Let's have a right-wing literature thread

Let's have a right-wing literature thread.

Other urls found in this thread:

mediafire.com/download/hlq1fufht569v05/Eumeswil-Ernst-Junger.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

tell me about The Lightning and the Sun and why the yellow dot had to be introduced for it?

we all know that this is mod-bait, testing the tolerance of the ban-hammer so you can screenshot it and cry about it later.
we also know you don't read.
just delete your own thread.

OP here, no idea what you're talking about. I'm not a Veeky Forums regular.

I'm currently in the middle of Demons and just ordered a copy of The Republic off Amazon.

Savitri Devi is an esoteric steppenwolfer who thinks Hitler is the incarnation of Vishnu sent to end the Kali Yuga

She's in the whole Western esoteric tradition that goes back to Blavatsky, Thule, and all its mystical offshoots in the interwar period and beyond. That's why she gets yellow, because those people tend to think they're resurrections of Ancient Egyptian god-kings who throw lightning bolts at Manichean Jew-evil. Still pretty cool though.

>Demons
Which translation?
how does it compare with Dostoyevsky's other major novels?

>I'm not a Veeky Forums regular.

Then lurk more faggot.

This

You ought to check out Strauss' readings of Plato and The Republic.

Reading The Republic in isolation is generally a bad idea. If you read Strauss, you'll see that he'd laugh at the idea of such a surface reading. Strauss himself is a semi-fabled founding father of American conservatism, especially ideological neoconservatism. They suppose him to be an esoteric elitist.

Try to at least read the major dialogues and get a good idea of Plato's ideas and major historical interpreters, if you're going to read Plato.

>Demons

Please be referring to Angels and Demons so this can get underage b&

Shut the fuck up.

The OP pic definitely needs overhauling. We should wait until we have a particularly vibrant (and non-shitty) right wing lit thread and then see if people want to spitball contributions and correct a few things.

Reminder not to reply to all the people who are trying to derail the thread. They are the ones spamming.

Can someone explain to me what's reactionary about The Secret Agent other than the anarchists being portrayed as inept frauds?

P&V. I'd say it's on par with his other work that I've read, but with more focus on politics which isn't everyone's cup of tea. I'm only about 1/3 way through so far, but it seems like there's a lot more character development for the first few chapters at the expense of anything particularly interesting happening, similar to Brothers Karamazov in that respect.

Thanks, I'll definitely check that out.

Is this some sort of meta trolling?

>Only 21 fiction books
I'm disappointed

Why can't the right into fiction?

Are Herman Hesse and Joseph Conrad espousers of right-wing ideology?

>Storm of Steel
>fiction

>Anyone who disagrees with my is /pol/
Are you new or something, this is the definition of a Veeky Forums thread

The guy who originally made the image was taking suggestions for authors, and I think he either just went with major works of certain authors who were recommended, or people were making mistakes themselves. He was well-meaning and it was a brief thread, so that pic is rough.

Generally, when a book on the list isn't really right wing, it's representative of the author being putatively conservative somehow. Conrad himself was anti-democratic and kinda-sorta volkisch.

I really we think we could overhaul this list to be something great. Like, I'm not too interested in the racial side of the right myself, but that doesn't mean I don't know a bunch of names like Gobineau that should have their own section. The list should be nonjudgmental and reflect historical things like that, include fellow travelers.

I wrote that this thread is a lit thread. Can't you read?

Show me where it says this is a traditionalist board. I won't even ask you to define that bit of stupidity

why do you fucking right wing faggots always de rail threads? Fuck off to /pol/ and delete this thread

Surely you're here to discuss literature? ;-)

>t. right wing falseflagger

I don't think they're narrow enough to be considered right wing.
Conrad is viewed by leftists as right wing and right wing as left. His writing is incredible. Id recommend Nigger of the Narcissus and Heart of Darkness.
Hesse, while appealing to leftist sentiment, I think houses some right wing ideas. I really like his work. Try Demian, Siddhartha, and Steppenwolf.
Anyway, it's difficult to say, dichotomies are a logical device used by stupid people.

>Show me where every single bit of board culture is laid out so I can fit in
Are you actually autistic or something? Lurk more fucko

Because the right tends to prefer with facts over lies.

been here longer than you, newfag

Has anyone read pick related or anything but Junger?

It's embellished.

THANK YOU MODS.

