What are some essential fascist books? I've already read Imperium by Francis Yockey, what else?

considering the fact that fascism is on the book-burning end of the political spectrum, you wont find many books that support it, but there are a few that examine it in an invariably negative light.
Try The Anatomy of Fascism by Paxton.
I believe there's also an Oxford Press Very Short Introduction edition on Fascism.

How are existentialism and fascism not conflicting ideals

I'll stop when you stop

You're completely clueless and the only good use you'll ever have for your books is using them to build a stack from which you can hang yourself.

>Dostoevsky
>Right wing

Have you read him?

Yes thoroughly, what are you an American who thinks "Not a Democrat = Right Wing"
Leave interpreting writers to the big boys scamp

>Complete Poetry & Prose of William Blake

Are you mad, or just trying to save the misguided edgelords with these divine works

lmao

lmao

D'Annuzio.

Holy shit you retards need to read more books if you think that the Right spans from Bush to Hitler through Trump.

holy shit let me just let your infinite wisdom woft over me for a sec, this is some weapons-grade intelligence you're bringing to the table.
All of the arguments you've made are infallible and we've all converted to the fascist ideology now congratulations

Then what does Right Wing even mean at that point?

Okay, so you want me to TELL you why you are clueless? Because you do not even know that there exists a fascist intellectual tradition, that Modernism, Futurism and Fascism are strongly interconnected, that some of the most important literary figures of the 20th century were fascists, etc.

I detest fascism myself, but that doesn't mean I have to be clueless about it.

*D'Annunzio, sorry.

It's not easily defined, just like the left isn't easily defined either.

Thank you for the reply, but think you missed the explanation, how is Blake right-wing, or any-wing.

Read the fucking chart and look at the key.

Define it difficultly, Quads friend

trolled hard

William Blake > "religious, libertarian." > Right-wing.

I think I'm missing something here, fucking

I think its exceptionally easy actually, the Left Wing are the good guys like Luke Skywalker and Gandhi while the Right are evil like Hitler and Trump

Nice quads.

That said, the left and right are pretty easily defined as a generality.

The Left are more egalitarian(and by that resistant to hierarchy), and the Right are more orderly. And by orderly, I mean the acceptance of justified(in their eyes)hierarchy and rules.

Now this is a generality, but it is usually true if you're talking to people who are genuinely on the left, and genuinely on the right.

>I think I'm missing something here, fucking
top lmao virgin kid

This is because you do not understand right-wing thought.
Read "The Conservative Mind" as a primer.

Plenty time to reproduce, nerd. I'm still 26.

Or in other words its about their relationship to historical systems of power.

Yes, I was going to say something along those lines, I realized it wasn't necessarily always true, though. But in general, that's the gist.

Not really, no.

I understand why you desperately want to have Blake on your team, or why they want to. But the just man stands on the middle.

But I'll read.

>Or in other words its about their relationship to historical systems of power.

No, it's much more related to personality traits. People who are open to new experiences are generally on the Left(hence the egalitarianism), and people on the Right are less empathetic, but this is for a reason, namely their personality traits(usually conscientiousness, industriousness), demands rules to the game you are playing, and if there are no rules to the game, it will be chaotic(which is a state of being conservative people don't appreciate).

lmao kid honestly

Sure is Reddit here.

>post one of the most retarded things I've seen on Veeky Forums, that sounds like something I would say when I was 10
>talks about reddit

I'd say it was bait, but I don't even know any longer

>doesn't see the Mystical, Vague Bigger Picture

Your definition of the right merely fits neoconservativism. But the other forms are indeed "empathic". From my biased perspective even more empathic than the left or the liberals could ever be. They are however willing to make tough choices, which might from the outside appear as cold-hearted. It's the strict father.

Let Moral Duty tune your tongue, but be your hearts harder than the nether millstone

>post one of the most retarded things I've seen on Veeky Forums

As opposed to what? This Marxist posturing?

Yeah I don't even know any longer. What's happening to Veeky Forums? It used to be good and filled with intelligent people, now it feels like the median age is actually 14, without even exaggerating.

Yeah, but that's the point though. The "strict father" isn't being empathetic, he's trying to generate responsibility in his children, which is vastly different from the caring mother(who is genuinely empathetic).

