Who are the best reactionaries to read? I'd prefer nonfiction. Mishima, Evolva, etc. didn't do much for me...

>change society
In one of the videos I watched a student said "it's not an accident the administration is all white." This is /pol/ tier conspiracy thinking and the students aren't called on it for whatever reason. It was my understanding that "racism" was systemic and that the fault did not lie with the individual, but these students seemed to have a rage directed toward individual white people that made me uneasy. Unsure of what "change" this entails. Feel lost for words desu. I didn't hear anything about wealthy corporate fat cats or tax increases, students just disliked the lack of melanin in their superiors

Evola is pure meme
Read
>Carlyle
>maistre
>hl mencken
>samuel johnson
>thomas hobbes

The general rule with reactionaries is, the more Catholic they are, the better.

whatever you do, don't listen to people who handwave away Evola.

Jünger
Heidegger

i'd agree with that

Just stop thinking about politics. It's not for you. I mean, you had a theophany by watching evergreen? Please. There has been plenty of this going on for years, if it took you so long it's just because now the alt-right is 'trendy'. But it's just another label - much like the left.
Why don't you try to find your identity in something else? What do you truly like doing?

Heidegger is not rightwing. Nor is he leftwing. He is of the political position better known as 'coward'.
Please never put him beside Junger, when the first was hurt 14 times in the first WW and in the second took part to a plot to kill Hitler.

good suggestions

avoid Evola and Mishima, they're not substantial

Here's a good list thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=81585

>I watched the Evergreen State protests

Is this a joke? Why don't you get a job and quit indulging in 'intellectual' masturbation?

There's a lot of presumption from one supposed to be giving advice. At least be less obvious next time.

it is often a journey of many years to come to a reactionary position this was likely the straw that broke the camels back.

My fucking man!

Have you read the Heidegger/Junger correspondences? Heidegger is a pompous douche. I already had problems with his philosophy, to say nothing of his personal life, but the correspondence really sealed it.

Heidegger a shit.

I'm in the process of trying to acquire everything I can by Junger. The Glass Bees and Marble Cliffs were quite nice. Do you have some favorites? Any good anthologies?

I have a job and likely make more than you. I'm unsure what my employment has to do with this.

>There has been plenty of this going on for years,
Sure, but now it seems devoid of an economic component. Economic justice attracted me to the left in the first place
>if it took you so long it's just because now the alt-right is 'trendy'.
I asked for reactionaries, not "alt right." Reactionaries have existed long before the "alt right" and will exist after it is gone.
>Why don't you try to find your identity in something else? What do you truly like doing?
I'm not looking for an identity. I'm looking for works that articulate my concerns. I have hobbies and a purpose independent of politics. You seem to project quite a bit.

It not only is devoid of the economic element, but has also corrupted the social one.

Not to distract from your goals of reading but it really has been going on for years. Read Pynchon.

Which of his books specifically? I read bleeding edge and inherent vice. Both were underwhelming.

Coalitions are necessary so I didn't (still don't) care much about the social aspect. I want more people to have more money in their pockets and less concentrated wealth/power.

Skip the lube and just go in raw.

IV specifically but anything by him is good. You need to put your work in or don't bother imo. If you're not basically taking notes and sperging out and looking into all the references and thinking of each novel as a puzzle then I wouldn't even bother. I'm not saying that to be dismissive or pedantic, I just think that's what he wants.

> not reading Mao and Marcuse and infiltrating the campus club Bong Users' Revolutionary Brigade (BURBs)

Accelerationists are not reactionaries.

Maybe I'll give it a second go. Mao didn't have much traction with these types, it seemed. I attended some "leftist" get togethers when I was in college and the economics played a part but still didn't resonate as much as the identity stuff. Seems like a different animal now, basically "make capitalism work for black and brown bodies, ignore the exploitation inherent in the current order" which I can't support.

I thought like that once, but I'm also interested having a cultural traditionand that's simply not possible under modern leftist rule.

I was joking. It's a line from Inherent Vice. I mean, Mao is a short read so I guess why not.

They aren't, but all of them, especially Unger, deserve more attention from our little internet vangaurd.

The fact that Peterson is a meme and Roberto Unger isn't is a travesty of justice. The guy was practically made for cult internet stardom, yet he's woefully ignored by almost everybody.

He is anti-progressive in numerous way.

Everyone is anti-progressive by today's standards.

