Are there living worthwhile "right wing" theorists or philosophers except pic related (just remembered he is still...

Roger Scruton

Maybe you are right, intellectuals tend to only become widely known late in their life.

Looking at Wiki he seems to hold a hold a lot of positions that go way against the popular rightwing populism though. I guess it's a relationship similiar to that of Spengler and the fascists.

I've obviously heard his name but never really checked him out, seems like he's mainly into aesthetics which isn't really my specialty.

>Journals that publish him also peddle a lot of crazy shit like that Finnish ultra-ecologists who wants to kill all humans.
There are more of those?

That plural S should not be there. No idea how it slipped in.

His positions kinda evolved over time. He started out as an old righter and then went on to found the New Right. Nowadays he claims to have transcended both political right and political left.

His main contribution to contemporary right-wing populist ideology is the replacement of racism with culturalism (which is in itself defensible if you ask me).

De Benoist rejects the left/right dicotomy and he reserves greater scorn for liberal capitalism than he does for the left, he takes a lot of influence from New Left theory. I find him to be very considered in his thought and not like the morons he supposedly influenced (Spencer and FN)

>right-wing
>worthwhile

pick one

Spencer is much more an Old Right (read: fascist or nazi) idiot than a New Right thinker.

I wouldn't call the entirety of the FN morons. Certainly, the party elites are common cleptocrats but the FN's mayors are quite popular because they combine social democratic economic policies with conservative or traditionalist social policies. Again, that is something which de Benoist champions.

And I'm well aware that he rejects the left right dichotomy because of this fact. That's because he champions some sort of small n small s national or right-wing socialism.

not just contemporary

Spenser cares for nothing but biological racism. FN is pure populism, not offering a radical alternative to Neoliberalism, same harmful practices but maybe telling Muslims to fuck off like it fixes a broken France

>politics
>worthwhile

Plantinga, Feser, Richard Aleman, Dale Ahlquist, Thomas Storck, Richard of Edan, ZippyCatholic (blogger)

>Old Right (read: fascist or nazi)
Please use a trip so educated people can block you.
Thanks in advance

>ctrl+f "Olavo de Carvalho"
>no results
REEEEEEEEEEEEEE

me

im going to try and get a paper published this summer.

Old Right in a European sense, i.e. Old Far Right. I know Murifats have a different definition for it.

Dugin's Fourth Political Theory is a worthy contribution to the field, although by his own intent far from a complete systematic work.

Chiming in for Benoist too. Beyond Human Rights is a fascinating work.

That crazy Finn mentioned is probably Linkola, who I haven't read enough to form a solid opinion on yet

Wouldn't call them "philosophers", but here are 2 guys you can check out: Guillaume Faye, Aleksandr Dugin. Jonathan Bowden, recently deceased, has lots of good content on YouTube.

>FN is pure populism
And here's where you're wrong. It's not mere populism. They offer a solution. If it's a good one depends on whether or not you'd agree with their ideas.

And what is a more radical alternative to free market neoliberalism than economic nationalism and protectionism? In the long run that's the only sensible option.

The globalisation of money and people leads to an ever-increasing mobility in the Global South. At the end of free trade is an equalised world with a homogeneous underclass. North American and European workers will be the losers and African and South American workers will be the winners. The problem of our current society is the long time redistribution of the money of the poor to the even poorer.

The only current solution to that is to curb free trade.

Greg Johnson

wouldnt the old right in europe be legitimism?

>legitimism
Dude, legitimism hasn't been a political force since 1918.

The idea of the Old Right is only important in sofar as it relates to the New Right.

Roughly speaking, the European Old Right encompasses pre-1945 authoritarianism, ranging from nationalist conservatism to fascism to national socialism.

If anything, legitimism had a lasting influence on far right thought. Ernst Nolte classed the Action francaise as a fascist party for a reason I guess.

It's certainly a good start to fixing a broken France. Bringing in more Muslims certainly won't make things any better

France really serves as an apocalyptic vision of a possible future of Europe. It's far more gone than Germany or Sweden

But I gave 5 examples of prominent contemporary authors.

>Old Right in a European sense
That's Monarchists, you illiterate subhuman.
Fascists, or the Third way, were Centre-to Centre-Left, Nazis were Left, and Falangists were Right

Benoist is the ENR doyen, critic of democracy, pretty fucking boring unless you're into what he's hocking specifically.

You should check out MacIntyre first if you check out that guy's list. He's the biggest and most famous. Pretty major name.

