Actually good conservative literature that isn't /po/-tier?

Hayek and Weber weren't conservatives.

Flannery O'Connor
Gene Wolfe
Graham Greene
Dostoevsky
Chesterton
Hilaire Belloc
Aleksandr Solzenytsin
Vladimir Sorokin
R. A. Lafferty
Dante

xD

Ideas Have Consequences by Richard m weaver is a good one.

By what standards? Modern? nearly everybody before the 19th century.

what does xd stand for

Honestly I love each and every picture. Especially Frege and Hayek.

They bring an interesting, nuanced perspective that will expand your conservatism from the outside. I think Adorno's stances on the culture industry and on moral degeneracy are also valuable too.

For further-right-than-conservative poetry check out Baudelaire and Ezra Pound, although you've probably already read them if you've browsed Veeky Forums for more than a day.

How was Baudelaire "further-right-than-conservative"
He had orgies and died of syphilis

That's a incredibly narrow lens you view politics through.

Seeing as how his poems aren't explicitly (or even implicitly) political I don't see how else you can judge a poet's political views

Speaking of which, why is it that almost all recent intellectuals are (to take a term from /pol/) degenerates? Why do they feel the compulsive need to suck dicks?

>muh sexual freedom
>muh don't need no morals
Literally causing the destruction of civilization.

Thats like saying Mishima wasn't right wing because he fucked dudes.

>his poems aren't explicitly (or even implicitly) political
Stop posting.

I've read Les Fleurs du Mal in french and couldn't find anything relating to an ideology

Seeing as how confident you are you obviously have irrefutable evidence don't you?

>degenerate
>a term taken from /pol/

What exactly are you looking for?

I have a theory that most the artistic geniuses we remember today are those who did things that others at the time didn't dare, thus challenging the status quo.
Those who did that had a complete disregard for the standards of the time, so their works were often scandalous and censored.
These same people would also not care for social norms so would also be "degenerates" like you said. However I think this only applies to certain artists.

High genetic intelligence comes with side effects, homosexuality, OCD, autism etc are just the most common because they share some genes or something.

Even most things in the 20th century would be considered conservative, especially if you follow any liberal propaganda.

>good
>isn't /pol/-tier
>Rand.jpg

Pick one

Hans Hermann-Hoppe.

I would recommend Mário Ferreira dos Santos, but his work wasn't translated to English, and it's hard to find even in Portuguese.
He is simply the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. His work is astonishingly large and rich, he has read and written about just every single philosopher and theme of philosophy EVER. And he was specialized in Scolastic philosophy, i.e. medieval philosophy. He is just fucking great.

>Ayn Rand
>conservative
youtube.com/watch?v=vpp5EXZZrgA

Similarly Pierre Boutang, It's simply unbelievable how read the guy was, he challenged people to arm wrestling while quoting Plato, Dante or Pound.

Plus he destroyed Deleuze and Guattari; even to this day "Apocalypse du désir" haunts the French post-structuralist scene.

I'm not that user but in La Fanfarlo he mentions how the poet (and main character of the story) became a socialist and shits on him briefly.
I don't think he was a right winger though, most of his scenes come from the realization of the abrupt difference between rich people and poor people, and I believe he's criticizing just by acknowledging.
I'm an ESL, so forgive me for my bad english.

>I don't think he was a right winger though
That isn't really up for debate, the guy was a reactionary.

How come? He's the very first modern poet, you can't go less reactionary than that.

Jefferson, Mises, and sprinkle in some Buckley

novels in general are conservative - its such a gentle, reflective medium

Don't make statements like without at least backing it up with some sort of arguement

I dont remember that poem, although it wouldn't surprise me that he does shit on a socialist.
He was a man who suffered a lot of hardship but was also very "degenerate" in a lot of ways, which I think left him with a disdain for a lot of things, especially politics.

I think he was more apolitical than anything else, frankly calling him a reactionary is idiotic.

Elliot wrote a small essay about how Baudelaire was basically the French Dante.

