Any books not on this list that you recommend, or books on this list that you don't recommend...

...

It's a chart with a bunch of books with right wing points of view, categorized by genre and what political ideology they align with. What's dumb and non-sensical about it?

The fact that it has Vonnegut and Hesse for starters are not rights wing authors at all and that even putting Chesterton on the same list as sperm magic Julius is as sensible as putting Marx next to him as well.

Alain de Benoist is pure biblio European New Right. Unlike the populist far right, he actually strives for nuance, is genuine in his anti-capitalism and isn't a stark raving loon

I feel like the list is a little uneven and flawed, I haven't read most of it so maybe my opinion isn't fair.
There's an abundance of european esoteric mid-20th century and onwards stuff and nouvelle droit, as well as american polemical stuff - but less foundational texts.
The inclusion of Schmitt, Burke, Hobbes, Sorel, Gasset, Spengler and Carlyle is good, but there should be more of this calibre of the philosophical underpinnings of right-wing thought than stuff like Sunic, Faye, Devi, Varange etc.
If I had to add anyone to the nonfiction section I'd add: Leo Strauss, Pope John Paul II's 'Love and Responsibility', De Maistre, Solzhenitsyn, Alasdair Macintyre etc.
Friedrich Reck might be a nice addition too.

also why has it taken so long for the Storm of Steel categorisation to be fixed ree
still, this list has introduced me to a lot of great stuff. I wonder about some of the classifications, is Confessions of a Mask labelled as 'fascist' because of the aesthetic celebration of violence and power? or to label the political leanings of Mishima himself. It doesn't strike me as a particularly politically charged novel, especially compared to Mishima's other books.

plus this

> is Confessions of a Mask labelled as 'fascist' because of the aesthetic celebration of violence and power? or to label the political leanings of Mishima himself.

I imagine the aesthetics, but of course some of his other work is much more potent in this regard (Patriotism, Temple of the Golden Pavillion, Notes on Hagakure)

Eric Hoffer's True Believer and Ordeal of Change.

Ayn Rand missing

How is storm of steel political? I found it to be an honest description of the author's experiences during the great war whitout much reflection at all.

He's glorifying conflict as a mystical experience which makes true men and unites the nation.
It's not very political, but his views on certain things are clear.

Yeah, his other books are more political but I suppose it's an entry to his work.

100 Years of Solitude
The Grapes of Wrath
1984
Brave New World
Atlas Shrugged

Homage to Catalonia

Utopia

>book written by a Catholic saint who was executed because he refused to give in to progressive doctrines is leftist
I know his utopia has no private property and shuns money, but comon.

Add Paradise Lost, Milton was a subtle Aryan.

I think it's anachronistic to describe the English separation from the Catholic church as 'progressive'. True, its also probably anachronistic to describe his book as left-wing but its an influence on left-wing thought.

I somewhat agree with the first part, it mostly comes down to some of the categories imo. Like Nietzschean is not right wing.

Your reaction to Chesterton and Evola is just "There are right wing views I disagree with!" though

It just speaks to how dumb the term right wing and hence the list is.

Storm of Steel is notorious for Ernst Junger's constant revisions to it as his views changed - there are a lot of different editions. In his life, he went from championing "total mobilization," something which in his treatment resembled Adolf Hitler's movement, to a radical individualism. Storm of Steel can't help but be a political book given its context and history.

Thank you! And thank you to everyone for sharing their viewpoints.

>trying to become a right-wing philosopher

Pseud.

You should be trying to expose yourself to as many intelligent perspectives as possible and deriving your own conclusions from those, as well as thinking on your own with no literary influence. If you are preemptively categorizing the bounds in which your thought will operate, you shut yourself out from a potentially infinite number of insights, all with their own merit - irrespective of whether they can be categorized as right wing or left wing.

Do you know why politicians want to teach the masses to think in Red v. Blue, Right v. Left, Black v. White, and all other binary choices?

Control.

If you only have two options, it becomes far easier to manipulate which option you will choose. Thus, the illusion of democracy is preserved and the masses feel their voice has been heard.

If you, alternatively, educate your population to draw their own conclusions and perspectives from all the relevant data, you end up with a widely varied assortment of political views, which do not make influencing the population into making the choice you want them to make realistic.

