Books on Traditionalism/Fascism

Why do people who don't understand traditionalistic thought always assuming it's anti-individual? what makes them think capitalism and liberalism allows for more individuality? I don't understand how one comes to this conclusion. It preaches quite the opposite to "everyone is equal".

>Individual freedom is axiomatically opposed to hardcore traditionalism. What you actually are is a liberal as you accept liberal values.

Part of fascist theory is freedom of the individual through freedom of the people. It doesn't mean freedom to parade with dildos up your ass, it means freedom to contribute to the people, to its upward expansion, and to its glory.

That isn't individual freedom.
Neither does freedom of most liberals mean dildos and parades. In liberalism the system is there to allow everyone to search their own good. In traditional societies (Athens, Rome, medieval Europe and Catholic countries up untill the destruction of monarchies, but of course the virtue of each is different, but not completely incompatible) the endgame is virtue.
Fascist theory is something third, neither virtue, nor personal liberty.
Because they are communitarian. They place more value on the community (not the state!) compared to personal freedom.

I think that communitarian freedom is then indeed the best thing.

>85% of parents agreed with this message

>Part of fascist theory is freedom of the individual through freedom of the people. It doesn't mean freedom to parade with dildos up your ass, it means freedom to contribute to the people, to its upward expansion, and to its glory.

This statement wholly contradicts itself. Are you retarded or just trolling?

>dildo up your ass

Sure, appeal to the most absurd behavior you can think of. Being triggered makes it perfectly okay to encroach on everyone's civil liberties, right?

Have you tried simply not being hypersensitive?

Good points and I understand what you're saying. Fascism has a different perspective of the nature of freedom, so it would be each free to pursue one's desires so long as it is good for the people. The idea is to forge a new man, such that he is perfectly at peace with the notion of freedom within the limitations of the goodness of the people. By crushing the social alienation and greed of financialized global capitalism, and fostering a homogenous and vital people, the negative expressions that we call "freedom" (I.E. narcotics usage, ripping off clients, etc.) will be so repulsive that they will not be undertaken.

Ask yourself this honestly OP, do you really believe this stuff?
Are you genuinely a "hardcore traditionalist" or are you just a hardcore contrarian?
Fair enough if you are, lots of people define themselves based on rebelling from the mainstream political spectrum, but remember that if you are basing your politics on what is unfashionable you are just as bad as those who base their politics on what is fashionable.
Just be genuine.

Mmm... yes, yes, *puffs cigar*, it appears he also wants to fuck his mother

He cannot be a hardcore traditionalist if he's a fascist who also a proponent of the austrian school. It's like being a protestant catholic atheist.
That's not really the fascist view of freedom as it never had a coherent one, it just made shit up as it went along for the most part. Earlier two of us mentioned The Banality of Evil which shows this very well.

>That's not really the fascist view of freedom as it never had a coherent one, it just made shit up as it went along for the most part.

What is political philosophy save for making shit up?

>is a 'free-market' cuck who values material objects over virtue and discord over order
>doesn't believe in society-wide cooperation arising from something other than selfishness masquerading under the euphemism of incentive
>thinks he can ever appreciate traditional thought

either accept your heaven-ordained station, serf; or else lead the godless revolution of the proletariat

...

>Evola is hardly a traditionalist, he in fact rejected traditions and replaced what was the tradition of his father and his father's father etc. with Indian sperm magic and other occult, esoteric nonsense.
I thought Evola was pretty interesting based on the quotes that I have seen.
Example:
"Some time ago I wrote that of the two great dangers confronting Europe - Americanism and Communism - the first is the more insidious. Communism cannot be a danger other than in the brutal and catastrophic form of a direct seizure of power by communists. On the other hand Americanization gains ground by a process of gradual infiltration, effecting modifications of mentalities and customs which seem inoffensive in themselves but which end in a fundamental perversion and degradation against which it is impossible to fight other than within oneself."

So no to any book of Julius Evola?

>If you want to read up on how traditions function in general and which are the two main ones as seen through ethics, read Whose Justice? Which Rationality by Alasdair MacIntyre.
I will look into it, thanks.