A good book on the Benoist types is Tamir Bar-On's _Where Have All the Fascists Gone?_

It's interesting that I'm a far righty guy who jumped at Gramsci as soon as I understood him, and apparently neo-Gramscianism is huge among ENR types. I know other people with similar stories - someone told me recently that they are a "radical conservative rolling with the far right because there's nowhere else to roll right now."

If you are into the values, culture, etc., stuff, the Sittlichkeits of the world, check out Adorno of course.

Sorry, "rolling with the far left"*

>legitimism hasn't been a political force since 1918.
"What are the Falangists of Francoist Spain for $100?"
FFS, even contemporary Liechtenstein has an active pro-monarchy political movement, you ignorant twat.

Honestly there are no young left wing intellectuals that I know of and take seriously either
Seems like things are just a mess right now and millennials/gen X have nothing relevant to say

Well Dugin is a character.

Are you daft?

Falangists were Republicans and got monarchism forced on them by Franco. Carlists were legitimists but they formed a minority faction within the multiideological government camp. Heck, Franco was dictator of a Republican regime until 1947.

Plus the contemporary Falangists are a farcical footnote to history with next to no influence whatsoever.

>even contemporary Liechtenstein
What you class as contemporary legitimism is not legitimism but parliamentary monarchism. Legitimism relied largely on the landed aristocracy as its power base. With the emergence of industrial capitalism and mass politics, their influence dissipated.

This distributist stuff seems quite interesting, from quick clance it looks like a kind of conservatice christian re-imagining of left-communism (lol)?
>ITS KEY TENET IS THAT OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION SHOULD BE AS WIDESPREAD AS POSSIBLE RATHER THAN BEING CONCENTRATED IN THE HANDS OF A FEW OWNERS (CAPITALISM) OR IN THE HANDS OF STATE BUREAUCRATS (SOCIALISM)

Thanks, i'm pretty familiar with Adorno although I haven't read all of his stuff yet.

The thing about Gramsci is interesting, what do you think it is that makes him attractive to right-wing thinkers?

There's the whole speculative realism/left acc./OOO stuff ie. ray brassier / graham harman etc. it's pretty neat but super niche and academic and hardly has the sheer wheight of 20th century theory.

Distributism is idealised medieval feudalism.

Communism is all about a mommy state. Comminitarianism is all about breaking power structures down to make small communities free.

Left communism is not about the mommy state.

I know, I was being slightly facetious. Obviously, old world catholecism/feudalism is empirically the most effective anti-capitalist ideology in history since it managed to hold it off for like 1500 years.

But are you aware that people do not take people such as Zizek seriously? This I claim is the problem of the new generation.

Carlists were politically important until the 1970's, well after you 'not since 1918' bullshit.
Spain still has everyone from the Communion Traditionalista to the Family and Life Party that are, yes, actually Right Wing and often Monarchists.
You still are not owning up to the core errors of thinks Socialists are Right Wing (or ever were) and claiming that Monarchism hasn't existed since 1918 even though you are forced to admit the Carlists were critical to the Spanish Civil War and Francoist Spain.
>parliamentary monarchism
The contemporary tendency in the Catholic monarchies of central Europe is an increase in royal power and a decrease in parliamentary power from the will of the people.

Obviously, if you compare what teenagers were up to intellectually in the 70s to what they are up to now, you get a pretty grim picture. Obviously, Zizek's insane popularity is largely down to memes and jokes but I feel like he does resonate deeply with a lot of young people today. Maybe we'll have to wait another 20 for the next generation since the people that are currently in the academic breakout-age come out of the very de-politized 90s era.

>re-imagining of left-communism (lol)?
No.
It isn't Re-Distributionism.
The goal is to have as many people/families as economically self-sufficient as possible. In essences, everyone a small capitalist rather than a few big Capitalist Corporations

Oh, then I misread. But how are you going to achieve such a system without a forced-redistribution? And how are you supposed to have capitalism when everyone is largely self sufficient? When everyone is petite-bourgoise, there's not enough concentrated labour power to accelerate the reproduction of capital to sufficient levels for capitalism to sustain itself.

>Left communism is not about the mommy state.
Of course it is

>The contemporary tendency in the Catholic monarchies of central Europe is an increase in royal power and a decrease in parliamentary power from the will of the people.
Here's your last (You). I'm done discussing with idiots.

That's why it's not capitalism.

>But how are you going to achieve such a system without a forced-redistribution?
Taxes on the big ones, little to no taxes on the small ones.
>And how are you supposed to have capitalism when everyone is largely self sufficient?
You are not going to have it, that's the whole point. You will have a small scale market built around craftsmenship and guilds.
>When everyone is petite-bourgoise, there's not enough concentrated labour power to accelerate the reproduction of capital to sufficient levels for capitalism to sustain itself.
Yes, but you don't need it to sustain itself.

