Who are some good Rightist, traditionalist, authoritarian, and or fascist poets?
I've heard Ezra Pound had a fashy streak.
This is not a thread for legitimizing or critiquing the politics of these movements, simply a discussion of the poetry in their spirit.
As far as authors (dunno about poets)
Heinlein was an unabashed Fascist, although by no means a racialist.
Junger is hard as fuck to read (that is, his motivations are hard to read), and may be very uncomfortable for most /pol/lacks as his traditionalism sees Fascism and totalitarianism as revolutionary (On the Marble Cliffs)
If you want some ultra conservative racialist traditionalist genre fic, pic related. One begins to believe Larry Niven wants to see the world burn
You would do well to also include reactionary in your list of descriptors. But whatever descriptor... there are nonetheless a surprising number and quality of what can be called right wing poets.
Anyway, off the top of my head...
The Romantics, in general
The early modernists, in general
>are you an idiot?
No need for that.
Multiple major Romantic figures were, or certainly became, confirmed Tories (eg. Wordsworth and Coleridge). The whole Romantic movement is founded in reactionary politics, especially against the Industrial Revolution and hearkening back to an idealised medieval tradition.
Baudelaire on the other hand was a supporter of conservative aristocratic politics.
>This is not a thread for legitimizing or critiquing the politics of these movements, simply a discussion of the poetry in their spirit.
You don't have to preface threads like these anymore. The Marxists have gone, we're reactionaries now.
Romanticism was a key element of the same counter-Enlightenment that also gave us Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France. Like Hegel, many Romantics were originally taken with the revolution but eventually did a 180 and became staunch conservatives. Even at their most radical, their individualism places them closer to modern conservatives than modern progressives.
Well yes, but it's imho still a mistake consider them among what OP mentioned. But it probably goes more with that how you want to define it, I was more thinking about christian conservatives (like Bernanos for example).
Kleist was a nationalist in his time, friends with the Romantic political economist Adam Mueller
The Romantics and Decadents gave birth to the climate from which these elements emerged in the twentieth century. Stefan George was another such poet, along with Baudelaire, with aristocratic elements in his writings.
revolutionary contribution to the thread, comrade
>The Romantics and Decadents gave birth to the climate from which these elements emerged in the twentieth century.
Yes, but in the time of romantics it wasn't conservative at all; in the begining, and in what we today see as romanticism, they were rather radical and progressive.
If you're talking about their followers, they could be.
aristocratic writing != conservative ideas
>Did OP say anything about conservatism?
This may be the reason why we can't agree. For me, words like rightist, traditionalist are somewhat synonymous to conservative views (as it goes for, especially later, Heidegger).
like all spanish language poets, a literal gommunist and raging faggot
>le rational ancap face.
wonder why they didn't have any opinion on early 21st century political trends. weird. but i know for sure they would have been all for austrian free market economics, thats a fact.
>Not being versed on the science of the sodomite apelings and the divine electron
Goethe was certainly authoritarian in that he didn't much think democracy was a good idea, but he was also opposed to Nationalism, which back then was I suppose actually more associated with the French Revolution and similar movements. On the whole I'd say he was fairly conservative/traditional.
Auguste Villiers de l'Isle-Adam
Verner von Heidenstam
Hanns Heinz Ewers
Fascism considered the rational tradition to be an art of equivocation.
So knowledge that is derived from an at least partly non-rational method is not necessarily disagreeable or unexcellent by the degree it is non-rational.
Fascism does not put rationality on a pedestal
>Turning and turning in the widening gyre,
>The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
>Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
>Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
>The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
>The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
>The best lack all conviction, while the worst
>Are full of passionate intensity.
Yeats - The Second Coming
Kek, Yeats seems pretty close to being one of the worst, by his own standards. I mean, that poem doesn't seem exactly devoid of passionate intensity when describing all that apocalyptic, violent shit.
>When, long ago, the gods created Earth
In Iove's fair image Man was shaped at birth.
The beasts for lesser parts were next designed;
Yet were they too remote from humankind.
To fill the gap, and join the rest to Man,
Th'Olympian host conceiv'd a clever plan.
A beast they wrought, in semi-human figure,
Filled it with vice, and called the thing a Nigger.
He wasn't into the master race theory proposed by Hitler, nor did he recognize the reasons behind Hitler's focus on international Jewry, but all fascism is inherently racialist in its desire to preserve the Nation (the people with shared history and blood) in the Territory protected by the State.
No, not necessarily. The ultimate unifier in Mussulinis words was the state (although Musulini was also a Nationalist for sure). Evola criticised Nationalism as a modernist concept and that fascism should be purely focused on the state and not nations, in the same vein as the multiethnic Roman Empire
Bruh, if you actually read my post you would realise I am not denying the nationalist and racist practices of Mussolini's regime. I am merely stating the ideological foundations of classical fascism is based on glorifying the state (this has nothing to do inherantly with the Nation or Race). Evola who criticised Mussolini from a fascist position was in principle opposed to Fascism based on the Nation concept
To begin with, the theory that civilization moves in recurring cycles is one way out for people who hate the concept of human equality. If it is true that “all this,” or something like it, “has happened before,” then science and the modern world are debunked at one stroke and progress becomes for ever impossible...] Secondly, the very concept of occultism carries with it the idea that knowledge must be a secret thing, limited to a small circle of initiates. But the same idea is integral to Fascism. Those who dread the prospect of universal suffrage, popular education, freedom of thought, emancipation of women, will start off with a predilection towards secret cults. There is another link between Fascism and magic in the profound hostility of both to the Christian ethical code.
> the theory that civilization moves in recurring cycles
Rather it is the concept that time is cyclical, the notion of linear time in contrast presupposes that we as humans become superior and more enlightened as time progresses
>I am merely stating the ideological foundations of classical fascism is based on glorifying the state (this has nothing to do inherantly with the Nation or Race).
And yes, Fascism is tied up with the glorification of the state out of recognition that only the state can preserve the nation. This is a core tenet of fascism. It's not state worship but recognition that the state is the sacred vessel harboring the nation. Without a nation, a state would not be needed, without a state, the nation would suffer dilution, change, or external defeat.
Most if not all states in Europe today are Nation-states, so let's not pretend that elevation of the state as vessel of the nation is soley the purview of Fascism.
My point is, ultimately it is the state that is significant, other collective identities such as nationalism, economic ideology, ethnitity, or religion are all secondary characteristics (and may be abscent in themselves), as such when the state requires it for self-preservation it is willing to sacrifice these characteristics.
I need your help to translate this message. I've found it in the Nietzsche's tomb
>Most if not all states in Europe today are Nation-states
No nation-state would sane accept the burden of biologically and culturally alien invaders as readily as we have seen in Western Europe.
>so let's not pretend that elevation of the state as vessel of the nation is soley the purview of Fascism.
It is though. Communism was the elevation of the state as the vessel of the proletariat, liberalism is the elevation of the state as the vessel of capital, productivity, and financialization.
Liberal modernity is the doctrine of the permeability of borders, cosmopolitanism, universalism, equality, etc. This is why the modern German bureaucrat thinks nothing of dumping foreign hostility into his nation, whereas such an act would be the quintessence of insanity in National Socialist Germany.
>it is the state that is significant
Agreed but my friend I've read a lot of 1920s italian protofascist and fascist literature and they all spoke against exactly what you're proposing, state worship for the state's sake.
If you're talking in terms of realpolitik, would fascist leaders accept sacrifices in order to preserve the state, sure. But in terms of the philosophy, the spirit, and ethos of fascism, no.