You know you can be a leftist, believing that workers should be given more power over their work (etc.), while distancing yourself from identity politics and discriminatory social justice movements. As much as I dislike the SJWs, the reactionaries have their own baggage I'd just as much like to avoid. The only difference is that their shortcomings, having existed for so long, aren't as fresh as the left's, and are therefore less conspicuous.

In the modern world, I'm not sure this is true. Leftism now is completely tied up with multiculturalism, because they know the white working class won't be on board soon enough.

Even if someone did believe the workers should own the production, they will be considered "far-right" if they speak against more immigration and diversity.

Yeah, you might be right. Leftism has taken on a new meaning. It used to be that the left was united by universal aims, but the obsession with identity has fragmented it.

To which group would a more old-fashioned leftist belong? It seems we've been left out.

The international working class knows no race or nationality, these are clearly poisonous forms of false consciousness that provide apologia for economic injustice. Nothing good has ever come out of them for the labour movement.

>Kissinger was interested in maintaining the American liberal status quo through realpolitik

When does realpolitik turn into warcrimes? Such as sanctioning illegal bombings without going through congress, allowing Indonesia to invade East-Timor and lying about not knowing they were going to - supplied with U.S. arms.

The left wing has become more capitalist than the right wing

>distancing yourself from identity politics
Sure, but then you're essentially isolated without any coalition. I'm not even opposed to intersectional identity politics. I'm opposed to "keep the economic system as is, just have more black, brown, trans, etc. people in positions of power." The American left is at a point where they can't utter "$15 an hour" or "tax increases for the very wealthy" without piss dribbling down their legs. Sick of it desu.

That's over. The left can't overcome the "problem" of intersectionality. Which means the non-intersectional left need to radically re-think their position and core beliefs, because your movement is essentially dead.

pic unrelated

Nicolas Gomez Davila

Ortega y Gasset

The anti-establishment hippies of the 60s and 70s are today the supporters of neoliberal globalist imperialism because they were from the start the tools of international jewry.

>international jewry
Imagine being this spooked

JIDF, your efforts to distract and divert attention away from you are futile. The goyim know.

Realpolitik absolutely implies the potential for war crimes, because it doesn't have any concerns for "human rights" or the laws of war, the point is to maintain the existing system and balance of power. Just because it can be horribly violent and illegal doesn't make it reactionary, assuming that was your point (maybe it wasn't). Kissinger was amoral if anything, hard to place him in the right or left camp, although you could say he was conservative in his interest in maintaining the Cold War status quo.

Any good books on international jewery? I read The Jews by Hilaire Belloc and it was excellent.

Chesterton is the not even a conservative, let alone a reactionary. The Napoleon of Notting Hill ends with a riot against against a businessmen who demand society run on their terms.

I've not read The Napoleon of Notting Hill but if
>In a London of the future, the drudgery of capitalism and bureaucracy have worn the human spirit down to the point where it can barely stand.
is part of the plot, I don't find any of that disagreeable. I don't adhere to market fundamentalism and much of my worldview is informed by the Church, I'm not sure how you'd personally categorize Chesterton but I'd like to read more of your thoughts.

Why is it that not being a bald-faced racist is somehow considered being an SJW? There are like a handful of cases I see of people overreacting to something harmless as racism, yet all you have to do is go to the comments section of any conservative news outlet to see all sorts of blatant racism from people in the same breath avowing they aren't racists.

Here, an example: theblaze.com/news/2017/05/23/white-woman-loses-it-on-black-and-hispanic-women-in-walmart-it-doesnt-end-well/

Ignore the story and check the comments. The more I read the comments on these sorts of sites, the more I think the SJW's are right about racism.

>He reads comments sections

The Napoleon of Notting Hill is based on a world in which people have given up civic engagement to the extent that the leader of the government is chosen at random. But the guy who ends up getting it, decides to turn England into basically a Renaissance/Medieval LARP as a joke, but another guy takes it seriously, Adam Wayne, but strangely enough it works and people start to take it seriously too. But the capitalists are not happy about it.

It really is a fantastic work of art, not conservative or liberal, it's about the idea of looking at familiar and seeing the Romance in it.

So much this. Capital will also do what is expedient to profit maximize. In the 19th century, this led it to ally with right wing imperialism to force open new markets. Nowadays, it allies with the progressive left to oppose cultural barriers (such as the nation state and the family) for its own economic interests

You read the Culture of Critique?

