Why did last thread get deleted /lit/?
>>8258839
there are plenty of shitty threads but when they are about books (this one was) they hardly get deleted
>>8258834
>>8258839
I don't understand why lit is so adverse to discussing multiple forms of literature or philosophy. I thought lit was supposed to be the board that promotes discussion on literature. Why are so many people so emotionally attached to their political superstitions? Why do most of the people on 4chan feel so threatened when anything that enters their echo chamber doesn't ring true to their beliefs?
I thought yall niggahs read Plato so you should know better than to throw mud at those who don't >share your opinions.
This is why 4chan is going into the trash because you are all enabling this dichotomy between left versus right instead of sharing ideas and opinions.
4chan was great because 4chan didn't cuddle anyone who had an opinion nevermind how shitty but conglamerated towards those who had to say something of merit. Now all dialectics on 4chan have been reduced to merely ad hominems and other fallacies without delving the topic that is being discussed you fucking faggets.
>>8258857
Complaining about 4chan isn't allowed on 4chan.
Other things not allowed is trolling, hate speech and such outside of /pol/ and /b/.
Basically your thread got deleted because you filled it with garbage, not because of your political views.
Be less garbage and you will be listened to more often.
>>8258834
Because Ayn rand is the answer youre probably fishing for so you can pat yourself on the back for reading ayn rand
that shitty image makes it look pretty baity. really its more suited for /pol/
Because these threads aren't sincere; they're as shitty and bait-worthy as most actual right rhetoric
>>8258877
I am literally advocating the same thing which is that people should atleast try to accompany their ad hominems with actually thought out arguments and ideas.
I for one don't care if someone calls me a fagget, nigger or w/e as long as his argument yields some merit or worth.
>>8258878
>taking rand seriously for even a moment
why are rightists like this?
The OP wanted to create "controversy" so deleted it themselves.
>>8258834
probably because there were like 10 other shitty right wing lit threads already
why do we even use catch-all terms like right or left wing
>>8259142
>thinking is bad
Just read Evola mate
>>8258888
I would love an honest discussion of conservatism, but at this point it is pretty limited to Evola, Spengler, Christposting and infowars infographics. Stuff like Aleksandr Dugin and Tolstoy are interesting but lets face it, most rightwing threads are garbage like yours, and just include spooks and boogeymen, and people who think a Twitter post has anything to do in real life.
Consider intellectual hipsters in the 60s and 70s, meeting in apartments to discuss the revolution and and marxism and the crisis of capitalism. Post-structuralism is far weaker and will pass away just as that did.
>>8258834
Because most rightist threads are reduced to butthurt arguments. If you really want literature of the right, look in the archives because this thread has been made 100 times already by people that drifted from /pol/ to this board.
>>8259218
This. It seems most rightist threads are always immediately flooded by retards that use the same 3 buzzwords (SJW, cultural marxism, redpill).
First real response in this thread: Allan Bloom's Closing of the American Mind. It's what you're looking for, OP. Discusses the weaknesses of Enlightenment liberalism, the dangers of German philosophy, and the effect both have on us today.
Stop complaining, we're being culturally improved by Reddit, It's a good thing.
>>8259241
I agree but this post will be seen as bait, sadly.
>captcha thinks an orange is not food
Also read books recommended by righty magazines. Try The New Criterion, Commentary, First Things, and the Weekly Standard. Read Leo Strauss. Final tip: if you want intelligent conservatism, Jews and Catholics are your friends.
>>8259256
They aren't, you'd only think this if you grew up in a middle-class suburbs, outside in the working class areas nobody cares about "tenured professors" or "social media celebrities" and "people in public services sector" are outright hated.
>>8259264
You don't get it, proto-/lit/'s position on immigration and diversity hasn't changed, they were always aesthetic traditionalists; neo-/lit/ calls proto-/lit/ "/pol" because they weren't around when /pol/ was called /news/.
>>8258857
Because partisans, and especially leftist partisans, want to shut any ideology that differs from theirs down. It's really not that difficult.
>>8258834
Is this going to be another freedom fighting finn thread?