Mário Ferreira was just fucking great.
Without being Nietzchean, he was the first man to translate Nietzche to Portuguese. He made several translations from German, French, Latin, Greek, and since all the academy of philosophy in Brazil is marxist, they supressed his value and his works are barely published.

There is a story about him that is like this:
He was going to debate with a communist. Before the debate started, the communist made a presentation of his points, and his main ideas.
Then Mário said: I think Marxism has much stronger arguments than those you said. And then he talked like a true Marxist. All his students in the room thought he had became a communist, and everyone freaked.
When he finished, he refuted everything he had said.

>Don't make statements like without at least backing it up with some sort of arguement
He literally calls de Maistre his mentor.

Seriously you guys need to read more than just Flowers of Evil, try "My heart laid bare" from Intimate Journals, they reveal the spiritual and misogynist underpinnings of his work

Link because it can actually be hard to find on google if you dont know what your searching for: xtf.lib.virginia.edu/xtf/view?docId=2005_Q3_1/uvaBook/tei/z000000101.xml;chunk.id=d6;toc.depth=1;toc.id=;brand=default

>I dont remember that poem
Is not a poem of Fleurs du Mal, it's a short story by him. Look it up, it's a great read.

>ayn rand
>conservative

she hated conservatives

youtube.com/watch?v=vpp5EXZZrgA

the moon is a harsh mistress.

What's the title in french

>/po/-tier
>he doesn't like paper craft
PSEUD

This is honestly the only real answer if you want to know classical conservatism and the traditionalist variety of it.

Russell Kirk compiled some books with essays from conservative thinkers from Burke to the 20th century, in addition to writing his own essays.

"A Conservative Mind" is what he's known for, and it traces the Anglo-American brand of conservatism from Burke onward.

I own pic related which features some of the thinkers from A Conservative Mind, it's worth reading if you want to get to know the foundations of conservative thought.

Nozick, Hayek, Friedman

Thomas Carlyle
Samuel Johnson
Edmund Burke
HL Mencken

Anything by Waugh

>leftist philosophy is propaganda

The best book you could read on this topic is The Conscious of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater. It is short, concise, and brilliantly lays out the foundation of what today's modern conservative political movement is all about.

>Rand
>conservative
Pick one.

>Bastiat
>conservative
Pick one.

>Weber
>conservative
Pick one.

>I can't get laid
>therefore I take it out on the world

My morian!

What is style?

This, it's really astonishing how incredibly liberal the West has become in such a short time. Virtually any thinker in 1950 or before would be considered "far-right" today, even those who often advocated for socialist ideas like workers owning the means of production.

This idea that we should accept all immigrants, and that we shouldn't discriminate based on origin, is a radically new idea that would have been inconceivable a very short time ago. In 2017, you are a "centrist" if you believe that countries should not be able to preserve their demographics. How crazy is that?

I would argue we don't even have genuine politics anymore, because "politics" nowadays is mostly just about demographics; either trying to prevent other demographics from becoming too prevalent, or trying to get non-native/minority demographics to vote for your party.

>Virtually any thinker in 1950 or before would be considered "far-right" today
No, they would be considered a communist.

Looking more closely, everything is the same.
Sure the cars of today looks different and our politicians got a new haircut, but the way they try and manipulate groups through emotions, is pretty much identical. That the words are different, and the labels are claimed to mean different things doesn't change the fact that if you shuffle the spelling and syntax around, you pretty much end up with identical rhetorics.

>/pol/ didn't white the dictionary

>Actually good conservative literature that isn't /po/-tier?
Nice loaded question/request already. This already shows that you aren't exactly willfully.

exactly honest in your request*

wtf I did sperg lel

Why would you ever want to be a conservative?
What is there to conserve?

>What is there to conserve?
Maybe he's a native American trying to conserve his reservation?

Go forth my son

...

...

...

If someone who has never read anything political picks up schmitt the only thing he's going to get out of it is a headache.

>>If someone who has never read anything political
Good thing the list has Schmitt towards the end of it. Besides, Concept of Political (EE with Strauss commentary) isn't obscure, obfuscated, hard to get.

I'm thinking about unironically following this. Good idea?