Where is one to turn if they are somewhat opposed to capitalism yet they don't want to believe in ZOG?

Nope. It's good?

A must read for anyone who wants to understand the jewish question.

For a socially-conservative critique of capitalism, look to Maurice Glasman and Christopher Lasch.

>political views are based on angry comments on right wing websites
Jesus you people are so dumb and easy to manipulate. No wonder they were able to turn the focus from economics, import millions of dirt poor illiterates, establish themselves within our universities, etc

>Reactionary thread
>No Nietzsche
Impressive.

He's entry level and everyone has read him

No, I wasn't being ironic, I'm legitimately impressed, theses threads are somehow managing to get better, or at least less pleb.

Realpolitik becomes warcrimes when someone bigger comes along to charge you with them.

>>am considering a shift to the right
>>I'll ask members of a Korean hentai forum to recommend books that might facilitate that

Just make up your own mind on what you think is right. Don't be so concerned with "left" or "right" or "reactionary" or catch all terms like that

Yeah, it's not like leftists are ever racist or anything.

I don't know why you went the "anti-White" route by a unknown professor, Guevara was plenty racist.

Ignatiev is merely expressing a view widely held by jews, which is why they promote policies in their host nations that will lead to the outcome he is speaking about.

>Don't be so concerned with "left" or "right" or "reactionary" or catch all terms like that
Ideological purism is necessary for leftism, people who talk like this are usually proto-fascists or on the road to becoming.

>unknown professor

Yeah if only anti-white racism was a fringe ideology and not extremely prevalent among the academics and journalists who effectively control public opinion and set the limits on acceptable discourse. . .

Nietzsche was an aristocrat, but not a reactionary.

not understanding how jews have shaped western politics no user you are the spook

we are on Veeky Forums i assume everyone has already read him

He straight up wanted Europe to return to a pre-socrates Greece City-State style.

>not being counter-semitic

Step it up, sempai

This arguably makes him kind of a neopagan.

I think a proper reactionary is one who cherishes monarchy and the Church. That, at least, seems to be the default position of most reactionaries throughout the history of the movement.

He didn't. Applying comprehensive political ideologies to Nietzsche is a big mistake. That's not what he's about, he's just about the higher kind of individual.

At it's most specific he wanted whatever kind of system would produce the most quality individuals possible.

And on that note, everybody needs to read Pope Pius IX's "Syllabus of Errors." Prime reactionary writing.

I was honestly quite touched by the Reactionary Nationalism of Tibetan Buddhists.

As another user said Nietzsche's not a reactionary, he's a futurist of the highest order.

That is stretching the word Futurist. By a lot.

I can't think of a better word to describe "the exact opposite of reactionary" but not "progressive" either.

The futurists were a group that related to reactionaries actually well Fascists

>This arguably makes him kind of a neopagan.
???
I don't even.

Reactionarism is a want to return to a previous state of society, are you attempting to claim his concept of "create your own morals 'n shit" extends to his political beliefs?

I understand they were related, but they were nonetheless antithetical. Indeed in a sense you could consider them to be competing factions within the broader fascist movement. Ultimately Mussolini's decision to more closely align the party with reactionary elements was a source of huge upset among the futurists. Marinetti in particular would at times use "reactionary" almost as an insult.

>are you attempting to claim his concept of "create your own morals 'n shit" extends to his political beliefs?
Nietzsche doesn't have any clear political beliefs. Anything that we can gather is simply an outgrowth of his views on morality and broader philosophy.

So yes I suppose.

>Nietzsche doesn't have any clear political beliefs. Anything that we can gather is simply an outgrowth of his views on morality and broader philosophy.

We get it already, you like French theory and haven't actually read any Nietzsche apart from secondary sources. You can stop now.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flying_Inn

>The Flying Inn is the final novel by G. K. Chesterton, first published in 1914. It is set in a future England where the Temperance movement has allowed a bizarre form of "Progressive" Islam to dominate the political and social life of the country. Because of this, alcohol sales to the poor are effectively prohibited, while the rich can get alcoholic drinks "under a medical certificate". The plot centres on the adventures of Humphrey Pumph (see also Humphrey Pump) and Captain Patrick Dalroy, who roam the country in their cart with a barrel of rum in an attempt to evade Prohibition, exploiting loopholes in the law to temporarily prevent the police taking action against them. Eventually the heroes and their followers foil an attempted coup by an Islamic military force.

What did he mean by this?

