Hello, /lit. My political view can best be described as “anarcho-monarchism” or perhaps “tory anarchism”. Any books that can help elucidate and clarify this (these) worldview(s)?
probably the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard of other than “anarcho-capitalism”anarchism is inherently a leftist ideology, we make marxists look like liberals
>>24879377Tolkien's letters.Also Samuel Johnson was kind of like what you describe. The old High Tory idea of "King and Commons" against the aristocracy.
>>24879381anarcho-monarchism is just an honest anarchist who admits he wants to be the king and that someone will be
>>24879377Lord of the rings
>>24879381Ancaps are bigger based retards and have much funnier memes than you thoughever. You guys are extremely unfunny and cringe.
>>24879421You'd be a bitter stick in the mud too
>>24879377>anarcho-monarchism oxymoron
The best part about anarchism is everything is anarchism. It doesn't matter what it meant in the begining. Anti capitalist? Anarcho-capitalism. No gods? Christian anarchism. No kings? Idiots like op. No states? Some other idiot came up with 'national anarchism'. Is there a form of misogynist anarchism I haven't heard about other than my discord server?
>>24879377we are not yer google bishwhy not do your own internet searchingand post the results here??
>>24879421They used to be funny when there were actual ancaps around
>>24879377the website reddit . com
>>24879381>>24879421Anarchocapitalism is the only true anarchism. I don't like to call it "anarchocapitalism" because capitalism is an investment strategy rather than a system, "anarcholiberalism" is a much proper name to account for its focus on the individual. And don't forget that anarchocommunism can happen inside anarcholiberalism via freedom of contract, but the reverse is not true. If a subset of the anarchocommunist commune wants to leave and form their own anarcholiberal community with free markets, and they are not allowed to do so, the commune would be a de facto state, so anarcholiberalism is the true starting point for anarchist theory even if the particular preferences of certain anarchist intellectual are centered around communism.
>>24879506ancaps I met were just libertarians that wanted to be edgy, making all the money they want while having no responsibilities (while claiming they will) and paying no taxes for the greater good. True ancaps are Gangster rappers and drug dealers. True Bravery in anarchism looks like this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLCw0sQyRt0
>>24879430Tolkien proclaimed himself to be one.
>>24879431National anarchism actually has a long tradition.
>>24879381Nope. Other way around. Libertarian socialism/left wing anarchism is an oxymoron. Just look at how it played out in real life. In 'anarchist' Catalonia, people were forced into collectives against their will, via coercion. This obviously contradicts anarchist principles of creating a society without any force or coercion. You just simply cannot convince everyone to join your commie co-ops and collectives without some form of coercion. Hence, it is anti liberty.
>>24879377Liberty or Equality by Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-LeddihnMaybe also Hoppes comments on monarchism in his various books.
>>24879845It's not an oxymoron if some people inside anarchocapitalism decide to start a commune via freedom of contract. If that's not their route to achieve left wind anarchism, yes, it's pretty shaky.
>>24879837And why should I care about the confused politics or a children's book author?
>>24879377You might want to look into distributism and Chesterton in general.
Individualist anarchism is the only real anarchism, and everything else is cope.
>>24879377So...absolute dictatorship?
>>24879914You see, the monarch is only there to make sure that the anarchy is preserved. He doesn't have any real coercive power, though.
>>24879377Cool. I want egalitarian fascism. :)
>>24879880no one is saying you have to, but the idea it "doesn't exist" is a whole 'nother level of ignorance.
>>24879884this. the best economic system devised.
>>24879925so Stalinism?
>>24879865this guy knows what he's talking about
>>24879865>>24879989I've googled him. So this is the inspiration of Hoppe?
>>24879377>I want a stateless central stateYeah, the DSM-V should clarify things.
>>24880078>monarchy>central stateDo you think feudalism was an absolute and centralised monarchy? I'm not particularly fond of this vision of libertarianism precisely because it's too based on history, but it's not as dumb as some people in this thread are saying.
>>24880098You are a fat stupid man.
>>24879381The only thing marxists are right about is calling you an infanitle disorder.
>>24879381What the fuck does liberal mean?
>>24880052One of them. His biggest was obviously Rothbard. He probably hasn't written a book that doesn't mention him. Rothbard gave Hoppe his libertarian basis. Kuehnelt-Leddihn influenced Hoppe on that pro-monarchism.