>>8259218
>Tolstoy
Leftist Anarchist lmao
>>8259259
Reddit is right wing.
Thread fixed, now about book
>>8259837
Christian cultural nationalist ayyy
>>8259282
Underrated post
>>8259843
No it really isn't.
>>8259859
The Kingdom of God Is Within You.
>>8258857
I'm going to assume you're a newfag. It's because literally 100% of all rightist anything brought up in /lit/ is shitposting /pol/shit. And then when it gets shut down it becomes nothing but special pleading and victim complex crying by rightists. Every single time. Without fail. Since the beginning.
>>8259282
I was here and this is wrong. We call it /pol/ because /new/ (not /news/ btw newfag ) doesn't exist.
>>8259888
>They weren't around when half of all threads were arguing about Bible Translations
>I was here
>>8259897
I'm sorry anon but it was /new/ and not /news/
>>8259907
Didn't imply otherwise senpai
>>8259911
Sorry, I didn't get your point then. Unless it's that I'm never going to leave this fucking place.
>>8258834
>We will not apologize for our achievements, we're proud of our past and our tradition, but not proud enough to actually pay any attention to it, especially to our traditions of humanism and Christianity which both tell me that I'm being an arrogant prick right now
>>8258857
>I thought yall niggahs read Plato so you should know better than to throw mud at those who don't >share your opinions.
Plato was pretty fascist, so using him as a defense is funny.
This thread contains more shit posts than the one in OP pic. Carlyle was a good rec from the last thread, start with him.
Most any of the posts which aren't strings of books in the last thread are the reason it got deleted because that's a lot of fat Americunts thinking their bullshit opinions weren't bullshit.
Try the right wing lit chart too, there's no left wing chart to compare it to, so the /lit/ is biased thing doesn't hold up. /lit/ just has lots of idiot reportfags who probably reported your thread for the same reason people posted about Trump in it.
tl;dr- Carlyle
>>8259873
>no Spengler
>no Ludovici
Chart discarded.
OP, if you want to read a good far right philosophy book that gives a very different view on humanity, and that isnt on this list >>8259873, try "The Myth of the Twentieth Century" By Alfred Rosenberg. This book is disputed as one of the greatest books to ever come out of Nazi Germany. This book was written before Mein Kampf and gives some insight on the racial identity of the Nazi Germans.
Don't take this as Nazi Propaganda, I've heard the audio book of it and it was spectacular and it gives a very huge difference on history and humanity.
>inb4 waciss
>>8261112
>>inb4 waciss
More like retard.
>>8260588
I didn't even notice that they're not on there. I'm not very familiar with Ludovici, but Spengler should absolutely be mandatory reading on any right wing reading list.
>>8259873
>No it really isn't.
Not that anon, but from what I've heard of it, it is.
>Authoritarian
>Has a party line everyone must stick to
>Gives preference to preferred racial dynamic
>Gives preference to preferred sexual dynamic
>Dependent on populism
>Coats a vicious culture in self aggrandising and fictionalised historical importance
It's practically Hitler.
>>8261117
Explain
>>8261135
>leftists can't be authoritarian
OP, this stuff gets discussed on /lit/ all the time, and threads made with the intent to discuss political things broadly are almost always shitshows regardless of their designated partisanship.
A focal character from 1984 is Emmanuel Goldstein, who is portrayed by the government as plotter and conspirator who threatens the order of the state. A ritual called the '2 Minutes Hate' is conducted daily, in which individuals concentrate all their hatred and venom on this -potentially fictitious-character. It is less who Emmanuel Goldstein is, but what he is made to represent, that tells us something about the character of the society and the values inherent of its individuals and its party elite.
If we ask ourselves, is there any character-fictitious, historical, mythological, or otherwise-who lends themselves to the coordination of intensive hatred on themselves and any who can be apparently connected to this character? Likewise, in asking whether there is any such character, we can set aside their actual historical role without fundamentally changing our values, and ask what it reveals about the society that hates our Emmanuel Goldstein so? Further, what is revealed when the hatred for this character is contrasted with that of other individuals who demand equally representative-if not actually objectively worse, supposedly-placement in history?