I've read Storm of Steel and On Marble Cliffs. Is Eumeswil even available in English?

Junger is a weird guy. I always see him as a real, old school elitist conservative who is somehow too rooted in life to want to solve the problem of modernity the way a Weber or Heidegger does. He reminds me of a poet in the first century of the Roman Empire who senses that something important has died, but doesn't really have any feeling that it can be fixed.

Yeah it is-
mediafire.com/download/hlq1fufht569v05/Eumeswil-Ernst-Junger.pdf
I haven't read it but I've heard it's kind of dry and that the whole concept is kind of a rip off of Stirner. I think you've got him pretty nailed down. He definitely realized that something wasn't really right with the way things going, but I don't know that he even tried to figure out a way to fix them.

Mods = Gods

Girl this is the most retarded list I ever seen in my entire life

Leviathan is 'elitist'?

It's a vindication of absolutism, "Hobbesian" is an colloquial term for any worldview that discounts the feasibility of democracy or grassroots social contracts

And what relationship at all does that have to elitism or aristocracy? In Leviathan Hobbes identifies aristocracy as one type of government that is not, necessarily, superior or inferior to any other. How can you move from that to 'Leviathan is elitist'?

It's elitist in the sense that it supports an "elite," i.e. a firm governing class (including a single ruler + his servitors). As diametrically opposed to any kind of communal or anarchic thing. His political theory is entirely about elites qua elites. If you google "Hobbes elitist" you'll get tons of scholars using the term casually to refer to him.

>The Republic
I want dumbasses to stop thinking this is a political text. To think The Republic is about politics is to presume Plato was an idiot, as all of its political conceptions and analogies are overly simplistic to sustain its ubiquity among intellectuals. It's about morality. Plato wrote elsewhere about politics.

But Hobbes doesn't support a "firm governing class". He says that a governing class of aristocrats is one possibility, but a monarch or representative government is another possibility - all that he endorsed was the people investing their power in some governing power which could be a class of elites but could be something different otherwise.

It seems like you're just trying to argue that "anyone involved in government is by definition part of an aristocratic governing class" which is obviously wrong

>you'll get tons of scholars using the term casually to refer to him.

Can you give me an example? I can't find a credible one

Politics could be thought of as morals put to practice in a society.

>confessions of a mask
>fascist

>no Democracy: The God That Failed

>a governing class of aristocrats is one possibility, but a monarch or representative government is another possibility

"Representative government" ought to be used very carefully when you're talking about Hobbesian sovereignty.

I think you're conflating one meaning of "class" with our modern conception of class as some kind of brahman caste nobility, which conflates "governing class" with "aristocracy," as if to imply Hobbes is interested mostly in a blood nobility. The category is "aristocracy / elitism" because they often overlap. It doesn't mean Hobbes is a French chevalier.

It's just a catchall category for people who are anti-democratic, anti-Rousseauist.

I'm not conflating the meaning of class at all, you are just using such a broad term that it encompasses any group of people.

If a 'governing class' is just a group of people that play some role in government, and n aristocratic government is defined by a governing class, then every government conceivable is aristocratic. You've just stretched the idea of aristocracy beyond recognition because you won't admit that clearly nothing about Hobbes' writing is aristocratic or elitist

>you are just using such a broad term that it encompasses any group of people.

Yes, any group of governing elites. Hobbes' concern with democracy is that it's inefficient. Democracy is a transitory phase because people naturally delegate the process of governing (i.e., the sovereign act) to specialists - i.e., to aristocrats and monarchs, i.e., to "elites."

Hobbes' entire argument is that democracy is dangerous, flimsy, dithering, and ponderous, because sovereignty being spread across the body politic makes for a gigantic gap between sovereign decision and sovereign action. Therefore we ought to invest a "sovereign" - a figure who stands ABOVE us - with almost all authority to decide and to act, ideally in one gesture. If you don't see how this interests monarchists and people interested in Platonic aristocracies alike, I dunno what to tell you.

>You've just stretched the idea of aristocracy beyond recognition

Hobbes himself is operating on extremely broad definitions of aristocracy based on Greek political theory going back to Aristotle and Polybius.