>>24879921Now imagine the monarch's succesor doesn't want anarchy.
>>24879381This is only true if you view ideologies as floating, abstract concepts with no attachment to reality. In reality liberal institutions have been far more willing to platform anarchists who believe in the abolition of all states than moderate democratic socialists who support the establishment of a single Palestinian state. In fact, a certain style of compliant anarchism is a major component of the unelected NGO industrial complex designed to hamper left wing movements. They're often first in line as attack dogs to defame left wing anti-war activists as 'Assadists' or 'Tankies'.>>24879377>here are my beliefs, what are they?
>Well, if this is it, old boy, I hope you don't mind if I go out speaking the King's.Everything you need to know is contained within that quote.
>>24880216Take your retarded ass back to /tv/.
Anarchists and monarchists agree on one thing: liberty and democracy are antithetical.
>>24880216I consider myself a leftist in the Pynchonian sense, but that’s the kind of stuff that makes me wistful about trastionalism.
>>24879377>Any books that can help elucidate my contradiction in terms?Teaching the retarded? >>24879837The monarch of the Christian is god. If you crown an earthly king to represent your god, you are nowhere near anarchist. If you accept no man's rule, you are simply Christian anarchist.>>24879838LOL. >>24880229Anarchism organizes itself through direct democracy. You're on crack.
>>24880370Anarchism organizes itself itself by who has the most guns and the willingness to use them.
>>24879980Kek, shit..
>>24880383that's just democracy during wartime you gay cocksucking contrarian nigger. Anarcho-anything ideologies are for AIDs-addled assblasted foreverchildren who think the political compass test is a direct surrogate for having a personality and friends. >inb4 banned for racism outside of pol eventhough every board has that
>>24879377I agree with you and I hope I can meet more people with similar viewsWe really should organize
>>24880370>Anarchism organizes itself through direct democracy. You're on crack.Who decides the electoral system? Is it voted? If so, who decides the electoral system to vote for the electoral system? This paradox makes easier to see that the first election, at least, has to be unanimous, otherwise you'd need a political authority to decide an electoral system or to decide the voting system of that very election (which is what happens in a statal constitution). If there has to be unanimity at some point to avoid political authority, that unanimity could be used to establish minimal individual rights instead of collective voting rights. Freedom of contract (contracts are always unanimous) is the true foundation of an anarchist community, and freedom of contract alone allows anarchocapitalism, or as I like to name it, anarcholiberalism. Read that too if you want >>24879506
>>24880383No, that's how "republics" and monarchies organize themselves.How old are you? 12?
>>24880402Isn't political organizing precluded by a belief system that abhors democracy and promotes enchantment and tradition?
>>24879377According to Arthur de Gobineau the ancient Aryans had a somewhat Anarcho-Monarchist organization. The Aryan man was, once old enough to have engaged in conquest, the absolute proprietor of his odel, the private property model of the ancient Aryans. The odel did not pay taxes, it usually belonged to a confederation of odels ruled by an elected Drottin, the head-figure of state, but who was almost fully powerless. One would think that the ancient Aryans, fully vigorous and well-armed, were easily swayed by military generals, to participate in any other war whatsoever. This was not so: these arrogant spirits found humiliation in receiving gifts from their equals or sometimes inferiors based on purity of birth. Most men were repulsed by military service, if they were not called upon to command the expedition.
>>24880422The people. Yeah. It's *direct* democracy. If you're there, you help to run *there*Important decisions need a higher threshold, to be determined by that body, than a vote to meet again at date X. That would take a simple 51%Individuals can choose to sit out any and all meets if he so chooses. (or to simply attend the interest group meets to have his mind known) He's free enough to not participate at all if he wants. >Anarcho[crap]italismI highly advise against the use of money as it leads to unwanted classism and hierarchies, corrupting everything it touches. Money is the root of all evils. A shared economy is a true free market. https://www.jamesherod.info/?sec=book&id=7
The cream will always rise to the top anarchy kiddos.
>>24880483Sea scum is a kind of cream too.
were there any famous writers who argued for the crown and feudalism while liberalism was making its rise?preferabley with good arguments that dont just boil down to "god says so"
>>24880483>I will makes sure we all remain oppressed by the zionists, government and Wall Street.May the next covid outbreak get you>>24880523No. No good arguments were made. This request has been made a million times and it's always the same gang of trad nonsense. Yes, industrialization hurt everyone. That was liberal capitalism, the merchant "middle class". These people used and forgot the lower working classes as they made their riches. This is why socialism, communism and anarchism formed. The dying regime had nothing of interest to say as no one actually wanted to keep feudalism. Spain and Russia held onto it for an ungodly long time, and people wanted rid of it so bad they almost had revolutions there.