It might be revealed that we do not hate him because he brought a country to war, or that he imposed a withering climate on the freedom of expression, or even that he consummated the systematic murder of millions; no, it is revealed that he is hated so because of his political opinions, ultimately, and not because of any regard for life, freedom of opinion, or the liberal values of society championed by our ritual promoters of a different 2 Minutes Hate.
Mao killed two magnitudes more, yet there is no animosity exercised on account of struggle sessions. Stalin also murdered a magnitude more, but again-there is no bestial rage for gulags.
Why is Hitler hated with such intensity? It is not because of what he did: it is because he was right-wing.
That is why right-wing threads will always receive short shrift, OP.
>>8259121
Delet this
>>8261606
damn, realy makes u think . . . . . . . .
Bertrand de Jouvenel should be required reading for rightists.
You never look at politics the same again after reading him.
"right"-wing
The greatest irony.
In the event that the OP is still looking for recommendations, Chamberlain's "Foundations of the Nineteenth Century" is as "far right" as they come, same with Paul de Legarde or Eugen Dühring. They fit in the "far-right" category pretty snuggly.
De Gobineau is necessary reading before any of these fellas though
>>8261731
"air quotes"
>>8259121
You can't delete threads older than an hour.
>>8261516
Are you implying that? Because Hitler was a socialist in case you forgot.
>>8261781
Most of those books aren't "far right", whatever you mean by that.
And OP, we hate your kind because you are basically ignorant edgy teenagers. Just fuck off to /pol/ where you belong. Asking for "Far right" literature is the most retarded thing someone can ask for.
Vilfried Pareto
Gaetano Mosca
>left
>right
>wing
>literature
Goodest of goys, I say. Enjoy bickering whilst you're still controlled by the bourgeoisie.
Land
Heidegger
Hegel
>>8261812
nhb a genuine übermensch would inevitably question memes like diversity and tolerance and so would be branded "far right" today
of course they would also question right wing memes like nationalism and religion, but if you think that matters to the typical redditor you are deluded, I have to wonder what planet you're from if you haven't noticed the recent trend towards the far-left trend (on the internet at least)
>>8258857
>yall niggahs
>>8258857
Tbh when the op complains about the community within the first three posts after the OP, op is probably just a fag
Pound, W. Lewis, Eliot, Guenon, Evola*, Spengler, Ludovici, Codreanu, and Junger are some "right-wing", reactionary, revolutionary-reactionary, and revolutionary-conservative writers.
*careful on that edge
Why is the right-wing so awful at literature, philosophy and thinking in general? Why is it that leftists are always the best thinkers? Why are we so much better than them intelectually?
Might is Right by Ragnar Redbeard is good, especially if you're into the idea of social Darwinism.
>>8262453
Because you have find things that you like better
And since you like leftist things better, you also find leftist thing better
works with rightwingers too
>>8259878
>complaining about /pol/ shit in threads dedicated to right-wing philosophy
If you hate it so much, why even visit those threads? And if you are too curious to just ignore it, why be surprised if it ruins your ~vibes~?
The first thing you need to do is stop investing in such a meaningless concept as the left/right dichotomy and realise that peoples across the world cannot be grouped together so easily. We need to reject the universalism that global liberalism pushes upon us.
I always recommend Alain de Benoist, his introductory texts are excellent
I think the reason right wing lit is typically lacking is that conservative types typically stick to non fiction... books by Ann Coulter and the like, books about business and economics, the Bible, etc. They have a different type of brain you could say. The type that would think "if it isn't realism it isn't art!"
There is actually a pretty good right wing lit graphic around
>>8260152
>Plato was pretty fascist
This is precisely the point that I am talking about. Plato wasn't *insert ideology here*, he actually tried to eliminate sophistry by finding the nature of the good via dialectical means. He in essence wanted to do away with relativism alltogether and yet here you are bashing Plato for having >fascist ideas instead of trying to argue against the faults in his psykhe-polis analogy.
You are all so embedded in ideology it's appalling. I doubt whether any of you read at all or just spout Stirner memes whenever someone actually puts his head out the window and tries to upfront a thesis of his own.