I didn't say I am a fascist, I am just interested in it.
Btw I believe that liberalism (as in for freedom, not that U.S. cancer) is moral and it just works economically, but I also acknowledge that it created a society in which 14yo girls let themselves get knocked up by Jamal and Tyrone while listening to Drake, or in other words: a society without values.
That's why I am also interested in other ideologies.
Also this Although I find capitalism to be the most effective and moral since it's basically just a voluntary trade of goods or services between two parties, I think that society should also be based on virtue. My native tongue isn't English, I am German, but I hope it is understandable what I mean.
So I am still wondering what books on Traditionalism I can read as a beginner. I am also interested in a book that gets me into fascism, I would just like to know more about the ideology and also a historic book would be interesting.
German schools don't teach something like this and I just have a lot of time to read around Christmas, so I would really appreciate some specific recommendations.

The free-market is objectively the most "efficient" form of economic organization? But to what end?

The problem with free-market economies is that society is one enormous collective action problem. People will eventually stop bargaining for collective goods. They will trade national security, environmental protections, etc. for substantively useless consumer goods. Unless you seriously believe that every individual's preferences, and thus their right to allocate their own resources as they see fit, is the ultimate good there is no justification for anarcho-capitalism. To me personally, a standing army is worth more than replacing my iphone 6 with an iphone 7; in fact it's worth more to me than having a cellular phone at all.

Under a fascist system (and other "command" economies) the state is given control over industries seen as vitally important to the common good. Transportation, energy, security, etc. Uniformity has tremendous benefits in such sectors. Consider the railroads: until statutes were passed to regulate their operation, they could not even come together and create a common gauge of track, and as oligopolies they were able to price-gouge farmers and could have forced them further into poverty than even their feudal ancestors would have known outside times of famine. This is hardly a portrait of efficiency; imagine a nation whose armed forces had no standard cartridges.

It seems justifiable that such industries should be controlled by a central authority, what else then? Do we allow people to do as they see fit with their earnings, or do we attempt to legislate morality? Should we allow corporations to exploit the wants of consumers, when those wants are in no way tied to their physical or spiritual needs? Should we allow brothels to proliferate? If not, why should we allow 7-11 to advertise a small nutrient-devoid pizza to food stamp recipients who could buy two pounds of chicken breast tenderloin for the same price?

The way I see it, the free-market is a tool, not an end in and of itself. It is the most efficient system, but it is not always the most beneficial system. The free-market doctrine should be applied liberally in certain sectors, limited in others, and outright abandoned in some.

Another tenant of free-market economics is free trade. Protectionist policies can help national industries at the expense of consumers.

Personally I believe the benefit of having strong national industries [manufacturing] outweighs any detriment to consumers, given the possibility of war or other hardship. If you are ever subject to embargo or have your supply lines cut off, with no national industry your state will be in serious trouble. Losing the ability to purchase as many cheap consumer goods manufactured in China per annum is a cost I am willing to incur for that security. I also believe that having readily available manufacturing jobs does more for the average man's spiritual well-being than does having a few more consumer goods from China.

Once again, the free-market has to be used in moderation. In my opinion, nations should pursue protectionist policies with respect to consumer goods, while allowing free trade (as necessary) to procure capital goods, particularly natural resources not found at home.

Thank you for your post. I think you are right to some degree. I had the same thought, which is why I wanna read more about this perspective/learn about fascism.

take the purple pill and become a monarchist. Feudal Monarchy combines all of the best aspects of the city-state and nation-state, while also tempering the free-market. Many small scale economies with more easily optimized local laws, powerful in the aggregate, governed by feudal lords who are themselves subject to a higher central authority capable of solving large collective action problems.

Arguably the United States tried to imitate this, and was fairly successful for a time, with its federal system of governance. Sadly this has been undermined by democracy.

Another benefit of bloodline royalism is that it severely limits the transaction costs that accompany any regime change. The benefits are well worth the risk of the occasional tyrant.
Given the choice I would much rather suffer under a King than a corporation.

Is this a shitpost? I am new to Veeky Forums
Got any suggestions for reading?

You should read up on constitutive myths of communities and ways of being-together that don't swallow up the individual or negate him but give him a place to flourish

Carl Schmitt's later work, Heidegger's work on what constitutes an authentic community (Gemeinschaft, the always-already) as opposed to a mere society of aggregated ("mass") individuals, Gesellschaft.

Look up Gesellschaft vs. Gemeinschaft, disenchantment, mass. Try reading Ortega y Gasset's Revolt of the Masses.

You should definitely read Hans Hermann Hoppe, OP. Democracy: The God That Failed.

