What major right wing intellectuals should a modern leftist be familiar with?

What major right wing intellectuals should a modern leftist be familiar with?
Thomas Sowell?
Roger Scruton?

Other urls found in this thread:


Calhoun. All bourgeoisie right wing ideologies are based on his "theories."



James Monroe's vice president?

This hot faggot.

Adolph Hitler
Enlightenment and Medieval-era philosophers. Keynesians (although they are more of centrists/pragmatists politically speaking)

Definitely none of the lolbertarian shit.


De Maistre

Capitalist kid. He's rekt countless commies with his understanding of B A S I C E C O N O M I C S on YouTube and he's only 12! He's so based! I bet he consents too…

Carl Schmitt, Leo Strauss, Friedrich Hayek, Joseph de Maistre, Heidegger…

Hoppe is kinda lit

Hans-Hermann Holocaust Hoppe?

yes, while he is retarded, the same logic could be applied to an egoist society

Marcus Aurelius, Augustine, Machiavelli, De Maistre, Heidegger. Hobbes believed in society as proposition which makes him a faggot, Hegel was applying physics in it's mystical infancy where it has no say and Scruton is simply a pleb for being triggered by brutalism.

I prefer a marxist a thousand times over to someone who believes the world can and should be determined by something as fickle as an argument, and an argument at that which can easily be recognized as logically fallacious by those whose reading consists solely of the wikipedia list of logical fallacies.

Hobbes was the only good liberal. Shut your fucking mouth.


schmitt is actually good though?

Hobbes gave us the now all-prevailing notion of marketization which has turned life into transaction, or more accurately, skewered it by pretending that it is transaction. The terms and services of this world are beyond the understanding of any mortal, yet its leviathan is without offense, for he never pushed the "I Agree" button, that was you and you alone.

I haven't read it yet, I know he influenced some people on the left such as Mouffe and Agamben.

That's unfair

De Sade, if he counts as anything (including both "right wing" and "intellectual").
Unironically, I think some amount of familiarity with Friedman is good. Friedman's economic ideas do reflect his goals, and he has some surprising little twists for the uninitiated (such as advocating UBI as a stepping stone to a lolbert society). He's also extremely relevant to the economic situation in America since the 1980s, and it's worth understanding him as an adversary.

And, hell. HP Lovecraft. Really just for the fiction, fuck his beliefs. Still, using "intellectual" is pretty rough.

I'm genuinely curious to understand this choice.

donald trump

Alt Right intellectuals:
Menacius Moldbug
Nick Land

Absolutely shit tier, only read him if you want to know where neoreaction started. If you do you'll realize its even dumber than you think it is.

Nick Land is the only good thinker associated with NRx.

So NRx is absolute shit?

Carl Schmitt is absolutely great.

As expected from a tankie.


the GOAT right-winger/proto-liberal
he btfos the anarkiddies

I hear Sloterdijk is good. He's friends with Zizek who describes him as conservative. But he's far from typical.

Generally though I think "right wing intellectual" is a contradiction in terms. If you spend all this effort thinking only to conclude that society in its current arbitrary, historically contingent form is actually the best we can do, you're probably an idiot. That's why there are such slim pickings when it comes to right wing "intellectuals."


By contemporary standards Machiavelli was extreme far left.

The frogtwitter forum

Why am I not surprised

he was a proto-conservative
He was fond of order and heiarchy, and had a grim view of human nature.


De Sade's political alignment is basically ambiguous - in a lot of ways, what I've seen about his writings would suggest a disdain for the upper classes and a disrespect for their facade. At the same time, he seemed to revel in it - while his themes appear tragic, it seems like he enjoyed this aspect and was pleased by the ability of the powerful to exploit the less powerful and the crushing of the human spirit under this power. He seemed repulsed (quite understandably) by the hypocritical moral posturing of elites, but may also have had a sly admiration for this kind of deception.

This has encouraged later observers to compare fascism to his works and sadism in general - most notably in Salo, probably, but the theme isn't an unpopular one. Fascism, and its interpretations of Nietzsche, seems inclined to similar goals - a fetishization of power, violence, and struggle. Not just noting the necessity of struggle, but essentially seeking actively to create it. Power is centralized, far from the hands of the plebs, and relations of those in power with said plebs are upheld through strict false moral authority which effectively leaves elites in a royalty-like position.