>>24880548>I will makes sure we all remain oppressed by the zionists, government and Wall StreetI don't have to lift a finger. Human nature does that job more than sufficently on it's own.>covidlol lmao even
>>24880548>No good arguments were made.Yes there were. The feudalists of the 19th Century were the masculine, rationalist part of government. They were the ones against democracy, against less taxes, against mass education, because they were the ones arguing from a rational point of view.The liberals played the role of the leftists of today, they were the ones saying, that with more democracy, things will work out just fine ("the working classes are equally capable as the upper classes") (just like later they would argue the same thing about women) The result was the feminization of society long before female rights.
>>24880468>important decisions need a higher threshold You have to vote for that higher threshold, and voting for that threshold of important decisions is obviously an important decision too that would need to be voted over that threshold itself, so you need to know beforehand the thing you are voting for. Again, this indicates that unanimity is needed to establish the electoral system, and unanimity can be used to vote for anarcholiberalism and reject a direct democracy system not based on unanimity as well. There's no self-evident electoral system that wouldn't require unanimity to be decided, not even 51%. As you said, for important decisions more than 51% might be required, but importance is a subjective continuum and someone might find meeting again something of paramount importance. If importance is not self-evident, then the voting system for not so important or important matters can't be self-evident either. Moreover, 51% is only intuitive (not self-evident, I insist) with two option elections. If you have more options then it's not even intuitive. >use 100%/numberofoptions then And who decides the number of options for each decision? That is not self evident either>you can use two options, yes or no, for each multiple option election, like voting yes/no for 70% as an increased percentage for important mattersThat affects the result. If 51% of people vote "yes" for 70%, it will be the used threshold for important elections from then on. But if the options were 70% and 71%, maybe a 51% of people would vote for 71%.All of this is along the lines of Arrow's impossibility theorem, a theorem of social choice theory that illustrates that the electoral system is as important as the votes themselves to get a result. And setting the electoral system is not controversial only if it's decided unanimously, the special case where the theorem does not apply.
>>24880564>MKultra just fulfills human nature>I are smrat>>24880578The middle class liberals are still the same holier than though shits as then.Voting on which elite scum represents is not democracy. Same as tyranny is not communism. You live among duplicitous politicians and no amount of monarchism will fix that. They are as evil as the current regime.
>>24880656> elite scum> middle classpick one. The backboneless pot smokers from the trailer park are not going to make a working government. It's an either or on that matter, and I firmly pick the middle class.
>>24879381>we
>>24880641Read the little short book and think rationally for a bit. All can be smoothed out by any given locality. Everyone lives near each other and can talk whatever needs talking out. No IRS or whatever facelessly dictating things to you. >ElectionsWhat though? Representatives? None are needed in Direct Democracy. But say it's a job for the transportation authorities council. Experts would volunteer, if multiple there might be a need for elections. They might set the threshold to 75%, 2/3rds, whatever.
>>24880662They're called the middle class. They aren't referring to the lower proles with money. They mean the rich. There's an even higher level of wealthy elites you know? >Poor people can't government>Things this way cuz always this waynaw.
>>24880681>Poor people can't governmentThey can't thoughbeit. If they could then their ancestors would have become the elites. They lost the struggle for power and now they are the proles. They are at their proper place in society.
>>24879377"The Sacred Conspiracy - notes and letters of Georges Bataille's college of Sociology"The City and the Mountains by Eca De QuierosThe Sorcerer's Apprentice by Francois AugeriasAnd perhapsThe English Heretic Collection by Andy Sharp
>>24880695How the fuck am I only the second person to recommend a book in this whole thread? Nonsense or not what OP is asking for exists in droves as long as you're familiar with fin-de-siecle authors or the Enlightenment. You're all illiterate
>>24880681> There's an even higher level of wealthy elites you knowWhat? The middle classes are not elites. They're just the normal average and everything around.
>>24880700I read your post. Therefor I'm not illiterate.
