Let's have a right-wing literature thread.

>>8895986
tell me about The Lightning and the Sun and why the yellow dot had to be introduced for it?

>>8895994
OP here, no idea what you're talking about. I'm not a /lit/ regular.

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

>>8895990
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.

>>8896001
>Demons
Which translation?
how does it compare with Dostoyevsky's other major novels?

>>8896001
>I'm not a /lit/ regular.

Then lurk more faggot.

>>8896001
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.

>>8896001

>Demons

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

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?

>>8896005
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.

>>8896020
Thanks, I'll definitely check that out.

>>8896025
Is this some sort of meta trolling?

>>8895986
>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?

>>8895986
>Storm of Steel
>fiction

>>8896038
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.

>>8896052
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.

File: Eumeswil.png (65KB, 220x369px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 220x369px

>>8895986
Has anyone read pick related or anything but Junger?

>>8896053

It's embellished.

THANK YOU MODS.

>>8896131
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.

>>8896153
Yeah it is-
http://www.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

>>8895986

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

Leviathan is 'elitist'?

>>8896227
It's a vindication of absolutism, "Hobbesian" is an colloquial term for any worldview that discounts the feasibility of democracy or grassroots social contracts

>>8896245

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'?

>>8896252
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.

>>8896001
>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.

>>8896270

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

>>8896281
Politics could be thought of as morals put to practice in a society.

>>8895986
>confessions of a mask
>fascist

>no Democracy: The God That Failed

>>8896292
>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.

>>8896345

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

>>8896372
>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.

>>8895986
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.

>>8896319
>Democracy: The God Never Tried

File: Screen Shot 2016-12-28 at 22.18.17.png (149KB, 741x356px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 741x356px

>>8896414

>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.

>>8896461
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.

>>8896050
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.
>>8896227
Yup, it's extremely retarded.

>>8896511

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

>>8896524
>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.

>>8896227
yes read a book nigger

File: 41nVYBoJLIL._SX319_BO1,204,203,200_[1].jpg (28KB, 321x499px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 321x499px

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.

File: Demons_(Fyodor_Dostoyevsky).jpg (17KB, 259x399px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 259x399px

>>8895986
What's the name of the painting on the cover of demons?

File: quote-after-buddha-was-dead-his-shadow-was-still-shown-for-centuries-in-a-cave-friedrich-nietzsche-134-29-77.jpg (48KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 850x400px

>>8895986


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

>>8896685
What is Buchanan like?

>>8896585
Just ordered that. Can't wait to be horrible depressed.

>>8896004
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.

>>8896153
>THANK YOU MODS.
Just don't start the thread with a frog and an edgy greentext.

>>8895986
whats a good introduction to right wing philosophy?

>>8897380
Depends what aspects of it you're interested in

>>8897397
i'm quite interested in monarchy and like

>>8897380
Which poison do you want to cloud your head with?

>>8896052
I'm pretty sure Conrad was politically right-wing. I don't know about Hesse, but I'd doubt it.

>>8897437
Are you implying that left-wing philosophy is any better, or that all philosophy is poison of the mind?

>>8895986
Robert A. Heinlein has written some great right wing science fiction books

File: 1433613615048.jpg (324KB, 2048x1363px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 2048x1363px

>>8897481
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?

>>8896147
>It's embellished.

Source?

>>8897625
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.

File: IMG_0578.jpg (153KB, 717x880px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 717x880px

>>8897577
>stop thinking what I don't think! The right wing is objectively wrong!

>>8897663
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

>>8897691
>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

>>8897120
Death of the West is required reading for anybody that wants to understand the decline of western civilization.

>>8897577
>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.

>>8897707
>[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.

>>8897714
No. You're simply lost.

>>8897736
>No. You're simply lost.
A big part of maturing is coming to understand that we're all lost.

>>8896685
>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?

>>8897714
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.

File: Emma Goldman.jpg (68KB, 353x429px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 353x429px

>>8897749
Yes, I know. In capitalism.

>>8897761
Particularly those of who have invested their very identities into political ideologies.

File: stirner.gif (10KB, 279x305px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 279x305px

>>8897792
Am I talking to a conservative from this thread?

