Reading Right-wing books

Because Bookchin is based and neoreactionaries are faggots

literally why

land and yarvin, yes, you colossal faggot that can't commit to shit.

Sloterdijk is rightwing?

Because they're pseuds.

Purple prose drivel.
Hack.
Unsophisticated racism.

You should have included the Turner Diaries, at least it has a cool nuclear war at the end.

People here have read neo-reactionary literature, we just disagree with it
Just skip to land
Let me ignore data when its convenient, the book
Rhetoric and no theory
Not even worth a reactionaries time
School reading

At least Evola is interesting in some parts to read

...

...

This.

He's talking about autism level and Wealth of the Nations en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
I would hope everyone here would already know by now that Wealth of the Nations is required Marxist reading.

I've read Moldbug and Land, and I thought they were both completely full of shit. Moldbug is a bad writer and doesn't understand the political landscape nearly as well as Land does, but I think he's the more coherent of the two. If you want a decent philosophy to build your right wing theory on read Hobbes or Bowden. But really tho, the right mostly has shit theory and shit politics, so why even be right wing?

Joke's on you, I've been reading the height of right-wing literature since I was 13 years old.

The eternal Mick strikes again

Moderately well read Right winger here

Essential Conservative core:

I value my time, so I will not read a book until I have heard a compelling argument for why I should read it. So far, the only non-socialist political philosophers and economists that I have heard a compelling argument to read, are Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, John Maynard Keynes, and Adam Smith. This is of course not including non-socialist philosophers like Confucius, the Greeks, Leibniz, Kant, Nietzsche, Hegel, Stirner, etc. who are not primarily political philosophers or economists.

No they aren't. Race "realism" doesn't entail support for eugenics, both positive and negative. In fact there's probably more evidence against eugenicist policies than for. Additionally I find that most people on the right's racial beliefs aren't really that nuanced tbh.

Except we don't refuse to read the Wealth of Nations. Marx's thought is based on Smith and Ricardo.

Better to just read Moldbug's primary sources.

HE ISN'T TALKING ABOUT AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS YOU DOLT. HE'S TALKING ABOUT IQ AND THE WEALTH OF NATIONS.

You're mad. Also, you shouldn't really blame people for not immediately recognizing a work with demography and statistics as shit as in that book. Idk why it's so popular tbh.

Nietzsche and Evola are all you really need tbqh

Nick Land isn't /ourguy/ though, for him we're all pawns in his little 5D Lemurian chess game to awaken Mammon and end the world.

his goals align with mine but for different reasons

and Thucydides, Schumpeter and v.Mises.

Evola: "Feels >>> Reals, accept your place in life little plebe"

Nietzche: "MUH INDIVIDUALISM, FUCK SOCIETY, EVERYONE ON EARTH IS HERR TO SERVE ME"

There, I saved you hours of life.

Marx: just seize the means lmao

Bakunin: just seize the bread lmao

Stirner: spooks lmao

There I saved you hours of life

Hey dummy, Marx was into Smith.

holy shit i was giving op way too much credit. wtf is this turd?

That's kropotkin you twat.

...

It's all the same shit who cares

Main one you should read.

A NEW CHALLENGER APPEARS

Christ that movie scared the shit out of me when I was little.

you obviously haven't read evola

why does he use hyphens so much smh

Just look at his fucking face

I honestly don't give a single shit about something that isn't 100% materialist.

Lmao. Also I tried reading the Road to Serfdom, it was literally babby’s first political YouTube tier level of discourse, literally 90% strawmen.

...

why the fuck would I waste my time reading mysticism?

History is literally governed by demonic and angelic influences.

T. The Jason Reza Jorjani gang

I.Q and the wealth of nations was funded by the Pioneer fund, a known fascist organisation which knowingly fucks with evidence.

"Pioneer's administrative procedures are as unusual as its charter. Although the fund typically gives away more than half a million dollars per year, there is no application form or set of guidelines. Instead, according to Weyher, an applicant merely submits "a letter containing a brief description of the nature of the research and the amount of the grant requested." There is no requirement for peer review of any kind; Pioneer's board of directors—two attorneys, two engineers, and an investment broker—decides, sometimes within a day, whether a particular research proposal merits funding. Once the grant has been made, there is no requirement for an interim or final report or even for an acknowledgment by a grantee that Pioneer has been the source of support, all atypical practices in comparison to other organizations that support scientific research."