Decisively, humans are treated as meat. For enemies, compassion is disregarded as irrational. For loyal subjects, they should be lucky to be molded into something which could fulfill the will of the state and place all values secondary to loyalty.

Because the fascists began with post-Nietzsche philosophies, the religious fervor with which they embraced things - whether religion itself, "science" as an irrational religious doctrine, "purity" - actually were formed contradictory. We can't necessarily say that the first Kings or first priests existed with such a decisive philosophical contradiction, but the fascists pretty much started with the goal of having a society run by philosophically brutal, amoral men with ideological divinity. IE, corrupt priests and aristocrats.

In a way, I guess it's consistent. In context of their ideology, it's unlikely anything the Fascists could do would ultimately be as shameful as Stalin allowing Beria to stay around.

So De Sade is kind of like a very forward, visceral look into right-wing nihilism which preceded most of that.

Read Oswald Spengler, or Ebola if you want to take a delve into mysticism and what I would frankly call lunacy.

Machiavelli was a republican that favoured government by the people and having an armed popular militia. In a climate of 16th century Europe that is left-wing is fuck.

Ramiro Ledesma Ramos

Jose Antonio Prima de Rivera

Franco Giorgio Freda

Alexander Dugin

Alaine Soral

Alaine DeBenoist

Beaners OUT

dumb tankiddie

Read "Imperium" by Francis Yockey. It is the das kapital of the far right. At least the first section about history.

Also read "The Coming American Fascism" by Lawrence Dennis.

by contemporary standards, you are an extreme retard

I don't think he's really an annil, and just a buttmad ancap that god told

The sad thing is that those dimestore Burkes of centuries past are intellectual colossi compared to what the right has on offer now.

Look at this pic. He is, without exaggeration, the closest thing the American-Canadian right has to the classic figure of an intellectual. I don't know whether to be angry or depressed.

All of these old fucks don't mean shit in themselves, it all depends on what you want to focus on or think you should focus on. In the end it doesn't even matter because the right doesn't read, but there are some thinkers that you should be familiar with if you want to be able to hold a debate against a right winger regurgitating popular talking points of some dead retard or in the event that the stars align and you meet a well read right winger.

However, it's best supplemented with non-braindead philosophy to be able to analyze what these fellows are saying. That unfortunately would essentially force you to study philosophy and history more deeply. And make no mistake, the ones I listed are not extraordinary or exceptionally good ones (goes without saying for the 3rd), they're just popular.

Correct but for the wrong reasons. Heidegger's political philosophy is a waste of time that only served as a mouthpiece for the Nazi party. What is worth studying is his phenomenology before his shift towards ideology, and even after it's worth a look in order to distill his Nazi-era philosophical writings from ideology to draw some value out of it. You should study Heidegger, but not because of his political or ideological input, he's essentially irrelevant to the discussion.

Oh yes, almost forgot. Peterson and Solzhenitsyn are also popular right now. Even more likely to encounter one of their supporters than Evola or Hoppe.

t. Thomas Sowell

Man white people money sure can change a man.

why is this a stupid question again?

sexuality drives damn near every facet of our personality and character… given that sexuality ostensibly evolved as the mechanism by which we reproduce, why is it so insane to think that repressed reproductive desires are a source of great frustration in a capitalist society that only wants you to work yourself into the grave?

It's a perfectly valid hypothesis. It's a completely fallacious conclusion because he provided zero arguments.

Why only females though? Males should also desire "infant contact" since they have been involved in child rearing since the beginning of humanity.

i don't know quite how else to explain this, but we (men) don't fucking grow them inside our bodies and let them suck on our chest for sustenance for the following year.

i mean, 140 character limit…

Men are just mad because they wanna get laid

(crowd cheers, it was worth going to school to be able to make such astute observations)


if by "everybody", you mean snarky fagoots, sure


Adam Smith was actually breddy cool as far as you could expect from someone living in the industrial revolution. He's just been co-opted by loberts because of muh invisible hand which is only a tiny part of his writing.