>because you won't admit that clearly nothing about Hobbes' writing is aristocratic or elitist

Except the part where he literally says, as you've admitted above, that an aristocracy is a fine form of government, and preferable to democracy.
"And seeing a democracy is by institution the beginning both of aristocracy and monarchy, we are to consider next how aristocracy is derived from it. ... Farther it is impossible that the people, as one body politic should covenant with the aristocracy or optimates, on whom they intend to transfer their sovereignty; for no sooner is the aristocracy erected, but the democracy is annihilated, and the covenants made unto them void." Note: "Optimates" = "the best," the elite.

The only confusion here is you wanting to accuse someone of saying that Hobbes is an aristocratic thinker. He clearly is, in some sense, but that's beside the point. Again: All that was meant by the OP's categorisation is that Hobbes prefers government by "optimates" to popular sovereignty. Compare it with Schmitt's critiques of popular sovereignty.

Growth of the Soil might be right wing, but that doesn't mean it's bad, as you might expect right wing literature to be.

>Democracy: The God Never Tried

>Hobbes' entire argument is that democracy is dangerous, flimsy, dithering, and ponderous

Have you even read the book you're talking about? Leviathan isn't about democracy, it's about political legitimacy and the breakdown of order. Aside from the fact that nobody, Hobbes included, thinks of 17th century England (and certainly not pre-Civil War England) as particularly democratic, he isn't really evaluating different ways of organising government.

The kicker is that when he does evaluate different forms of government, as attached, he doesn't seem to come out much in favour of aristocracy.

>"And seeing a democracy is by institution the beginning both of aristocracy and monarchy, we are to consider next how aristocracy is derived from it. ... Farther it is impossible that the people, as one body politic should covenant with the aristocracy or optimates, on whom they intend to transfer their sovereignty; for no sooner is the aristocracy erected, but the democracy is annihilated, and the covenants made unto them void." Note: "Optimates" = "the best," the elite.

It is a complete mystery to me how you could read this and conclude that Hobbes is suggesting that aristocracy is a better form of government than democracy. Can you read? All he claims in this extract is that democracy leads to aristocracy or monarchy, that the people cannot covenant with an elite without being annihilated. There is no value judgement there.

Again, going back to my original post, in response to your original strawman depiction of the OP picture's meaning for the sake of arguing with something: Elite is meant in the sense of rule by the best, elect or chosen (its etymological origin), etc., as opposed to general or popular sovereignty.

That's all that is meant. It's a polythetic, heuristic category for people interested in anti-Rousseauist political theory. I know you just read Leviathan for POL210 or something, so you want to have an argument, but you're arguing against a stance that doesn't exist. You keep sneaking in phantom things you are inferring from my posts or the image, and I keep saying "no, it's just a rough category for anti-democratic, pro-'governing class' thought."

The most I've said in support of Hobbes advocating aristocracy is that he says it results naturally from the inefficacy and instability of democracy. This is an interpretation of the standard cyclical model of government from Antiquity. The point of the quotes I provided were to show that your statement:
>nothing about Hobbes' writing is aristocratic
is wrong. I think saying "aristocracy" six thousand times involves aristocracy. He does place it between monarchy and democracy on a developmental model, too - just like the cyclical models of antiquity - so it's also a value judgment.

I'm looking forward to reading "UHHH EXCUSE ME HOBBES ISN'T SAYING ARISTOCRACY IS BETTER THAN MONARCHY" or some other non sequitur that vaguely involves the words we're talking about.

20th century Catholic authors produced a lot of great stuff, Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc, Graham Greene, Flannery O'Connor, Gene Wolfe, Tolkien, Walker Percy just in the Anglo world.
Yup, it's extremely retarded.

But the only sense in which Hobbes ever advocates rule by "the best, elect or chosen" is in the sense that the contract involves 'choosing' a ruler. As I've pointed out several times, unless you regard that to be 'aristocratic' or 'elitist' thinking, it makes 0 sense to argue that Hobbes is an aristocrat. I think you're realising this now since you've fallen back on arguing that 'saying "aristocracy" six thousand times involves aristocracy'.

I'm sure the world of political philosophy is eagerly anticipating your announcement that every writer who ever mentioned aristocracy or elitism is an advocate of it

>rule by "the best, elect or chosen" is in the sense that the contract involves 'choosing' a ruler.
>unless you regard that to be ... 'elitist' thinking

Adjective
elite (comparative eliter or more elite, superlative elitest or most elite)
Representing the choicest or most select of a group.
From Old French elit, eslit (“chosen, elected”) past participle of elire, eslire (“to choose, elect”), from Latin eligere (“to choose, elect”); see elect.