Sloterdijk isn't "right-wing". Try Hans-Hermann Hoppe instead.

Slow transformation. Get laws passed that stop favoring
> enough concentrated labour power to accelerate the reproduction of capital to sufficient levels for capitalism to sustain itself.
and get laws passed that favor small/family firms, employee-owned firms, and co-ops. In the meantime, form those same groups and use your advantages (nimble, lean) to beat massive businesses on the market.

You
>claims National Socialists are Right Wing
>Claim there is no monarchist influence in Europe post 1918
>Isn't aware of the increase in royal power in various referenda and legislative actions in central Europe over the last decade
>calls someone who points this out as all wrong an idiot
Let me direct your attention here
And, since this is Veeky Forums, I urge you to read The State in the Third Millennium by Prince Hans-Adam.

But said everyone is a small capitalist, hence the confusion.

So you keep the state and political power structures as is? I mean, the idea of going back to a pre-capitalist economy trough a peaceful transformation seems quite romantic to me but is utterly unfeasible in both theory and praxis -
there's 200 years of marxist literature that came to the conclusion that this won't work for a billion reasons. Which, seems like the problems with catholics to me, they are largely allergic to marx due to his disdain for organized religion and thus can't draw certain conclusions.

I'm pretty open minded but I really can't into lolbertarians.

>But said everyone is a small capitalist, hence the confusion.
Maybe capitalism is too broad a term to adequately discuss distributism. You see you will still have free enterprise with people being small capitalists. But big capitalism with its big multinational corporations will largely be unsustainable because there would be no need for people to stop being small capitalists.

Does that make sense?

Nick Land

The best example for a big distributist enterprise is the Mondragon Corporation.

The power structure within big capitalism is transformed into a cooperative structure.

> utterly unfeasible in both theory and praxis
Nobody is claiming that it will happen over night. There would need to be a very long process, because revolutions never do any good.

Where to start with Sloterdijk? I'm really interested in the Spheres trilogy but if it requires some prior acquaintance with his thought I'll start elsewhere.

Critique of Cynical Reason, You Must Change Your Life, and Neither Sun Nor Death all look interesting too.

Small c capitalism as in - private property, no state-set prices, etc.
is pretty accurate.
>utterly unfeasible in both theory and praxis
There are very successful Distributist firms competing in the general market right now. Mondragon is the largest and most visible.

But the question of capitalism vs. not capitalism doesn't come down to "free enterprise" but ultimately how you deal with labour and production. We already went from small capitalists to big capitalists once, you can try to stall it with taxes etc. but ultimately only by getting rid of wage-labour can you get of it.

Im vaguely familiar with Mondragon but doesn't the fact that they are the exception say a lot? It's not like big capitalism is the natural state, the idea of cooperatives had to be fought against - a battle that the capital c obviously won.

This triggers my inner marxist, but then again, even Zizek agrees to a certain point.

Theodore Dalrymple (though he's been senile for a while now)

I think the Critique of Cynical Reason was his first major work.

Well, one factor to deal with that would be by reestablishing guilds which group all small capitalists of one trade together to regulate their behaviour and prevent monopolization.

Of course, I'm spitballing here. I'm not well-read enough to make an educated argument on the matter.

I hope you enjoy numerous neologisms and verbose writing

considering two of my favorite philosophers are heidegger and deleuze, yeah

That's good. I tried "You Must Change Your Life" and gave up.

>ultimately only by getting rid of wage-labour can you get of it.
Thus Distributism is about owner-operators and employee-owned>Im vaguely familiar with Mondragon but doesn't the fact that they are the exception say a lot?
You also have a ton of other, less-visible firms doing the same.

Pic related.

fugg, I meant this pic

I'd contest the assertion that Spencer's Old Right. His goal is the white nationalist ethnostate on the North American continent, which is about as closely as you can translate the Euro New Right's ideas on organic society and self-determination of distinct ethnocultural polities to the American situation.

I've never read anything particularly militaristic or expansionist from him. He's authoritarian only insofar as he's sceptical of the levelling and liberalising tendencies of democracy. His only real point of intersection with the Old Right is choosing biological racialism as a foundation.

You're thinking of the Carlists, mate.

You called? I defend traditional Christian notions of morality from modernist assault, milady.

scifiwright.com/reason/

>False flagging this poorly
At least put in some god damn effort.

...

>trying to fedora an antifedora ideology

Leftards are so cute