>>24880671>Experts would volunteer, if multiple there might be a need for elections. They might set the threshold to 75%, 2/3rds, whatever.That "whatever" is where everything falls apart. Arbitrariness can only be filled with an official state or a de facto state. And arbitrariness can be seen not only in the voting system itself but also in what ought to be voted; a state can rise again from those two sources. That's why I'm highly skeptical of left wing anarchism and why I prefer anarcholiberalism/anarchocapitalism with just unanimously set rights in the foundation and no more politically-driven collective decisions onwards (that doesn't reject collectivity in general, because companies, unions and cooperatives can be started). However, the state can rise again in anarcholiberalism as well. For example, if the whole anarchist community doesn't watch for chidren, private communities (like companies) could raise their children as though they weren't living in an anarchist community, making them believe that the additional conditions to be part of the company are compulsory, and that would be a de facto new state. But these problems of anarcholiberalism/anarchocapitalism are practical, whilst the problems of left wing anarchism with direct democracy that I'm talking about are closer to the theory, and theoretical problems are more serious than practical problems, because theoretical problems are necessarily practical problems that will instantly be seen in practice, while predicted practical problems, when they are not theoretical, are contingent.
>>24880149he was mostly talking about left-wing communist tendencies like council communism. Luxemburg, Ruhle, Pannekoek, Gorter, etc
>>24880518sure, because that precisely what commies eat.
>>24880662>pick one. The backboneless pot smokers from the trailer park are not going to make a working government. It's an either or on that matter, and I firmly pick the middle class.tell Pol Pot that
>>24880370it does. Troy Southgate exists, Keith Preston exists. all have written books.
>>24880700>>24879377Most threads in /lit/ are an excuse to discuss matters other than books with the advantage of doing so with people with 5 points more of average IQ with respect to the rest of 4chan boards.But now that you say it, I will recommend "El pensamiento político de Eximeniç en su tratado de Regiment de Princeps" by Angel López Amo, a Spanish traditionalist that Miguel Anxo Bastos (a Spanish hoppean) says it's very similar to Hoppe.https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=2051543
>>24880693People can do this simple thing. Being put in poverty isn't some unchangeable gene. What are you, a Brit? >Thing didn't happen. Therefore thing can never happenLamest faulty reasoning ever. And you repeat it to sound smart to yourself. >>24880705Oh. You're still thinking of a different class when you hear "middle"? Why? Middle is quite wealthy. They're business owner types. lower middle class is probably what you think of. Adjust the brain. >>24880795>Nationalist, but somehow notNo. It isn't anarchism. What do they want as ruler? Council of elites? Land owners only?
>>24880695None of you read or care about reading. Otherwise you would have looked at this list and actually read about the books and seen that "Sorcerer's Apprentice" is a book written by 20th century pederast who spent his formative years under another pederast doing pederast thing. Since you're obviously all illiterate - pederast = academic bussy worship stretching back to the ancient greeks. (Probably not bussy though, because the unsanitary nature just makes it seems totally unlikely in an age before anti-biotics and enemas available at the store). And yet it's still not a troll post because, as the ancient Greek origins suggest, pederasty and anarchism monarchism often go hand in hand. But none of you would know that because you didn't even look up the first actual books posted in this thread after 14 hours. Like, how is a book some random guy says pertain to "anarchist monarchism" with titles like those not immediately gripping to people on /lit/. I would be looking that up immediately which is exactly what I did when I saw all these posted about /lit/ initially years ago. Posers. Illiterates. Read something that isn't on the NYT 2025 best classic literature list for once in your life. You'd enjoy reading a lot more if you did. The best literature isn't known by normies, duh.