>Hans-Hermann Hoppe (born 2 September 1949) is an Austrian school economist, an anarcho-capitalist (libertarian) philosopher, and a professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

>Families, authority, communities, and social ranks are the empirical-sociological concretization of the abstract philosophical-praxeological categories and concepts of property, production, exchange, and contract. Property and property relations do not exist apart from families and kinship relations.

>Private property capitalism and egalitarian multiculturalism are as unlikely a combination as socialism and cultural conservatism. And in trying to combine what cannot be combined, much of the modern libertarian movement actually contributed to the further erosion of private property rights (just as much of contemporary conservatism contributed to the erosion of families and traditional morals). What the countercultural libertarians failed to recognize, and what true libertarians cannot emphasize enough, is that the restoration of private property rights and laissez-faire economics implies a sharp and drastic increase in social “discrimination” and will swiftly eliminate most if not all of the multicultural-egalitarian life style experiments so close to the heart of left libertarians. In other words, libertarians must be radical and uncompromising conservatives.

>Egalitarianism, in every form and shape, is incompatible with the idea of private property. Private property implies exclusivity, inequality, and difference. And cultural relativism is incompatible with the fundamental----indeed foundational----fact of families and intergenerational kinship relations. Families and kinship relations imply cultural absolutism.

fuck yes my man absolutism all the way

>tfw planetary crown corporation tho

I'd say not to discount pre-WWII Schmitt. Constitutional Theory, Dictatorship, and Political Theology are probably his best work.

If fascism is going to be good for the people why do countries with dictatorships have low standards of living? If your argument is that your view of fascism is different than current dictatorships how would it be ensured that it not become a meritless dictatorship?

In monarchies virtually all wealth belongs to 10% of the population and all social status is inherited. Peasants were the victims of conquest. There is no practical argument for monarchy unless you intend to take capital by conquest. There is no moral argument to capture capital by conquest.

Start with locke, rousseau, hume

next go for bentham and mill

then read some unapologetic capitalists like rothbard, david friedman, and hayek.

proceed with left-wing criticism: marx, gramsci, debord, etc.

then power through the cucks: Burke, Oakeshott, etc.

finally rise with Plato, Hobbes, de Maistre, de Tocqueville, Leo Strauss, Sam Huntington

IMO you just need to get laid bro. Build up that orgone

wilhelmreichtrust.org/mass_psychology_of_fascism.pdf

>everything is sex LOL

Spotted the subhuman.

You sound like a cool dude, I, Myself am a MGTOW anarchocapitalist Samurai and ultramontanist trad catholic and Pinochet loyalist. I dream of a world White catholic empire ruled by the pope, not SJW francis, but a real traditional redpill pope. I see myself as the worthy sucessor to the proud gentleman scholar of yore. Remember, diversity is a Codeword for White genocide.

BUY GOLD GO MGTOW

Peace Out

if you're going to do this why not make it funny

post reading list plz

Jack Donovan's books - The Way of Men, A Sky Without Eagles, Becoming a Barbarian

>why do countries with dictatorships have low standards of living?

The only countries with outright dictatorships today are nigger or latin American shitholes. They'd be fucked regardless of political system

Traditionalism and the Austrian School are incompatible, soz.

>teenager books

This. Definitely read Political Theology

>MGTOW
>not taking the real redpill->LMS theory

wow ur so unique and totally not following the counter-culture trend

what. like what. A peasant had rights, and a commons, or a communal area. the poor could have their communism.

I was playing with the idea of a democratic monarchy. It could be manipulated, obviously, but basically the people vote on which child of a royal family would become the heir. If there were only one child, it could be extended to other family. It would be a way to keep the people involved. Maybe they could vote for their local lord too.

>Implying that isn't what the Left were doing since the 1950s

Thing is they're just mad about the fact that Liberalism and Leftism, far from being the creeds of political social underdogs, are now well and truly conventional - built into the establishment.

They truly fucked up in allowing the 'Right' (be it Alt-Right or otherwise) to become the new underdogs.

When you're in a defensive position, you have everything to lose. When you're in an offensive position, you have everything to gain.

>In monarchies virtually all wealth belongs to 10%
About 10% was clergy which often had more than the secular and as they couldn't have legitimate children this claim was nonsense. Furthermore you had a lot of free cities and villages that were set up as counter power. They were represented in the parliments of the time. Traders were very wealthy and influential as well.