I'm not saying conservatives are psychopathic, because that is a pathology characterized by no empathy, but I'm saying they have *lower* empathy, because other things matter more to them than simply being kind and inclusive.

And by this I don't mean that it used to be more right-wing, I just mean that the lefties were actually thoughtful and well-read. The shit I see these days boggles the mind.

actually the right is more empathetic, but they can make the hard but necessary choices like calling black people niggers and gay people faggots and also doing everything they can to kill these people

What is inherently wrong with fascism?

I don't think you can chan for long without losing your critical abilities.

the left is generally defined by an antipathy towards suffering and the right is generally defined by their belief that it's salutary desu

kek, at least this is bait.

>What is inherently wrong with solitary confinement?

FTFY. Should be self-evident.

>conspiracy

Could be a potential explanation. Retarded lefties from reddit are trying to win the 'cultural war' on here, instead they are just sabotaging their own agenda by making any ideologies they associate themselves with seem retarded even if they're not necessarily so.

Nothing. But it is probably not the best system.

no valorization of hardness is pretty central to rightist thought

Does no one feel like this jargon is outdated and irrelevant to newer issues?

Antipathy towards hedonism != extolling ``suffering''

Like what, transgender bathrooms?

>Hard times create strong men. ...

I've got it! The key is to get rid of men!

Projecting modern political categories on pre-modern works is a bad reading.

And by that I'm that anyone who thinks Plato's right-wing is legitimately retarded.

okay well do you think some people deserve to be poor? if no then i dunno how good the term rightist is for your politics and if yes then you consider suffering at the very least morally necessary if not salutary and instructive

literally always sucked ass

>Projecting modern political categories on pre-modern works is a bad reading.

It's not if people are reading pre-modern works, wanting to apply them to current society.

not everything is exegesis famo

Like our tendency towards a noosphere, and a recreated spiritual-virtual co-existence that spreads as far as electromagnetic communication can achieve, and embraces all in an universal holistic consciousness that allows all everything while still preserving everything and all, by means of virtual meta-reality simulacra

Almost no-one, right-wing or otherwise, thinks that poverty is a good thing. That's a straw-man. Some right-wingers, though, believe that social *hierarchies* exist for a reason, and those at the bottom should be there. Others believe that it is unfortunate that there are poor people, but that the state should not punish the successful by redistributing their resources to the unsuccessful. Yet others right-wingers believe that the best way to help the poor is to teach them to fish, rather than give them fish.

>right wingers dont think poverty is good, they just think any situation in which it doesnt exist is bad

ok cool nice chat

That's another thing than saying "uuh Plato is a fascist".

But everything has a context. Otherwise anyhting means anything. For example Plato's was a fairly antraditional in respect of politics and culture. But that emerges in his disdain for poets which weren't just faggy artists in Ancient Greece, but the guardians of the education and the shared values of a citizen.

If someone in the 1600's was arguing that we should throw all the priests out of our cities, cause they teach immoral things, would he be a conservative?

Ignore this guy, he's eating from the trashcan of ideology.

>That's another thing than saying "uuh Plato is a fascist".

Well, that depends. If you wanted to apply the ideas of Plato to modern society, it would look very much like a fascist society.

if i was trying to accomplish anything i wouldnt be on Veeky Forums, im here to to achieve some warped echo of catharsis in the face of my future life in trump re-education casinos

>im here to to achieve some warped echo of catharsis

Well, catharsis is not going to happen to people who only think one side of the story is true.

I don't read too much explicitly fascist literature but of the stuff i have that leans that way, here is some interesting shit that I've read:

> Submission by Michel Houellebecq (reading this means you can skip reading Camp of the Saints, this is better anyway)

> Everything written by Murray Rothbard. If you're not interested in economics, his non-economics stuff is far better. The most important essays you need to read are "Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature", the "A Strategy for the Right" chapter of The Irrepressible Rothbard and "Race That Murray Book". Most of it is available for free at mises.org/profile/murray-n-rothbard

> The Real Right Returns by Daniel Friberg is pretty good

> Nietzsche is absolutely essential. Thus Twilight of the Idols is a good place to start and Thus Spake Zarathutra is something you should definitely read.