>>24880811The only reason most threads on /lit/ aren't about discussions about actual authors is because most people here just read the wiki summary of philosophers and come to talk about that instead of reading actual literature. Philosophy shouldn't even really be coupled with Literature despite philosophical literature being massively important simply because of the fact that philosophers don't engage with literature. Half the people on this board think "fiction" is dumb despite the fact that half their favorite philosophers wrote their ideas into philosophical fiction novels. But how would they know that? They don't read novels! But if we split the board and made a /phil/ board this place would be one of the slowest boards ever. I'm just raging against the general and extreme lack of anyone that actually cares about reading a story on the human condition. God forbid we discuss the human condition for once outside of basic allegory and metaphor used to explain dry philosophical concepts which are usually meant to be understood in a narrative context anyway. But autistic fiction haters can't stand the thought of a story teaching something, even though half of them are CHRISTIAN. /End rant
>>24880753>That "whatever" is where everything falls aNot really. There's nothing random about a group of people setting vote thresholds here and there. They decide what's best for them. If they find they've made a little mistake somewhere, it is up to them to correct it. It isn't rocket science, though everyone is perfectly capable of learning even that. >State state stateWe lived without it for longer than states have been around and we could do so again. >What if voter is arbitrarily voting on thingsRead the little book. But in short, one person or a dozen aren't going to taint the responsible deliberations of the others.People are essentially running things themselves now. The foundation "laws" would be based on the old Constitution, I think everyone in the US would vote unanimously in favor of an updated version of that. The beauty of it is it is just a piece of paper, a custom to uphold (and that there is no mention of an economics plan)>a state can rise again from those two sources. ... anarcholiberalism/anarchocapitalism Those WILL 100% bring a state back up. Abandon money and you cannot bribe with anything other than a nice pair of tits The liberal cultists would have to emulate the tyrants of old and completely brainwash as many as they enslave. We aren't those primitive people anymore though. I don't think we would fall to it. Like we wouldn't ever fall for another christian cult like the Mormons did. Scientology is frailer than ever. We do fall for the current state's MKultra corralling of course. Statist and secularist cultism persists, but if we could ever achieve that revolution, we would set a higher standard most people would not go back to sleep from.
>>24880863It's crazy how similar liberalism is to scientology. I often describe the 2024 election as basically the choice between the lesser of two evils and literally the political party equivalent of Scientology. Nobody wants to vote for a freaking cult lmao. The biggest issue facing leftists today is simply the fact that everyone thinks they're insane and they absolutely refuse to address this fact. Like if you polled voters with "who is crazier, the DNC or the RNC" it would be DNC every time in most places.
>>24880844I'm planning on doing a thread about very specific and hands-on literary criticism. For example, I start the thread with the first paragraph of a book (so that it isn't a spoiler) and ask people to criticise it and try to make it better with rewording. I think that would stimulate people's know-it-all spirit and it would avoid going off topic (at least more than other threads) because the request is specific and not vaguely asking for an opinion of x work or author. I've seen threads similar to that but they don't ask for corrections, it's just a paragraph and then a vague criticism by the OP like "is this shit really universally acclaimed?"
>>24880878That's a good idea. I've thought similar before. Some of the best discussion on actual literature/writing I've seen on here are basically that. >Insert paragraph >Think you can do better?Works errytime. Or also "wtf does this mean?" Works well.
>>24880811Damn I wanted to check this out but uhhh, I don't speak Spanish and there doesn't appear to be a single English speaking description or post anywhere about this book. Should I learn Spanish to read it? I took 3 years in middle/highschool so I'm not too bad
>>24880876They're both insane and working for the same insane masters.
>>24880863>Not really. There's nothing random about a group of people setting vote thresholds here and there. They decide what's best for them. If they find they've made a little mistake somewhere, it is up to them to correct it. It isn't rocket science, though everyone is perfectly capable of learning even that.I've explained in several posts why it is much harder than that. People want justice when social conflict appears. You seem to think that "little mistakes" can solve themselves with mutual understanding, and that's the case many times, but many other times it's not. And I say that as an antistatist (with a different approach, maybe wrong, but antistatist at the end of the day). You want a stateless and non arbitrary system that can replace the perhaps unjust but effective arbitrariness of the state to solve all sorts of conflicts. You can't just assume that a collaborative economy would prevent social conflict. >We lived without it for longer than states have been around and we could do so again.Before the formal state there were other ways of authority and violence which are not desirable either, and those ways are exactly where the state stemmed from (see Mancur Olson's theory of the state as dominant mafia), so the formal abscence of a state back then is not a proof of anarchism's feasibility. >People are essentially running things themselves now. The beauty of it is it is just a piece of paper, a custom to uphold (and that there is no mention of an economics plan)I agree. The state is not a substance with special traits separate from people but a bunch of people backed by the military. However, that bunch of people are able to maintain general levels of peace under which decentralised and "anarchist" organization can happen, at the expense of being violent themselves. If you take the monopoly of violence (following the definition of the state by Weber), anarcholiberals or minarchists like me are concerned about replacing it with something else like private security, not trusting everyone, whereas left wing anarchists seem to trust the commune too much under the premise that communal economy would prevent social conflict.