"In accord with the tax regulations governing nonprofit corporations, Pioneer does not fund individuals; under the law only other nonprofit organizations are appropriate grantees. As a consequence, many of the fund's awards go not to the researchers themselves but to the universities that employ them, a standard procedure for supporting work by academically based scientists. In addition to these awards to the universities where its grantees are based, Pioneer has made a number of grants to other nonprofit organizations and corporations Tucker feels have been created to channel resources to a particular academic recipient while circumventing the institution where the researcher is employed"

-Tucker, William H. (2007). The funding of scientific racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund. University of Illinois Press. (26 July 2013).

Political illiterate who basically stirs the pot for no good reason other than to cause a reaction.

That's Kropotkin you faggot. If you actually knew anything about the books you posted you'd know that Bakunin's anarchy differs from that of Kropotkin.
This is why no one wants takes you retards seriously.

moldbug is a good writer but falsifies history when it suits him, notably regarding Jewish influence.

mein kampf is a very interesting book but only if you know the historical context (i.e. immediate post-ww1 germany)

i've never read imperium but from what i recall someone exposed that yockey plagiarized entire passages from carl schmitt, so i've never had much interest in reading this one.

Slow down there Adolf. I was thinking more along the line of just not accepting unskilled immigrants from the third world.

What are some good crypto-anarchist books?

What did he mean by this

never said that fam

where does he write about this

setting the bar real low there bud

And you dare call yourself a reactionary?

Not even reactionary.

Humans vs Orcs fantasy.

A bit dry and not a philosophical heavy-weight. (Not that it was intended to be)
Go back to where you came from and learn to be a proper reactionary.

That's because they're drivel

I used to be objectivist, and I've read pretty much every Ayn Rand book. I guess the reason here in america at least, that people dont say read ayn rand is because its already mandatory reading in alot of high schools

AND THIS

Jason Jorjani, Prometheus and Atlas

This strikes me as aking to being a Jew For Jesus.

TBH I actually enjoyed reading Leo Strauss.

You're really perpetuating stereotypes a lot, Chaya. Next thing you know you'll be telling us you're a Trotskyite, and in 10 years you'll be moving towards conservatism, at the rate you're going.

Nah I only read him back in the day because I was interested in the Greeks. Actually, Strauss' "big guy" was al-Farabi, a medieval Islamic Platonist who wanted the caliph to be a philosopher king.

They are fundamentally wrong. Why the fuck would you read authors without understanding where their ideas come from? Go back to the source and you will see the split in theory during the enlightenment.

Many authors are not worth reading because they have been proven to have completely incorrect and baseless foundations.

for example see: objectivism, positivisim social darwinism, capitalism itself, and so on

reactionaries reject the enlightenment as having completely incorrect and baseless foundations lel

you and a reactionary would just end up autistically shrieking over one another (ok you would probably agree with them on positivism and social darwinism)

er, on positivism and objectivism that is, some neoreactionaries are social darwinists

Neoreactionaries LOVE social darwinism, they won't shut up about autism level tests and "human biodiversity", not realizing how utterly modern such notions are.

yes i meant to write "positivism and objectivism"

also hence the "neo" in neoreaction, i imagine most reactionaries a Moldbug or Land cites would be aghast at their enthusiasm for turbo-capitalism

lel I keep forgetting about the wordfilter

Land is well aware that under capitalism all that is solid melts into air and that's exactly what he wants, his enthusiasm for neoreaction comes from believing NrX can launch an assault against the Cathedral (the consensus reality keeping society together) like no it can't, it's red pills all the way down.

A retard

please don’t

If you read and understood it you wouldn’t be right-wing

A corupt party hack

A very poorly written book

Seriously the only valuable right-wing theory is the theory of fourth generation war. I know it’s written by Linn who’s a Republican hack. But it’s still useful. Also applying it to socialism where the goal of a revolution is to remove capitalist parts of culture to cement said revolution would be useful.