For whatever shitty reason most of the people here, both >left and >right, are so convinced of their arguments yet feel so threatened by opposing ideas at the same time. This site used to be a place where you would find interesting ideas and theories no matter how extravagant and wouldn't be censored by mods who felt that these ideas were either dangerous or against the grain. No it has become precisely what it didn't want to be, namely reddit where everybody just circlejerks and any form of discussion is reduced to calling each other cucks, nu-males, fascist, nazi w/e.
>>8259660
The left has had to become partisan on 4chan ever since your stupid gamergate nonsense infected every board.
>>8262606
Hey look, a pseud who thinks he's transcended ideology.
>>8262610
Sorry Salon, but nobody outside of /v/ cares.
>>8262578
>non fiction
>the Bible, etc.
>>8262606
>Plato wasn't *insert ideology here*, he actually tried to eliminate sophistry by finding the nature of the good via dialectical means.
THANK YOU! It always makes me wince when I hear someone stick some bullshit into the mouth of Plato. And it's p close to saying other retarded shit like "Nabokov was a pedo because he wrote a book with it in"
>>8262610
>gamergate
>>8259843
Only The Donald and r/catholicism, and The Donald loves trannies
>>8261716
Hey look its New International Outlook
>>8264105
>When even the Christian subreddit is so left-wing you have to visit the heretical idol worshippers subreddit
>>8262606
>fascist is pejorative
m8, the word meant something before the Nazis got a hold of it and before the sjws got a hold of it too. Plato is fascist, his solutions were developed into Cicero and Seneca's ideas of state duty and order, which is how the the original fascism came about (no, not the Nazis, you tard). Denying that Plato is fascist makes me wonder if you read his Poleitia at all. He is outlining the operations of a state which isn't me putting words in his mouth, it's him putting words in Socrates' mouth.
He's not immune from coming up with a classist elitists system or an ideology because you hate reddit now, and it's disrespectful to what he was trying to do to erase the founding of fascism he helped create just because you'd like him not be associated with Nazis. He's very good ideas about how to control a population, which work well if you want to control a population, which is why dickheads like Cicero and Hitler used the same ideas very successfully to control populations. If you want to make a moral judgement on coming up with ways to control a population, that's on you, but his moral judgement was that it was for the best. You don't get to erase what he was trying to do because other people you don't like like the same ideas as you, that's just retarded. No wonder you descended into a string of buzzwords by the end of your post while also showing you have no fucking clue that fascism could mean anything other than Nazis, even though it's a classical term.
>>8262453
lmao
by any standards, but especially by contemporary ones, the vast majority of people of any note would be called radically right-wing
>>8264165
N-No you don't understand, by the powers of Academia and wishful thinking we've determined that Shakespeare was a homosexual anti-theist anarcho-communist.
What are some good traditionalist conservative authors? Preferably Catholic.
>>8264179
Chesterton
>>8264179
T. S. Eliot
>>8261775
It's just a bunch of conspiracy shit from white supremacists. There used to be something like an admirable right wing, rather than just nutjobs calling everyone else cucks. Why don't you aspire to be respectable, rather than aligning yourself with meth heads and klansmen?
>>8264109
lel
>>8258857
>create a thread about right wing literature
>complains that other posters are dividing things into left or right
>>8262610
>gamergate
>on /lit/
>>8264378
>2
you'd be surprise
>>8258857
>I thought yall niggahs read Plato
We did. And then we superseded him. Plato is the beginning, not the end -- some may never even find a particular end.
>>8264179
Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
>>8264179
Roger Scruton and (((Paul Gottfried))) are the best living conservative writers. Neither are catholic though (Hegelian Anglican and non-observant socially conservative Jew)
>>8264181
His essays on Christianity are good.
>>8258857
>yall niggahs
Stop trying to fit in
>>8259218
>Evola
Can you tell me what's wrong with him? I've read Ride the Tiger and it seemed pretty autistic, but I felt like he made some good points
>OP starts right wing lit thread
>Lefties complain about shitposting
>Lefties are the only ones in the thread actually shitposting
good job guys, really showing us how you're all well educated, mature adults.