> Evola is interesting but i wouldn't really call it essential and can be rather difficult reading.

> Decline of the West by Oswald Spengler

Go to Arktos, they have the best selection of New Right/ True Right literature that you will find. Avoid Generation Identity though, that book is absolutely terrible.

Nice bait-and-switch you got going there, sport.

What do you mean?

A fascist society is essentially an extreme form of order, e.g it is a total rationalistic system in which nothing outside can exist.

Which is essentially the same as being in solitary confinement, just at a societal level.

> No Turner diaries
> No David Duke
> No Siege
> No George Lincoln Rockwell

These are all pretty important to understand the American far right, also no Heidegger?

Did you really delete your post just so you could send the exact same post with "sport" on the end?

What's your definition of solitary confinement? Are you using the legal term as it applies to the modern prison system?

well for once the idea of philsophers as rulers is at odds with the historical incarnation of fascism, which has favoured the "man of action" as opposed to the "man of thought". In his ideal city also there's no nationalism (and how could there be, since the concept of nation is a modern idea) instead the city is bound by the Idea of Justice.

What holds together fascism and "the ideal city" is antidemocracy and organicism, Traits shared for example also by the Soviet Union. Which btw reminds me of how many people have instead read Plato as a proto-communist (a wrong position too, for much the same reasons)

They don't want to be reminded how stupid actual Right Wingers are

I deleted it because I thought I was misusing bait-and-switch. Then I realized I wasn't misusing it, and reposted it.

The sport was an unconscious addition. It's nothing to get upset about.

seconding a major no-no on generation identitaire. was epically terribad.

honestly ernst junger is your boy for this stuff precisely because he was smart enough to keep it at a distance. he did what he had to do without becoming a complete asshole. this is why germany still loves him. he was an honourable soldier and he could have been the ip man of james bond imo

no that's a terrible explanation

fascism literally cannot function without an 'outsider' within against which to consolidate the national identity (jews, blacks etc)

it's also fundamentally irrational not just in a "hurrdurr fascists dont read sense" (though they usually dont tbqh) but specifically in its cult of action

No, I'm using it broader, and I'm using it psychologically as well as politically.

It's a form of society where no other idea than the orderliness of the state and society can exist, because they don't accept any chaotic influence on the system.

And the problem is that it is a rationalistic system, which is why it's attractive to people who are slightly more intelligent than retarded.

he was a druggie degenerate

Okay, then I rescind my comment.

Carry on, good sir.

>fascism literally cannot function without an 'outsider' within against which to consolidate the national identity (jews, blacks etc)

well with enough time there's always an "outsider" to be found

plz say "ernst junger was a druggie degenerate" into the microphone louder comrade

i want everyone to hear this

don't worry about backpedaling, i won't be replying any further. some things are just too ridiculous to do anything other than tip one's fedora to

>implying he wasn't

It's antagonism is never satiated.
Even if all the Jews and homosexuals were killed off, all the blacks and browns made into zombie slaves, all the women confined to quarters, sophisticated censorship methods put in place to keep the left down. They'd still look to other white males to fight with. Hence the Slavs aren't white meme.

Which is why ideology is a problem. It's so pathological that if left alone it will even eat itself, not to mention it's perceived enemies.

See: The Great Purge.

implying that anyone actually gives a shit. /pol/ pls go.

i'm going to go on prentending that y'all are seeking out fascist literature ironically or to arm yourselves against contemporary manifestations of fascism -- and not because you're actually interested in subscribing to this shit.

what year is it again?

This has to be satire right?

What you wrote is essentially a slightly more intelligent version of "I literally can't even" and "IT IS 2016!!"

current, i believe

How would existentialism and fascism conflict in any way? I mean, from Mussolini's atheistic point out view his imperial project certainly gave meaning to his life, not some transcendental truth.

2016. You can see it in the post's date 11/29/16 (mm/dd/yy).

That definition is silly. That would mean that would mean that movements like fascism that wants to destroy the current rules and emphasize shared emotions over reason are left wing.

That only works in a Christian, western framework. Where do far right Japanese Buddhists fit?