>pretending not to be one of them
lmao

is fascism the most fedora ideology?

No. But it is very fedora nontheless.

Donovan is a feygellah who think masculinity is about black metal and stabbing random people and avoiding girl cooties

Being a non-clergy MGTOW is a sin, user.

No, but it's generally viewed as less fedora than it actually is simply because those who vehemently oppose fascism are the most fedora of them all and relative to these people fascism doesn't look so bad.

>projection

I'm sorry?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

I understand psychological projection, but I'm wondering how it applies to that post.

lol

ok

lol

Before starting Evola you should read Guenon's Crisis of the Modern World. Then proceed with the Evola trilogy (Revolt, Men Among the Ruins, and Ride the Tiger). Finish with Codreanu's For my legionaries for the final /iron pill/.

Your post implies it already isn't a thing. The prince of Andorra is whoever is currently the prime minister of France.

>Giovanni Gentile
Can't find any of his books in Germany. Are they banned or do they just not sell well?

Read Evola. Read Maistre especially on French Revolution. I hope you comply a good list someday as Im also trying to follow this path on traditionalism at the moment.

>posts wikipedia link in an argument

wew lad

Thanks. Yeah I am copying & pasting all the suggestions into a word document atm. I will post it here or in a new thread when I got time...I will have to look up every book first tho

Yea sounds good. Ill stay in this thread for few more hours.

I'd say which books will be most relevant to you depends on whether you're coming to "traditionalism" more for the perennial religious angle, or for reactionary politics. Evola occupies a difficult position in that his associations with fascism/militarism alienate the former group and his occult interests often alienate the latter.

Given his increasing meme-status, it's worth reading something by him and forming your own opinion. gives a good reading order. A full study of Guenon is a project in itself but Crisis of the Modern World and The Reign of Quantity tie in well to Evola's writing. Joscelyn Godwin's Arktos helps clarify a lot of the "hyperborian" elements in Revolt. Some familiarity with Nietzsche is helpful for Ride the Tiger. You could also add Spengler's Decline of the West, which Evola translated into Italian. There's an Evola essay on Codreanu to go with For My Legionaries.

For an overview of the wider Guenon/Schuon/Coomaraswamy current of traditionalism with some mention of Evola, try Mark Sedgiwck's Agaist the Modern World: Traditionalism and the Secret Intellectual History of the Twentieth Century. The essay collection Betrayal of Tradition edited by Harry Oldmeadow gives a good range of essays to introduce the authors in their own words.

For contemporary political engagement with these ideas, you could try looking into the European New Right, Counter Currents and Aleksandr Dugin.

What would you consider to be "the tradition of his father and his father's father etc"? Rationalism? Catholicism? Heathen Imperialism?

IMO it's about the individual being balanced in equilibrium with the whole - between Americanism and Communism as somebody quoted in this thread - which is why I don't really agree with the inclusion of Junger on these lists. Too much of his work is about reduction of the human to a cog in an entirely impersonal military machine. Understandable considering his experiences in WW1, but hardly something to aspire to.

I am German, it's getting late here. I am going to sleep soon. Tomorrow maybe I'll post a list.

In his case the tradition was Catholicism.
Not sure what else would be, assuming his family and all social circles weren't something else.

Ok sounds good.

I wouldn't recommend Evola's "Trilogy" as a starting point.
You might want to read The Metaphysics of War, Introduction to Magic, and the Metaphysics of Sex first-- they will introduce you to the Evola's style (as translated by Inner Traditions, at least) and some important undercurrents of thought that make interpreting the history he lays down in Revolt a little better.

I would strongly recommend become familiar with Nietzsche first, as well as generally acquiring some knowledge of religious theory and practice first-- Evola books are largely a syncretic theology, like all philosophy and science

For My Legionaries is an important work for understand the mindset appropriate to National Socialism specifically-- Some Iron Guard notions are applied to Fascism later on, but it is not well fleshed out in For My Legionaries.
Even Mircea Eliade's early studies of Religion, among other writings, will do a better orientation of the world.

The Futurist movement and Dadaism are very integral to understanding Fascism and Traditionalism as it arose in Italy-- at least Read the Futurist Manifesto.
You should really, really be prepared to do more than prose readings if you want to truly be immersed in Traditionalism and Fascism.
Art, Poetry and song are an integral undertaking if you wish fully internalize a Fascist understanding of the world

As mentioned by others in this thread, Traditionalism is essentially "Supra-Facism" and viewed Italian Fascism as a failed development.