File: myth-twentieth-century-evaluation-spiritual-intellectual-confrontations-our-alfred-rosenberg-paperback-cover-art.jpg (11KB, 200x304px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 200x304px

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.

>>8897749

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.

>>8895986

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

>>8896585
Is this a good read? Looks interesting.

>>8897821
You're talking to someone who doesn't believe in ideologies

>>8897890
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.

>>8896020
Read 'The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy' before you read Strauss

File: fb8d84ffa2720d7e3fc5eb22b7aa11f0.jpg (46KB, 377x585px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 377x585px

>>8896589
Portrait of Alexandre Benois by Leon Bakst

>>8895986
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.

>>8897891
Do you not believe in ideas?

>>8895986
>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"""

>>8899499
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

>>8899640
>complains about liberal safe spaces
>asks for a safe space

File: authorpic.jpg (25KB, 414x414px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 414x414px

>>8899640

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

>>8899698
>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

>>8895986
>not including anything by Roger Scruton
Are you for real?

>>8899859
>>8899756
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

File: Jodorowsky1.jpg (106KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1920x1080px

>>8896685

Anon I think you actually know your shit and have a nuanced understanding of the material.

Please have this smiling picture of Jodorowsky as a compliment.

>>8899864

Was getting (You) part of your plan? :o)

>>8899756
>>8899851
At least this thread isn't hindered by quite as much full on /pol/ meming and shitposting like the last one. I'm incredibly liberal but I see no reason why there can't be legitimate discussions between those of different ideologies (though /lit/ may not necessarily be the best place for that). What's the point in having beliefs if you can't properly enumerate them or if your reaction to being confronted with one different than your own is to automatically dismiss it as invalid and stifle any sort of discourse?

>>8896685

What are your thoughts on Arendt in general and in relation to her views on fascism and totalitarianism?

Mises.org

Educate yourselves, statists.

>>8898391
thanks

File: 7cef74f9ba5527dac52cef095d1bb637.jpg (56KB, 560x387px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 560x387px

>>8896004
>>8897283
Any more recommendations along the esoteric and batshit crazy line? Reading list so far:

>The Lightning and the Sun
>The Arctic Home in the Vedas
>Adolf Hitler: The Ultimate Avatar
>Das Licht der schwarzen Sonne. Himmlers Rasputin und seine Erben

Would add some Willigut or Guido von List if I knew where to start.

>>8896131
I've read Storm of Steel and find it baffling for him to be so vilified for it. It's not very political at all really and the social sentiments he expresses should seem rather obvious if you aren't completely delusional and pussified but oh well. I suppose simply living by Prussian ideals and experiencing war as a painful yet sometimes exciting and necessary struggle is too fascist for post WW2 occupied Germany.
It's also not Imperalist just because he's fighting for a pseudo-Imperialist nation. I don't remember much at all about colonies or ruling other nations.

>>8899976
>the social sentiments he expresses should seem rather obvious if you aren't completely delusional and pussified but oh well
Such as what exactly?

>>8899453
I believe in assessing ideas independently from one another unless they are inherently related to one another. For example, most people who are pro-gun control are also pro-choice. Why should this be when the two have nothing to do with one another? Well, their ideology says so. And that's the danger of ideologies; it turns people into uncritical sheep who have no real understanding as to why they believe what they believe. Sure, they could think and rationalize a reason for their positions if you ask them, but thinking and examining evidence is not how they came to their position in the first place.

File: soldat-und-dichter-ernst.jpg (195KB, 940x1344px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 940x1344px

>>8900106
Well there is his eagerness to go to war, to defend his country, to experience the rush of it and the adventure, the joy in it. The idea of a honorable soldier, who treats the enemy with the same respect they give him. Someone who is willing to sacrifice himself; obedience to orders and principles. He certainly enjoyed war as something that can not just bring out the worst but also the best in men. But as I said for the most part this is not presented as some deep political essay. He's just a good German, he doesn't shy away from the grueling and gruesome details of war, the longer it goes on the more it becomes some primordial hell. His descriptions of the Battle of Somme reminded me of a Bosch painting.
See if he was some intellectual sitting in his basement writing about just how awesome war is in principle while omitting its horrors and destructive nature, telling us how we should all go out to do it right now, I could understand the issue, but this literally what he perceived and experienced. Give a veteran a break, he doesn't need to pretend it wasn't also awesome and awe-inspiring sometimes between all the shit.