>it makes 0 sense to argue that Hobbes is an aristocrat.

It's a good thing only your imaginary interlocutor is doing this! Thanks for that non sequitur I requested. Let me repeat: You keep sneaking in phantom things you are inferring from my posts or the image, and I keep saying "no, it's just a rough category for anti-democratic, pro-'governing class' thought."

>I'm sure the world of political philosophy is eagerly anticipating your announcement that every writer who ever mentioned aristocracy or elitism is an advocate of it

I don't think I need to publish any papers on how "elite" can be interpreted to mean "elite," or that when I have a category for two overlapping but distinct items, I don't mean precisely to say that they are indistinct. Hence.. pointing out that they are distinct.

Again, your whole argument is with a nonsensical opponent who is apparently saying "elite means aristocrat." I disagreed with this in my first reply to you. I really hope you're not wasting anyone's valuable time and money by going to college.

yes read a book nigger

All white people have a moral responsibility to read this book; it should be taught in schools alongside Elie Wiesel and Toni Morrison. Progressive whites in particular need to better understand the consequences of their policies before voting for them.

What's the name of the painting on the cover of demons?

Only conservative philosophers/writers I respect and admire for their work are Nietzsche, Heidegger, Spengler, Weber, Schmitt and Junger.

Basically the German thought that carefully matured after the romantic movement died and how they dealt with the domination of global capital. Their thinking is anti-christian and tries to push the envelope for the development of something beyond the disgusting bourgeois mediocrity we have today. I don't like them because I identify as an elitist, my contempt for the masses (what most right wingers think makes the right wing good), but to balance and think man in a more nuanced way beyond stale political dichotomies. These writers are epochal and timeless for they speak not about merely the political, but the human condition, and deserve to be read.

Strauss is a shitty neo-con that never understood not even one nuance from the philosophy of Plato.

Evola is beyond shitty mystical psychobabble of a deranged idiot.

Benoist is meh the thinker, not too many original ideas in him.

Dugin is laughable, cannot for the life of me understand how he can peddle and drag Heidegger's through the muck to justify the christian orthodox neo-soviet putinism he fetishizes.

Ayn Rand, an unbalanced lunatic, that did not even practice her own crazy bullshit ideas. A nobody in the field of thought.

Hayek and the whole of Austrian school make a strong case for anti-semitism.

Cioran, a manic depressive decadent.

Patrick Buchanan, pfffhahahahaha

What is Buchanan like?

Just ordered that. Can't wait to be horrible depressed.

Savitri Devi is pretty cool.
You should read Miguel Serrano's Adolf Hitler: The Last Avatar. It's probably the pinnacle of esoteric nazism and the logical conclusion to Savitri Devi's work.

>THANK YOU MODS.
Just don't start the thread with a frog and an edgy greentext.

whats a good introduction to right wing philosophy?

Depends what aspects of it you're interested in

i'm quite interested in monarchy and like

Which poison do you want to cloud your head with?

I'm pretty sure Conrad was politically right-wing. I don't know about Hesse, but I'd doubt it.

Are you implying that left-wing philosophy is any better, or that all philosophy is poison of the mind?

Robert A. Heinlein has written some great right wing science fiction books

Well since you believe that liberals a left-wing, I guess I'd say no, I'm not implying that.

I do hope someday you all change your minds about clouding your heads with this garbage someday.

What's the difference between the reactionary and the traditionalist?

>It's embellished.

Source?

A reactionary wants to return to a previous status quo. Lets say a country was a democracy at a point and then turned it into a totalitarian dictatorship. People who want to return to the previous democracy would be reactionaries.

Traditionalists just like tradition as the name implies. They like cultural rules that are perceived to be corner stones of their society. They think eroding these corner stones would endanger the future of society.

These labels overlap sometimes, but not necessarily.

>stop thinking what I don't think! The right wing is objectively wrong!

Oldfag 4channer here, Stormy. Quit advertising your offsite page.

I only urge you to reconsider. No. liberals are not left. Some of them think they are, but they're not really. Others in the know, like the Clintons, know damn well what they are. There's a hairs difference between them and the Bushs

>dis nigga thinks americans use political labels correctly

your "liberal" democrats are right wing-leaning center and the republicans are a mix of batshit insane warlords and neolibs

there's literally no relevant left wing party in america

Death of the West is required reading for anybody that wants to understand the decline of western civilization.