Both of those are incommensurable to your liberal views on personal freedom and economics, so prepare to be cognitively dissonant if you chose to "become Fascist"

For everyone who doesn't understand Evola's militarism, I suggest you read Metaphysics of War

It is a collection of essays which he published to the Italian population during Fascist Reign in Italy, and so break down his beliefs in easy to understand chunks

If we take it as literally his grandfather, yes. In terms of Italian ancestry and Roman tradition there are obviously indigenous things which predate the importing of Christianity. Given it's current trajectory it's hard to see what's really "traditional" about the Catholic church.

>apposed to collectivism
>strong proponent of individual freedom
>interested in traditionalism and fascism
makes no sense

>If we take it as literally his grandfather, yes. In terms of Italian ancestry and Roman tradition there are obviously indigenous things which predate the importing of Christianity.
They do, but 1500 years tend to do their work.
If we see tradition just as something which was before completely regardless of time between what you want as tradition, it's Roman, but why stop at the Romans? What about Etruscans? What about the ancient hunter gatherers? His people certainly haven't practiced a lot of Roman traditions in themselves as they largely carried on anyway within the Church. Rome was Christian for a decent amount of time in any case.
Roman law, natural law, influence of stoic and platonic philosophy, art, music (medieval chant came from Romans), architecture... There's so much of it that rejecting the centuries to go back to Rome arbitrarily makes little sense, if you actually want the tradition of centuries of your people.
>Given it's current trajectory it's hard to see what's really "traditional" about the Catholic church.
The trajectory is at the moment twofold. The 10 years ago weak and almost dead traditional Catholicism (as far as liturgy goes) started growing stronger and now ad orientem is back, big time.
In the same way degenerate bishops were silent and are now openly heretical, alongside the pope. There's a growing schism in any case. But of course this isn't what it was like in his time when he rejected tradition for occult practices.

>you have to be a communist to read Das Kapital

>Julius Evola seems to be pretty based
>really liked a lot of quotes I have seen from him
>Julius Evola for a beginner
Is this bait? If not bait, start with the Greeks.
>implying you will actually read anything we recommend

>strong proponent of individual freedom and Austrian School economics
>Therefore I got interested in Traditionalism and Fascism
/pol/ is a joke

Mises thought the Fascists were better than the commies, but he wasn't a big fan of both.

Ebola is just another Rand and needs to be instabanned

Fascism in Action - Wright Patman

Definitely for a beginner.

I agree, not because I'm opposed to alternative views, but simply because every thread mentioning him is "/pol/ here never read a philosophy book in my life should I start with Evola?"

When pressed to do so, right-'libertarians' will always choose fascism over even the most libertarian form of socialism. its not about your freedom, it's the apotheosis of protestant property fetishism

...

What the fuck would even libertarian socialism be? We were just laughing at OP for his libertarian fascism and now you go into libertarian socialism?

The problem with this is people arrive at traditionalism after they have seen the failures of the left, and to an extent, the right. To truly appreciate it you need to have experienced the dead ends that ideology takes you

It's hard for me to decide which ideology I fit. I mostly identify with far-right politics but I do not care about Jews or homosexuals. I believe in free market and capitalism. I'm also an atheist. Is there a flowchart for these kind of things?

Worker's councils and direct democracy. More or less what Rojava seems to be heading for, not quite there yet, but great potential

>willfully choosing ideology
my gott...

You know, fascism is a lie spread by the lizard people.

They also did 9/11.

Buy water filters people.

If you think about it, Male homosexuality is the highest and purest expression of the fascist ideal. Before battle, our spartan ancestor prepared by having rough gay sex with their fellow warriors. Woman is foolish, misshapen, and weak. to fuck a woman is to risk one's manhood. But Man, Man is strength, Man is Power. The penis is the mightiest of all swords. Are you Man enough to ride the Dragon (man's ass)?

>our spartan ancestor
Please user, my sides will split.

>This is the Face of Fascism 2016 AD
youtube.com/watch?v=KNlCCqd0SY4
youtube.com/watch?v=1YkWvIkED0s

Also Snack Zarathustra

The alt-right isn't fascist or even right wing. They are liberals who prefer to avoid the company of African Americans, nothing more. This is well known.