the British Empire in WW2.

Is that Nietzsche in that pic?

So you didn't get it either, right?

I was actually serious with the Infinite Jest one. A fascist would love it, the book being a voluntary, vulnerable and sincere representation of his weakened enemy: too easy, too perfect, too convenient to be true.

You forgot De Maistre.
And they certainly get closer to the real Nietzsche than Leftists/Liberals who read Kaufmann's expurgated versions that remove all that icky jew-denigrating stuff.

"Leviathan and Its Enemies" is probably the big one making the rounds right now.

Nicolás Gómez Dávila aka Don Colacho for a pseudo-pagan Catholic arch-reactionary they love. (with good reasons imo)
Easy to pick through as well since he mainly wrote his thoughts down in short quips.
>After having been, in the last century, the instrument of political radicalism, universal suffrage is becoming, as Tocqueville foresaw, a conservative mechanism.

What's a good list of books on fascist theory, including the Italian, British and German versions? All of /pol/'s lists are littered with "da joos" and American politics.

>And they certainly get closer to the real Nietzsche than Leftists/Liberals who read Kaufmann's expurgated versions that remove all that icky jew-denigrating stuff.

I find a lot of guys on the Right are still triggered by Nietzsche. He's still, and by his own admission, apolitical - but there's a lot of common ground there.

It's not hard to understand - an un-Kauffman'd reading of Nietzsche can leave one with the impression that he was in many regards Right-wing, only without the nationalism (excepting his idea for a pan-European superstate of a kind wholly opposite to the EU we have no, with its democracy/equality/etc) and racialism (excepting his idea that the European races should interbreed, along with Jews for that matter).

It comes as no surprise that they find him hard to understand because of these things, or even conflate him with the left - considering that everything 'Right-wing' nowadays revolves around Nationalism and Racialism.

>Don Colacho
A++.
"When he repudiates rites, man reduces himself to an animal that copulates and eats."
"The classical humanities educate because they ignore the basic postulates of the modern mind."
"Someone who did not learn Latin and Greek goes through life convinced, even though he may deny it, that he is only semi-cultured."
"What concerns the Christ of the Gospels is not the economic situation of the poor man, but the moral condition of the rich man."
"The communist hates capitalism with the Oedipus complex. The reactionary views it only with xenophobia."
"A “revolutionary” today means an individual for whom modern vulgarity is not triumphing quickly enough."

ironic considering that the 19th century didn't give a single fuck about him, which ultimately drove him insane

>Italian Theory
Doctrine of Fascism
Charter of Carnaro
Futurist Manifesto
Manifesto of Fascist Intellectuals
Mussolini's Intellectuals by Gregor
>British Theory
100 Questions by Mosley
The Coming Corporate State by Thompson
>German Theory
Myth of the 20th Century
Decline of the West
Socialism and Prussianism

To be fair though, most of German theory is focused on the Jews because that was one of the big issues that the Germans used as part of their appeal.

Thank you.

I also forgot another book for general Fascist (and Marxist) theory: Reflections on Violence by George Sorel

I forgot to ask, do any of these books touch on the political and economic background that made fascism flourish in Europe? If not, any recommendations?

>all these retards thinking that fascism is reactionary

>I find a lot of guys on the Right are still triggered by Nietzsche. He's still, and by his own admission, apolitical - but there's a lot of common ground there.

This is true, many people on the right hate Nietzche, despite sharing common ground. The one that immediately springs to mind for me is Allan Bloom, who had a long screed against Nietzche in The Closing of the American Mind. I would say that the modern right, in the form of the religious right and the William F. Buckleys and Margaret Thatchers of the world, regard is Nietzche's philosophy as inimical to them as much as left-liberals do.

The only leftists I have seen who have attempted to co-opt Nietzche, that I have seen, have been the postmodernist, identity-based philosophers who see him as a "philosopher of difference". They tend to run up against a wall, though, due to the fact that Nietzche is also pretty clearly anti-egalitarian, which, to me at least, puts him at odds with leftist values.