>Well since you believe that liberals a left-wing
Liberals are left-wing by definition, unless you're talking about classical liberalism.

>I do hope someday you all change your minds about clouding your heads with this garbage someday.
I started out as a pompous liberal who thought I had everything figured out, and I became progressively more conservative as I grew older, became better read, and began to understand the nature of the world a little better. I hope someday you grow out of your teenage idealism and gather the courage to acknowledge reality as it stands.

>[D]is nigga thinks americans use political labels correctly
I didn't!
>[Y]our "liberal" democrats are right wing-leaning center and the republicans are a mix of batshit insane warlords and neolibs
I'm intimating exactly that.
>[T]here's literally no relevant left wing party
Indeed. We're not allowed.

No. You're simply lost.

>No. You're simply lost.
A big part of maturing is coming to understand that we're all lost.

>my contempt for the masses (what most right wingers think makes the right wing good)
Isn't that also what has led to most of its problems? I'm not trying to be combative or dismissive here, but I don't really see how this is going to get much political traction given the current state of the world. Do any of the books on the list, or any out there at all address the prospects of "old guard" conservatives in today's environment?

I hope you see the problem in calling someone's opinions arrogant and self-righteous while also being arrogant and self-righteous. Unless this is satire, in which case it is magnificent.

Yes, I know. In capitalism.

Particularly those of who have invested their very identities into political ideologies.

Am I talking to a conservative from this thread?

Currently reading this. More for reasons of historical pathology than actual interest in the subject matter.

So far it's essentially just WE WUZ ARYANS N SCHEISSE pseudo-mythology .

The dude claims that all civilizations stem from Nordic European cultures, which is a race of people that originally came from FUCKING ATLANTIS. Also literally pulls a reverse we wuz and claims that the Pharaohs were all fair-skinned and light eyed.

In all fairness, a more enjoyable NaSoc read than the awfully clunky, redundant drivel Mein Kampf.

That's pretty arrogant, my friend. Dismissing an entire family of ideologies offhand is probably one of the more short sighted things I've seen on here.

I didn't look at every book, but if it's not on there like that other user implied, definitely Democracy, the god that failed.

Is this a good read? Looks interesting.

You're talking to someone who doesn't believe in ideologies

Ideologies are a way for people to attempt to wrap the complexities of reality into a tiny little neat mass appealing package that can be sold to the simple minded. Anyone who goes around claiming to have a monopoly on The Truth via their Ideology or religion is the most lost of souls one can imagine.

Read 'The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy' before you read Strauss

Portrait of Alexandre Benois by Leon Bakst

bump

I got into conservatism after reading Dostojewskis crime & punishment and brothers K.
A great read was atomised by houllebeque, I also liked Submission but not as much.
I also recommend hobbes and Machiavelli philosophically for an Introduction. They are also the introduction in political science in University.

Do you not believe in ideas?

>Conrad
>not critical of imperialism
>Vonnegut
>anything remotely right wing
>William Blake
>as if his ideas of individual liberation have anything to do with Right Wing "Libertarianism"
>>>>>>>>The Republic

What a fucking pitiful chart. I guess what can you expect from people who go out of their way to read """Right Wing Literature"""

Liberals get out of this thread. Re ddit is the "safe space" you want.

conrad was conservative and nationalistic, but being "critical of imperialism" means he's an internationalist leftist anarchist, OK

vonnegut is included because of harrison bergeron, which you don't know because you don't read

mussolini based both his fascist states on plato's republic, and said the failing of fascist italy and his capture by the allies were due to his insufficient attention to the republic, also strauss the grandfather of neo-conservatism thinks the republic is a meta-esoteric paean to aristocracy

dunno about blake but based on how fucking retarded you are i'm sure you're wrong about that too

>complains about liberal safe spaces
>asks for a safe space

>On a board for the discussion of literature.
>Upset about how literature is being discussed
>Muh reddit

>conrad was conservative and nationalistic, but being "critical of imperialism" means he's an internationalist leftist anarchist

It's kinda neat how this is perfectly self referential without realizing

>not including anything by Roger Scruton
Are you for real?

oh fuck, it's a trend! I love it!

By today's standards every work that isn't slam poetry or concerning a brave PoC womyn is right-wing