If you can simplify the options available, then it becomes proportionally simple to influence the choice which must be made.

Don't fall for the Right v. Left meme.

Also, no philosopher would start his pursuit of Wisdom with a conceptualized end in mind. The whole point of pursuing wisdom is that you get it - in other words, you begin by admitting you don't have it. So, if you do not possess wisdom and must, therefore, pursue it as a philosopher, it would be foolish to presume that you will come out with a specific perspective at the end of your studies. In fact, I would argue confining your philosophical studies to what will make you a "right wing" philosopher or a "left wing" philosopher will cause you to look at everything through the lens of that parties political perspectives, and, ultimately, limit the amount of insight to which you will be capable.

Enjoy your readings, study philosophy, but don't limit your perception by falling for memes.

>meditations
>right wing philosophy
Ok why do /pol/cucks recommend this pseudo-stoic repetitive garbage is beyond me,is it because most of them are NEETS or their lives are bitter filled with anxiety/paranoia.

Hey, so I have a question. I was going to make a thread for it, but here seems pretty good.

So the left, particularly Marxist stuff, has a boatload of well-developed theory, 'science' and dialectics that kind of lay the groundwork for everything.

Does the right have anything that really contends? Or is it all pretty much 'feels is reals'?

>fiction
>Homage to Catalonia
Pick one

This picture is impressive. Thinking of theory as left vs right isn't helpful.

...

Capitalism and Freedom - Milton Freidman
Basic Economics - Thomas Sowell
Economics in One Lesson - Henry Hazlitt
Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market - Murray Rothbard

Also a lot of the Marxist theory stuff for the left only applies to Marxists, and many of my leftist friends aren't Marxists and actually really dislike Marxists because of how immense, dogmatic, and esoteric a lot of what they do tends to be for no other reason than to hopefully scare away any debate.

>Reflections on the Revolution in France

has any book ever been so thoroughly BTFO?

You are terribly mischaracterising Junger's work. Storm of Steel had very differing versions but the only significant changes was his tempering of the negative portrayls he gave his enemies (it was done largely for the international market as well to step back from his more arrogant youth).

Also the english translation of Total mobilsation comes from Richard Wolin's Reader on Heidegger which was intended to be a comprehensive summary of Jungers later concept of "the Anarch" (which to date is largly excluded from his english translations) which you naively characterise as simply "individualism". Jungers "Sovereign Individual" is in many ways the diametric opposite of the Anarchist in it's relation to authority

>Rights of Man

has any book ever been so thoroughly BTFO?

>There is a satanic element in the French Revolution which distinguishes it from any other revolution known or perhaps that will be known. Remember the great occasions - Robespierre's speech against the priesthood, the solemn apostasy of the priests, the desecration of objects of worship, the inauguration of the goddess of Reason, and the many outrageous acts by which the provinces tried to surpass Paris: these all leave the ordinary sphere of crimes and seem to belong to a different world.

wtf i love satan now

The Koch brothers have an unpaid Cato Institute intern post on Veeky Forums apparently

>Cato
>Rothbard
Don't you know he said something racist once so it's better just posthumously excommunicating him from the tradition, remember to vote hillary because bill weld said so dude TPP is totally free trade it gets a solid 6/10 haha :^)

What about this one?

Maybe not the abridged one though

>strong Dublin accent
sounds right

>muh open and objective mind XD
This is accurate to some point, but youre also insufferable.
Obviously, he has already come into cantact with leftists thought and so wants to become a champion of those ideals generally catagorized as right-wing.

>no Siddhartha, which will make all of your edge lord faggotry go away
>no Ulysses
>no works that suggest you even read for the prose
>no Infinite Jest
>not even a top 5 Dostoevsky work
>no Letters From a Stoic by Seneca

purge this entire list and go fuck yourself

>Meditations
>right-wing philosophy

What? I doubt the stoics would ever endorse an authoritarian state. Aurelius might have turned a blind eye to slavery due to his cynical views about the futility of trying to rail against injustices and social norms, but that's a far cry from actually endorsing slavery.

Authoritarian states dont always have slaves.

One day you'll realize that at this point in time you were still knee deep in ignorance.