>Of all the stimulating moments in a war, there is none to compare with the encounter of two storm troop commanders in the narrow clay walls of a line. There is no going back, and no pity. And so everyone knows who has one or other of them in their kingdom, the aristocrat of the trench, with hard, determined visage, brave to the point of folly, leaping agilely forward and back, with keen, bloodthirsty eyes, men who answered the demands of the hour, and whose names go down in no chronicle.

>Libations after a successfully endured engagement are among the fondest memories an old warrior may have. Even if 10 out of 12 men had fallen, the two survivors would surely meet over a glass on their first evening off, and drink a silent toast to their comrades, and jestingly talk over their shared experiences. There was in these men a quality that both emphasized the savagery of war and transfigured it at the same time: an objective relish for danger, the chevalieresque urge to prevail in battle. Over four years, the fire smelted an ever-purer, ever-bolder warriorhood.

>This area was meadows and forests and cornfields just a short time ago. There's nothing left of it, nothing at all. Literally not a blade of grass, not a tiny blade. Every millimeter of earth has been churned up and churned again, the trees uprooted and torn apart and ground to sludge. The houses shot to pieces, the bricks crushed into powder. The railway tracks turned into spirals, hills flattened, everything turned to desert. And everything full of corpses who have been turned over a hundred times. Whole lines of soldiers are lying in front of the positions, our passages are filled with corpses lying over each other in layers.

>>8900310
Also sorry if social wasn't the right word. All I mean to say is that he's not discussing politics or ideology although you can spin it into that if you want to use him as a poster boy for a German steel and honor ideology, but not much more. There is no racism, supremacy, religion; just war.

>>8900310
>>8900346
Interesting.

>>8900310
Dropping by to give you some articles written by Alain de Benoist (founder of the french new right movement) on Junger.
Very good reads which will give you an overview of Jungers life and work especially related to the political.

http://thescorp.multics.org/15jueng.html

http://thescorp.multics.org/17jueng.html

>>8900691
Cheers mate. I should probably read more Jünger though, might start with the Glass Bees cause science fiction is my vice.

>>8895986
Who chose to include out of all of Mishima's work Confession of Mask and why did they label it Fascism? I might be misremembering something here but politics seem to be mentioned just as a backdrop for personal fantasies of death and homosexual sadomasochism. I'm sure you can feel right at home with that leaning in fascism but it is Imperial Japan.

>>8895986
I'm a leftist, but I'm certainly open to new ideas and challenging my current beliefs (or at the very least gaining a better understanding of what it is I oppose or disagree with).

Thanks for this thread. I'll definitely put some of the works you guys recommend in my backlog.

>>8895986

I was in a fine bookstore once and they had a four-volume box called "classics of conservatism" or similar. The volumes were Wealth of Nations, The Federalist Papers (this is the one I want to emphasize), and two others which escape me.

Is The Federalist conservative, or politically "right"? This seems to be a strange label to append to a series of essays arguing for a specific form of centralized government, albeit conceived as a sort of unifying superstructure which yet respects states' rights.

The suggestion being that perhaps The Federalist warrants a place on the OP's chart.

>>8901067

https://warosu.org/lit/thread/S8895986#p8899866

Try again

>>8901083
What's your point?

>>8901086
Posts were deleted because they were off topic flaming and political bickering. This is /lit/, if you want "edgy 4chan", go back to /b/, /pol/, or /r9k/.

>>8901112
>Doesn't matter, they still should be allowed. If you don't like it just ignore it. Go to reddit if you want posts you don't like to be deleted.
I don't know if it's your first week on here or something, but not all of 4chan is supposed to be an "anything goes" /pol/ echo chamber. There are board rules for a reason, and based on those rules, the posts in question deserved to be deleted.

I'm not going to entertain this nonsense any longer. Go whine about it elsewhere and let us have our thread.