4chan got hijacked by upper middle class quasi-communists recently. They shitpost about Stalin and call non-communists stupid. Ignore them.
>>8264164
This post is too precious to let slip past.
>>8264898
See
>>8261785
We're raided on a weekly basis in the genre fiction threads by r/fantasy
>>8259218
A Coflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell is an interesting read on conservatism. If you consider laisez-faire "conservatism" there are a couple of interesting book on that.
>>8264568
I felt his points about the modern world were valid, but all his philosophy is based on some Traditional Society™ that doesn't really exist outside his mind. It's just a collection of his studies into Eastern philosophies.
Blaming others for your problems and then whining about it is beta.
>>8262578
>non-fiction
>Ann Coulter
>>8258857
because we all know that the right wingers -as these /pol/ idiots define themselves- are not to be taken seriously. they are just half-assed reaction to what other people their age believe in (generally liberals). So in the end it snot worth it to spend time discussing things which in my opinion took place only because of being mere contrarians (not actually professing the ideology). If we heed into their claims and rather act on it, and discuss, we will be partaking on the very degeneration of the content itself, and we will be just as guilty as the perpetrators. In other words, stay away from diversion, and keep yourself real.
>>8264206
Paul Gottfried is out of place on that chart
>>8262453
Writing, especially poetry, is a tradition far more right-wing in nature than left-wing. Criticism, on the other hand, is mostly the domain of the left, esp. in the 20th. c. This accords nicely, on a larger scale, with civilisations: the right builds them; the left destroys them.
>>8268227
>They say evil men have no songs; then why do the Russians have songs?
based Nietz
Richard M Weaver, Robert Nisbet, Eric Voegelin, Ferdinand Tonnies, Othmar Spann, Hans Freyer, Hermann Lons, Stefan George, Hugo von Hofmannsthal, Frederic Le Play, Louis de Bonald
Daily reminder that /pol/ sucks, pic related
>>8258834
Anybody here like "Closing of the American Mind"? That book got me started on Greeks.
>>8258834
you're too much of an idiot to start one
it's the same with marx threads
there have been really good right-wing and left-wing political phil threads, but they are very rare, maybe 5 each out of 500 attempted starts by idiots like you
try reading a book, a fascist book even, and start a discussion about the content showing how you have read it by having interesting things to say
maybe 80% chance of a solid thread
but you won't do that because you're a lazy shitdisturber
>>8261606
>Why is Hitler hated with such intensity? It is not because of what he did: it is because he was right-wing.
neither the holodomor nor the famine in china were an intentional program of racial extermination dumb ass
It's not true that right wing politics makes you an idiot, there are intellectual/artistic strains of reaction, most notably traditionalism and certain variants of fascism.
It is true that basically every /pol/ migrant to /lit/ is fucking retarded and has somehow built their self-esteem out of pretending they're smart. Consequently, right wing threads are inevitably a collection of sad retards desperately seeking to convince themselves and each other they're not retarded by name dropping books.
These threads deserve to be deleted.
>>8258877
This. Plus now you're really supposed to have read such and such an author on here and talk about specific points and/or works.
Anyone can recommend a pro-monarchy fiction?
I know some children story in Tsarist Russia with some badass queen fighting against foreigners conspiring to take her country down but I can't find it translated anywhere.
>>8268672
>has somehow built their self-esteem out of pretending they're smart
they fit right in then.
>>8268227
>the right builds them; the left destroys them
More like the right keeps them, the left changes them.
>>8264378
its impacts can still be seen on lit
people still spout epik memes about le SJWs
>>8268227
>>>/prageru/
fuck off with your platitudes
>>8259660
>especially leftist partisans
on 4chan this is nowhere near true
>>8264105
>and The Donald loves trannies
Please say it aint so
All hope is lost nuke us now.
>>8268896
Book of the New Sun
literally all of this shit is motherfucking retarded
>>8259660
Yeah, as you can see from this thread, the left has infected absolutely every safe space you had.
>>8258857
Because lit is a Marxism containment board. Even the mods on here are Marxists
>>8270415
That's hardly true. Lit has plenty of say traditional Catholics.
>>8258834
>>>/reddit/