I feel like any writer who is claimed to be a reactionary but doesn't have a certain fondness for Christianity, and particularly Catholicism, should have their own category. The reactionaries as we know them sprang out of the French Revolution and the reaction to it, and their origin is inextricably linked to their fondness for the Church as a powerful force in Europe. De Maistre is the textbook example of this. I don't really consider Evola a proper reactionary for this reason.

Chesterton making fun of modern art and Muslims. Reminds me of the Danish cartoons and Charlie Hebdo.

>You have coome," said the beaming Prophet, "to see the decoration? It is approo-ooved. I haf approo-ooved it."

>"We came to see the Post-Futurist pictures," began Hibbs; but Leveson was silent.

>"There are no pictures," said the Turk, simply, "if there had been I could not haf approo-ooved. For those of our Religion pictures are not goo-ood; they are Idols, my friendss. Loo-ook in there," and he turned and darted a solemn forefinger just under his nose toward the gates of the gallery; "Loo-ook in there and you will find no Idols. No Idols at all. I have most carefully loo-ooked into every one of the frames. Every one I have approo-ooved. No trace of ze Man form. No trace of ze Animal form. All decoration as goo-ood as the goo-oodest of carpets; it harms not. Lord Ivywood smile of happiness; for I tell him Islam indeed progresses. Ze old Moslems allow to draw the picture of the vegetable. Here I hunt even for the vegetable. And there is no vegetable."

I don't like French theory and I've read a shitload of Nietzsche.

If you have arguments then make them.

Chesterton making fun of trannies and progressives:

>"And I do trust the untried; I do follow the inexperienced," he was saying quietly, with his fine inflections of voice. "You say this is changing the very nature of Art. I want to change the very nature of Art. Everything lives by turning into something else. Exaggeration is growth."
>"But exaggeration of what?" demanded Dorian. "I cannot see a trace of exaggeration in these pictures; because I cannot find a hint of what it is they want to exaggerate. You can't exaggerate the feathers of a cow or the legs of a whale. You can draw a cow with feathers or a whale with legs for a joke—though I hardly think such jokes are in your line. But don't you see, my good Philip, that even then the joke depends on its looking like a cow and not only like a thing with feathers. Even then the joke depends on the whale as well as the legs. You can combine up to a certain point; you can distort up to a certain point; after that you lose the identity; and with that you lose everything. A Centaur is so much of a man with so much of a horse. The Centaur must not be hastily identified with the Horsy Man. And the Mermaid must be maidenly; even if there is something fishy about her social conduct."
>"No," said Lord Ivywood, in the same quiet way, "I understand what you mean, and I don't agree. I should like the Centaur to turn into something else, that is neither man nor horse."
>"But not something that has nothing of either?" asked the poet.
>"Yes," answered Ivywood, with the same queer, quiet gleam in his colourless eyes, "something that has nothing of either."
>"But what's the good?" argued Dorian. "A thing that has changed entirely has not changed at all. It has no bridge of crisis. It can remember no change. If you wake up tomorrow and you simply are Mrs. Dope, an old woman who lets lodgings at Broadstairs —well, I don't doubt Mrs. Dope is a saner and happier person than you are. But in what way have you progressed? What part of you is better? Don't you see this prime fact of identity is the limit set on all living things?"
>"No," said Philip, with suppressed but sudden violence, "I deny that any limit is set upon living things."
>"Why, then I understand," said Dorian, "why, though you make such good speeches, you have never written any poetry."

There isn't really any argument to make, Nietzsche makes very clear that he's anti-democracy and anti-socialist.

He's also anti-capitalist, anti-religion, anti-anarchist, in fact you would be hard pressed to find a kind of social organization he wasn't critical of. Why? Because social organization is chiefly pleb-shit, what he's actually concerned with is the individuals at the top and the quality of them. This is a point I raised earlier ITT, if you go into Nietzsche expecting neat political opinions you're going to be disappointed, because his philosophy is oriented around a special kind of individual who will prosper regardless of system.

Thinking
>Oh Nietzsche doesn't like X and Y and I don't like those either therefore he must agree with me
is a giant mistake and precisely how you get retards like Emma Goldman considering Nietzsche to be an anarchist. It's trying to read into his philosophy in ways that simply aren't there. It's pure projection.

Nietzsche is not about how to organize the herd. He's about being great.

He does not criticize every social organization, he thinks they should be filled with the best - physically and mentally. Read "Anti-Education".