>>8901191
I made some of those comments. They were removed after I got banned for posting anti-semitic stuff in another thread (it was warranted, I shitposted).

>>8895986
Asking here because making a thread is not worth it.
Any books that explain the ideas of anarchocapitalism?

>>8901196
>>8901145
>You will not post any of the following outside of /b/: Trolls, flames, racism, off-topic replies, uncalled for catchphrases, macro image replies, indecipherable text (example: "lol u tk him 2da bar|?"), anthropomorphic ("furry") or grotesque ("guro") images, post number GETs ("dubs"), or loli/shota pornography.
>The quality of posts is extremely important to this community. Contributors are encouraged to provide high-quality images and informative comments.
>Complaining about 4chan (its policies, moderation, etc) on the imageboards may result in post deletion and a ban.
>Remember: The use of 4chan is a privilege, not a right. The 4chan moderation team reserves the right to revoke access and remove content for any reason without notice.

>>8900691
Thanks for these!

>>8901196
>>8901145
They are off topic on a literature board. Fuck off.

>>8901222 (checked)
>implying anybody enforces that rule
>implying the mods aren't banning for political reasons
This >>8896263 thread is not related to literature at all, why can the mods delete literature-related right-wing threads and not this frogposting thread? It's been up since yesterday.
>>8901228
Explain above then. You just don't like them because you disagree with them. They ARE on-topic.

>>8901234
>Explain above then. You just don't like them because you disagree with them. They ARE on-topic.
Both left wing and right wing posts in this thread were deleted because they contributed nothing to the discussion at hand and were simply inflammatory statements.

>>8901253
So? Why should "inflammatory statements" be banned on fucking 4chan? This isn't reddit.

And they still haven't deleted that frogposting thread.

>>8900966
>I'm a leftist
we get it you went to college and think you're really smart

>>8901261
Because we can't discuss literature if threads are immediately derailed because bait-retards decide to talk about unrelated political shit.

Do you want all boards to be like /b/ or /pol/?

>>8901261
because what you heard about 4chan is wrong and based entirely on boards such as /b/. While the general level of hostility is higher and arse licking lower, these statements are still pointless shouting at each other for shock effect and derail threads into nothing but shit. Frog thread is also shit.

>>8901273
And? Just don't respond to bait posts and make quality posts yourself. Like we've always done until recently.

>>8901261
>So? Why should "inflammatory statements" be banned on fucking 4chan? This isn't reddit.
4chan has a fair amount of rules about that though, especially on blue boards. This isn't the "random" board for a reason. It's the literature board. How many times does this have to be explained to you?

Ignore the troll. He read a few articles online about how 4chan is a lawless, anything-goes anonymous forum home to the "alt-right" and Anonymous and has started exploring the other boards after spending his first week on /b/ and /pol/.

>>8901280
>People are allowed to make inflammatory statements on the literature board. Why not?

We strive for quality posts on this board. Make an inflammatory statement of quality instead of the regular old boring meme-tier posting that you find on, say, the 'redpilled' boards.

>>8896305
burrrrrnnnnnnn.

>>8901285
>hurr quality of posts is very important to 4chan
>"Ignore the troll."
>le alt-right
>calls others newfags

>>8900966
>I'm a leftist, but I'm certainly open to new ideas and challenging my current beliefs

Hahaha okay buddy. Whatever makes you feel good about yourself...

>>8901290
>le quality posts
If you want quality posts, make quality posts. Ignore posts that you don't like. It's really that simple. Go to another website if you want autistic quality control, because the noise-signal ration is fundamental to 4chan. Learn to take a joke.

>>8901295
Come on now, many of us started as bleeding heart idealistic teenagers. You gotta start somewhere.

>>8901320
I certainly didn't. Did you?

>>8901329
I was always a National Socialist at heart. We are all naturally "racist" and "misogynist", it's just liberal """"""education""""" that brainwashes you into doubt. Luckily, I saw through the ideology

>>8901329
Yes, I did. I was born and raised in Toronto so I was subject to liberal brainwashing like the rest of my peers.

>>8901345
>>8901350
How did you change?