I personally view Nietzche as mosyly apolitical (same with Stirner), and it is a credit to his philosophy that he is viciously attacked from both sides.

*Nietzsche

>I would say that the modern right, in the form of the religious right and the William F. Buckleys and Margaret Thatchers of the world, regard is Nietzche's philosophy as inimical to them as much as left-liberals do.

Luckily they're a dying breed, as Trump's effortless GOP coup demonstrates.

>The only leftists I have seen who have attempted to co-opt Nietzche, that I have seen, have been the postmodernist, identity-based philosophers who see him as a "philosopher of difference". They tend to run up against a wall, though, due to the fact that Nietzche is also pretty clearly anti-egalitarian, which, to me at least, puts him at odds with leftist values.

Pretty true. Those 20th century French post-modernist/structuralist hacks somehow manage to reconcile their readings of Nietzsche with ideologies ranging from Marxism to Foucault's much more general "muh Human Rights."

>Better to wear the helmet of a red army soldier in paris than live on a diet of hamburgers in New York
-de Benoist

Liberalism is much more nefarious than socialism

Mussolini's Intellectuals go into some detail on why some intellectuals came to view Fascism as being a valid way of thinking. James Thurlow's "Fascism in Britain" give a broad overview as to the economic and social factors. There was a Futurist Anthology (by Lawrence, Poggi, and Wittman) that contains pretty much all the major and minor Futurist manifestos, and goes into the politics of the movement. And it goes a long way to deconstructing the myth (in my view) that Futurism and Fascism have much in common.

Robert Paxton's books "French Peasant Fascism" and "Vichy France: Old Guard and New Order" go into great detail on what was going on in France. Vichy France wasn't Fascist, and Paxton's book will go a long way to showing you the difference between authoritarian conservatism and Fascism. You can also find some broad overviews on Fascist movements in Paxton's book "The Anatomy of Fascism". Gregor has another book called "The Face of Janus: Marxism and Fascism in the 20th Century", where he goes into the theory of both movements.

In a nutshell, the main reason people in France, Britain, Spain, Germany, and Italy went with Fascism was because they felt the current system wasn't good enough at getting the job done, with many coming from socialist and marxist political backgrounds. What resulted was a blending of extreme nationalism, rejection of marxist materialism, and a love of violence. But by and large the more "revolutionary" Fascists got pushed to the side by the political leaders of the party. (Marinetti was pushed out of the Fascist party by 1923, for example, because he disagreed with Mussolini on how 'revolutionary' the party should be.)

As for Germany, Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is broadly accurate in the situation facing Germany after WW1, and the intervening war years. Nicholas Goodrich-Clarke's "The Occult Roots of Nazism" trace the spiritual side of National Socialism from its roots in Austria c. 1880-1890 all the way through to the 1940s. If you want to find out about the Spanish Fascists, just google Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera Anthology, and it should be one of the first you get. For a background on Spain before the Civil War, which includes a few lengthy chapters on the failures of the Republics reforms, there's Hugh Thomas' "Spanish Civil War".

It appeals to many traditionalists (Guenon converted to Islam), its anti-feminist, anti-gay, was praised by Hitler and many muslims today are anti-semites. Islam and fascism are traditional allies.

Modern Fascists don't

Also remainder Evola was literally opposed to Fascism ideologically and thought that the very fact that a party was required for Fascism in Germany and Italy was symptomatic of a larger problem which was a lack of cultural spirit to back the Fascism, which was right

The only successful Fascist Empires in history are iron age tier. The Aztecs and and the early Han Dynasty (chiggers had 15% of their male population mobilised at all times) were successful 'Fascists'

Your posts have been very informative. I thank you for your patience once more.

>anything pre-modern
>fascist
(You)

Your posts are fucking awful reductive shortsighted bullshit.

they awfully misread Spengler and Nietzsche for one

You're welcome.