Reading is always good and the pollacks journey is a half-decent chart. Just remember to read every book instead of picking a path at 2nd image.

What's wrong with Ayn Rand?

too alpha philosophy for socialists, nu-males and other beta specimen cuckolds of Veeky Forums.

half of those words don't mean anything

t. beta

Liebniz should be Montaigne. Liebniz pic should be Spongebob and Patrick being happy while the city burns (best of all possible worlds).

>not being a reactionary libertarian socialist
That's why /pol/ will always fail.

>reactionary libertarian socialist
>not Monarchist libertarian socialist

Monarchism is a subset of reactionary thought. A reactionary polity can be monarchic but you can have a republic organised on reactionary principles as well.

But crude political order must be secondary for a reactionary. We need to dissolve the state into the Church (t. Dostoevsky).

>what if dolphins had lasers and could fly? wouldn't they enslave us all? #killalldolphins

>implying the Russian Revolution didn't prove Dostoevsky right
Also nice digits, Kamerad.

fellow brazillian here
can you tell me more about this mario ferreira ? seems like a nice fella to look up to

James Kalb in The Tyranny of Liberalism and in Against Inclusiveness talks about this.Would recommend.

Also would recommend Christopher Lasch works who transitioned from a member of the Old Left to a conservative in his later works.He is a really unique thinker.

the Greeks, the Romans, Evola, Eliade, Guenon, Junger, Pound, Mishima, and absolutely NOT ayn rand

>>muh sexual freedom
>>muh don't need no morals
>Literally causing the destruction of civilization.

Consenting adults fucking isn't going to destroy whatever you think civilisation is.

Nikolai Berdyaev

The concept of individuals voluntarily engaging with each other as the sole basis for society is the death knell for civilization.

The sexual revolution had very deleterious effects. Reducing people to their base desires by promoting sick pornography and the like is one way jews control and destroy their host society. Please educate yourself on these matters before weighing in next time.

I'm seconding Herman-Hoppe from some guy above. Also, not right wing, but Piketty has mildly interesting views on the current state of capitalism. Nissim Taleb with his Antifragile stuff would also fit the right wing scheme I guess.

But honestly? There is no hope anymore for right wing thinking as far as "countering" left wing thinking goes. The Left has appropriated all dialectic and all forms of synthesis. They believe in both a thing and its negation with no weight in their conscience and have no qualms about calling you out for committing 'heresies' (e.g racism) whenever you deviate from their agenda. Go into this stuff knowing you will never be able to talk to anyone on the other side.

don't make me laugh

Maybe you faggots should stop thinking and start acting, you know? Being a little defeatist cunt is nice and all but I think it's time we thought about a more violent approach.

Conservative:
** Confucius Analects
*** Plato The Republic
** Aquinas Summa Theologica (Part II)
*** Burke Reflections on the Revolution in France
*** Hegel Philosophy of Right
** Schmitt The Concept of the Political
** Oakeshott On Being Conservative, On Human Conduct

Classical Liberal (aka Libertarian):
*** Locke Two Treatises of Government
*** Hobbes Leviathan
** Montesquieu The Spirit of the Laws (abridged)
** Kant Theory and Practise, Perpetual Peace
** Mill On Liberty, Utilitarianism
** Hayek The Constitution of Liberty
** Nozick Anarchy, State, and Utopia

i have a hard time knowing what the word "conservative" even means anymore. is libertarian conservative? or is it wanting a king?

i guess they are all unified by not wanting marxism, especially not cultural marxism. does conservative just mean "anti-marixist? what is especially confusing to me is that "honor" and "duty" are considered conservative virtues but that seems to imply subjugation to some higher authority, which certainly seems at odds with libertarianism.

charts like only seem to reinforce my belief that conservative is a very vague term.

Someone please show off and explain the pics to a retard like me.

Frankly (as someone who has studied 17/20), I think the pictures speak for themselves.

Hoppe

Mises

Rothbard

Steven Pinker

>>leftist philosophy is propaganda
it literally is

Good for you. Please do go on. I'll just sit here listening.

Why do leftists still exist?

When will they all go away?

not everything is a social/economic construct
holy fuck