File: fraternity.jpg (862KB, 1280x1920px) Image search: [Google]

862KB, 1280x1920px

>>8901345
You sound like you want to revert to some romanticized pre civilization. I'd rather be reactionary towards sjw bullshit than go that far back.

>>8901369
You really don't have to be "right-wing" to not buy into the SJW identity politics bullshit though.

>>8901362
I didn't change was my point. I always had a deep mistrust of letting women stray outside the confines of domesticity and home life and allowing different races to coexist alongside each other.

>>8901369
The 1950s are the closest to paradise on Earth that we've come.

>>8901362
Reading, learning about history, paying attention to world events, being exposed to the likes of Dostoyevsky, Solzhenitsyn, Nietzsche etc., Also, being exposed to divergent views via the internet and having my own dogmatic views destroyed in debates played a big part.

Most people live in echo chambers and never have their views challenged; or if they do, they cower away from it as quickly as they can while engaging in mental gymnastics to convince themselves that the person challenging them is some sort of terrible person and not worth even listening to. I think my reluctance to ever fully embrace any particular ideology made me pretty immune to that sort of thing, which left my mind open enough to change my views when I was faced with the reality that I was wrong. When you begin embracing ideologies, they become part of your identity, and henceforth any attack on your views is an attack on your identity, which is not usually up for debate.

>>8896685
I've read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, and as such I agree with you completely about Ayn.

>>8901376
Well I would say it's technically reactionary although the term regressive left suggests one hold the left to be the reactionary ones in the discussion. Not like left and right matter much anyway in this mess.

>>8901420
This is why you're starting to see a schism between SJW types and /leftypol/ types in the far left.

File: 1389150815335.gif (1MB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 400x225px

>>8895986
>right-wing

>>8896110
refering back to OP's image, I see Hesse in a similar vein to Ortega y Gasset. Both espouse pure Liberal views, but can be seen from a somewhat conservative perspective I suppose.

>>8901769
I think they fit the idea that Hayek expressed when he called himself an "Old Whig"

Liberals that became disillusioned with democracy and are left behind and eventually outside of the Overton Window

>>8901844
>Liberals that became disillusioned with democracy

Liberals number one priority is to capitalism.
Democracy is unworkable with capitalism. Hence the difference in leftism to liberalism. A "liberal Democrat" is a team name for a political party and an oxymoron. Like calling Trump or Tea party-ers conservatives. They bloody well aren't.

>>8902257
I'd find some truth in this. Liberalism's decline is one of the saddest things to me, especially how it had to adapt and transform itself for different more popular movements.

Like, one of the first identifiable Liberal (property rights and free enterprise) movements was probably the Physiocrats in France, who though they had some weirder views about land and what not, generally supported an end to monopolies and what not. What's also interesting about them is that they were not democratic at all, and were rather spending their time trying to educate and direct one of the heirs to the King so that he would enforce and create their policy.

Physiocrats came closest to success when Turgot was Finance Minister for a short amount of time, but that all fell apart and Turgot's plans were trashed.

Whigs in England generally held to those ideas, and you got some great figures like Cobden and co. Germany got a bit weirder, having actual ancaps for awhile in the 19th century which caused a divide between the Economic Liberals and the Political Liberals.

Why does pol shit on libcaps? Normal capitalism is libertarian compared too most other things.

>>8902570
because most of /pol/ isn't libertarian anymore

nu/pol/ is basically just trump worship and they support israel

natsoc and lolbertarian /pol/ is long dead on this site

File: polideology.png (115KB, 841x942px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 841x942px

>>8902813
>and they support israel
>natsoc and lolbertarian /pol/ is long dead
No...

>>8902850
>nationalist
very vague choice

If you read threads their you'll find that most of them are civic nationalists, which is basically Trump worship and very jew friendly

Just try and start a thread about Israel or the Jews, ever since the election its been "Jews aren't that bad" or "Trump likes Jews" or "Only American Jews are bad, Israel is based"

Most of those people only identify as Libertarian, when pressed they'll show their true colors, but thats pointless because libertarianism is more or less dead. Its all about Trump on 4chan now, you'll have to go elsewhere to find anything

>>8897422
Kinda late but if you're still here "Menace of the Herd" by Erik von Kuehnelt is a good start.