(You)
Mosley came from a clearly socialist view of the economy, Mussolini was an out-and-out socialist, Sorel wrote Reflections on Violence in an attempt to return Marxism back to what it once was, and Jose Antonio's Falange were seen as being too left-wing by the Carlists, Conservatives, or the military.

Fascism in Italy developed because the Italians had a permanent inferiority complex going back to 1870 when they unified the country, except for the Trentino and Southern Tyrol, and were being overshadowed by everybody around them. In the 1880s and 1890s there were intellectuals in places like Milan, Turin, Florence, and so on, that argued that parliamentary democracy wasn't going to work, and that in order to make Italy great again, the country would need a strong man in order to unify the country, unite the classes, remove labor differences, and make Italy a great power. Along came Sorel's book on political violence, and suddenly you could be both socially progressive and violent at the same time, all in the name of changing the government.

Going out of the 1890s, the Italians got cucked out of Africa, and kept developing the theory that only a strong man would be able to make the country into a great power. In the 1900s, the Futurists burst onto the scene led by F. T. Marinetti who decided that being counter-cultural and ultra-progressive was great. (Read the Futurist Party manifesto, they called for nationalization of industries, the abolition of the church, free love, and a universal militia.) Marinetti was probably not influenced by Sorel's views on economics, but they both shared a love of violence as a way of getting things done, and a distrust in parliamentary politics.

Marinetti was just one of several Italian intellectuals that would go into the border towns between Italy and the Austro-Hungarian Empire and start fights on purpose. He'd give anti-A-H E plays, burn the A-H E flag, and starts riots. (Marinetti also had a habit of going to audiences and getting in fights with them because it was part of the performance.)

So by 1914 Italy had a bunch of intellectuals who didn't like the current government, ultra-nationalists who believed violence was a good way to get past the system. The only thing that was missing was someone with enough mainstream appeal to combine these two factors.

By 1918 Italy had gone from being the least of the greats to being better than Austria-Hungary, and for all their time fighting in the Alps and the Isonzo Valley, they got nothing. Since this flew right in the face of the treaty the Entente had used to get Italy into the war, the Italians (especially soldiers) were upset. To make this situation even better, the Italian communists were gaining ground in the countryside, especially with the peasants, and in the post-war period there was the chance that a civil war was going to happen. Enter Mussolini and the Fascists.

(1/2)

(2/2)

The response to getting some Communists in your town/farm? Hire some Blackshirts to run the commies out of town, and to get the property back into the hands of those who owned it. Mussolini became popular among conservative circles because of this, and because of his willingness to disregard what people like Marinetti were saying about how Fascism needed to be more revolutionary and progressive. During all of this, the Italian army and police didn't do much to stop Mussolini and his Fascists because nobody liked the Communists.

Then Mussolini decided he was going to pull off a coup. 40,000 Blackshirts set out for Rome, with only 800-1,000 making it because the police and military decide letting a bunch of paramilitaries march into the capital was a bad idea. The Italian king meanwhile decided that in order to keep the people (the violent ones, at least) happy, he would let Mussolini form a new government.

The Fascists were a minority party in the government, with only four cabinet positions being filled by Fascists. The only reason that changed was because the Fascists got the Acerbo Laws passed, giving them a control of the Italian government. It was only a couple years after that that Mussolini declared himself Il Duce. Mussolini's support came from three places: former soldiers, conservatives, and northern Italians. Even though Mussolini listened to intellectuals who talked about corporatism and syndicalism, those weren't implemented in Italy until the 1930s.

Fascism (in Italy) got its start in intellectuals who found Marxist theories about revolution inadequate, so they decided to use a revision of Marxism instead. Fascism found supporters all over Europe, but was almost always successful in those countries most affected by WW1, where popular figures (with either the acquiescence or acceptance of the military) managed to use the threat of Communism, poor economies, and national pride to get elected.