Who are some good right wing writers that arent either industry/republican shills or crypto-nazis?

The true ideal of right wing reaction is a savage horde of sadomasochist, homosexual bikers.

Anyone that isn't American.

Anyone who pushes Junger as right-wing is confirmed for not having read Junger

Read the Catholics. They've never played by the rules of the popular right-wing. Read De Maistre, read Pius IX, read Leo XIII. The Catholics also manage to be outside the Evola/Guenon/Deleuze trap.

>We, the people,” Burke wrote, “ought to be made sensible, that it is not in breaking the laws of commerce, which are the laws of nature, and consequently the laws of God, that we are to place our hope of softening the Divine displeasure to remove any calamity under which we suffer, or which hangs over us

>not a shill

Ok, so what you're actually looking for is literature critical or outside of Liberalism.

>Trotsky
>Nietzsche
>Alexander Dugin
>Julius Evola
>Ernst Junger
>Francis Parker Yockey
>Michel Foucault
>Gilles Deleuze
>E. Michael Jones
>Carlos Marighella
>Michel Houellebecq
>Yukio Mishima
>Guillaume Faye
>Pentti Linkola
>Bakunin
>Ferdinand Céline
>Ted Kaczynsky

If you have some big interest in "dissident" politics (because let's be honest, various iterations of Nazis are the only serious opponents of Liberal capitalism) you should read the unironic nazis, like George Lincoln Rockwell, William Luther Pierce, James Mason, Leon Degrelle and of course Adolf Hitler.

Attached: 1561301027975.jpg (738x551, 89K)

>So Monarchists. Idiots for their own spooks
Monarchy is the best system on a practical level.

>but the washing machine

?

you cannot escape, if you do not for long, centrism is all consuming.

>The true ideal of right wing reaction is a savage horde of sadomasochist, homosexual bikers.
this might be true

Dugin uses this in 4PT to illustrate Liberalism’s materialist metric and how illiberal ideas aren’t quantifiable or even legible before Liberalism.

Simply be economically Leftist and socially Rightist. That’s the litmus test for Liberalism. Liberalism’s anti-fragile nature encourages deconstruction and critique and dissent. It encourages capitalism and individual freedom. Nazism is the only thing truly incompatible with Liberalism.

>only Catholics can be reactionary
Stop being silly

Attached: 800px-Abraham_Kuyper_1905_(1).jpg (800x1141, 139K)

Attached: walden.jpg (322x496, 89K)

Back to .
Fuck off and die, braindead, disgusting sow’s cunt.
>t. never read the non-edited jünger

Attached: 32425357-B9D6-4DFB-A368-75974AD2D26B.jpg (641x480, 44K)

>an unironic believer in blank slate
get that fag outta here

he was a neolib

Jünger had an unorthodox opinion of conservatism but he considered himself unapologetically conservative, even in his post-war phase.

YOU KNOW WHO

Attached: Spengler.jpg (763x1152, 111K)

>left vs right
transcend the dialectic

Attached: hegel.jpg (647x656, 143K)

centrism?

except all attempts to do this is just anticapitalism but also racist

Hobbes

There is nothing left to conserve or re-act to. Conservatism or reactionary are obsolete words in their current use.

>t. Never read Jungers servile apology "The Peace"

>There is nothing left to conserve or re-act to. Conservatism or reactionary are obsolete words in their current use.
Agree.

>Nietzsche
>critical or outside of Liberalism

Attached: 4737342.jpg (620x402, 17K)

>no one mentioned Xenophon
I thought Yea Forums was a "greeks" board?

>non liberal right. People like Burke.
>Burke
>non liberal right
Are you fully retarded now butters?

>Catholic reactionaries are the only real reactionaries.
Listen to this man, he knows what he's talking about.

Xenophon is indeed pretty based.

Only ever read Strauss on Xenophon. About time i actually read him. Thanks for the reminder

so based?

stop trying to make me like Hegel please

WTF I LOVE THE RIGHT NOW

He certainly was until the French Revolution. But from then on, not so. He became a staunch royalist and said the Freemasons and bourgeoisie were trying to overthrow church and crown because they saw everything in commercial terms and shunned the metaphysical.

>Monarchists. Idiots for their own spooks
Acknowledging your place is the antithesis of being spooked; it's being true to yourself and not being infested by hostile competitor species.

Attached: enlightened egalitarian ant.jpg (1200x630, 79K)

>implying tha gayness is inherently leftwing
lol no

Literally dont know why you are making that post.
Nietzsche is very critical of the state, democracy, egelitarianism, "human" rights and morality.

>Hitler
>Right wing

stop posting cringy bait

You think like an ant. And, you are gay.

>expecting a Liberal to have actually read Nietzsche.
Poor form, user.

Wanting to be a monarch or a high authority figure isnt a spook. I would support a monarch movement if i was promised a nice place of power where i can influence the world.

Christopher Lasch was brilliant but I wouldn't call him a right winger.

BAP book dummy

Quick someone define right wing and left wing. Then we can more clearly talk about them.

I don't think you can give an essentialist definition of either. They're rather collections of traits that need not all exist within a particular political ideology to be defined as "left" or "right."

Left wing: bunch of poofta cunts
Right wing: Based, redpilled, and cute irl.

Attached: apu thinks.png (678x525, 38K)

Funniest thing in the thread so far.

youre illiterate

P Hitchens

Attached: 8A21F37F-B333-4289-A225-CFCB84E1F27A.gif (304x280, 684K)

Left wing: antiauthoritarian, rebellious
Right wing: authoritarian, submissive

What you're looking for are old-school conservatives who are shills for whatever social order existed in their time. Burke shilled for muh aristocracy and muh church.

hegel was a monarchist

Refusing to participate in the dialectic is not transcendence, user.

Don't bother with Scruton.

If you want a philosophy for fascists read the pragmatists like Peirce, Dewey and Rorty. Especially Rorty. Read James Conant's critique of Rorty to understand how Rortian Fascism is possible in a 21st century setting

Attached: PMN.png (1598x862, 1.05M)

Link to Conant's article on Rorty: humstatic.uchicago.edu/philosophy/conant/Conant - Freedom, Cruelty and Truth - Rorty vs Orwell.pdf

Attached: rsz_7978112884_e84ea62e9e.jpg (800x606, 76K)

Sounds like national socialism. Cool.

Where's the Rortian fascism part? Sounds interesting.

It's a bit tongue in cheek. Rorty is not a fascist, Rorty is not totalitarian. But his philosophy can be redescribed to be one that allows for totalitarianism.

In the above paper, first read 'The Genre of Realism' and then compare that to 'Rorty's Metaphysics'. These two chapters are used to contrast Rorty's philosophy with standard 'analytic' philosophy. See what you make of these two relatively short chapters, and if Rorty's views interest you then I suggest reading Contingency, Irony and Solidarity and then Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature to see where his anti-philosophical disposition derives from.

The greatest part of that article, btw, is when Conant shows Rorty to essentially be agreeing with O'Brien from 1984 and not Winston.

And in some other text Rorty also casually mentions 'A fascist can be a pragmatist' but I forget which text this would be from.

Attached: 1542837229959.jpg (465x750, 97K)

Likewise, Mussolini claimed Dewey as one of his philosophical inspirations.

>right wing writers that arent either industry/republican shills or crypto-nazis?
So just leftists who are racist?

Moldbug, Moldbug, Moldbug