>>24880911>Should I learn Spanish to read it?No, perhaps you can parse the pdf with a tool and translate it with AI (it's rather poetic to read a traditionalist book written under a traditionalist dictatorship from an AI slop translation). It's not worth for you to learn Spanish just for that because probably the only value you'll find there is how those theories are similar to Hoppe's and existed much earlier, and you already know the language to read Hoppe. Spanish is worth learning in general, though, if you read more than this specific book.
>>24879381There's only one anarchism, everything else is quibbling about what it might look like in practice. The reality is that it will look different ways in different places. There's no reason why societies that might be considered anarcho-capitalist or anarcho-monarchist can't exist.On the other hand, there also seems to be a very large number of "anarchists" that I think the best term for is "anarcho-statist" who want to bring about the end of governments so they can make a new government to force everyone to live the way they want them to. Obviously an anarcho-statist society could never exist, but unfortunately this seems to be the largest population of anarchists.
>>24880955>It will work in many places>But it won't work in someWhich is why I said they'll work something out and with time things will get better with practice. The social conflicts of now would spill over into the early stages of organization. These strains would clearly require immediate attention and be put on the docket asap. >We lived a bunch of other waysYeah. Now is now though. >left wing anarchists seem to trust the commune too much As the Second Amendment proposed. I don't think it would be too much. The global transition from standing army back to local defenders is the most contentious transition. I'm pretty amazed how little feedback/objections I hear about this aspect.
>>24879377I'm not even OP but the fact that this entire thread has basically just 2 people mention an actual book on a topic which is actually quite common in the literary tradition is just sad. What OP is talking about is similar to what a large group of authors from like 1830 - 1915 wrote about. They loved the idea of random dudes becoming kings and finding out they were royal and taking over their own kingdoms wherever they saw fit. Hell you could even go back to the Middle ages with pic relatedWhich is all about random dudes coming up with the idea that they were gods and going around telling everyone that the kingdom of God is in you and God's don't work they chill and contemplate all day everyday and beg for food. It happened all over Europe for hundreds of years and led to the whole concept of horrific executions for heresy because this anarcho-christian bullshit kept leading to numerous working age males abandoning their tasks.
Everyone's discussing the anarcho-monarchism, but I'm interested in the tory anarchism part. What the fuck is that?
>>24881087And here, have another one for good measure from one of only two contemporary authors I enjoy "The Translation of Father Torturo by Brendan Connell" (the other author is Cesar Aira if anyone is curious)This book is about a lowly Italian Catholic priest who decides he's done with the performative nature of modern Catholicism and decides to put his trust fully into God and his miracles. Eventually he performs his own miracles and becomes the literal pope because of it, much to the dismay of the modern Catholic church. It's badass and very erudite. The author would definitely have wasted his life on /lit/ if he was born like 20 years later.
>>24881091Ordered. I absolutely loved An Episode in the Life of a Landscape Painter. Cheers, anon.
Never had much discussion with reel anarchists, but this thread makes me glad that at least if there's a breakdown of social order they won't make much competition. Reality is already anarchistic, if you want your dream you must make it happen by force or wit. There is only one truth represented as a duality in your petty minds, what a man can't do and what a man can do. And if you want that law to be broken, then become sovereign. If your dream hasn't been achieved then blame yourself or God.
Oh wow, I hope you enjoy. I know you said you already got it but I just wanted to note that, one of the publishers of it "Snuggly books" is one of the best places to find modern translations of fin-de-siecle/Decadent works. I think this book is out of print there though, not sure. Connell is one of like only one or two modern authors they have published. Aside from An Episode in the life of a landscape painter I would recommend "Conversations" by Cesar Aira. It's a fun novella
>>24881112Forgot to tag>>24881100
>>24881112I'm sure I'll love it. Just beating myself up over not having read it sooner seeing as I usually look up other author's works when I read something I genuinely love like I did for Aira. I'll also get 'Converations'. Thanks.>Snuggly booksYep, been a huge fan of them ever since I read The Tarantulas' Parlor a few years back. Good to see someone else on /lit who knows about them.
>>24881104>>24881090Monarchism = the church/the people identify you as ordained by God to lead. Anarcho-Monarchism = you identify yourself as divinely ordained to lead, regardless of what the people or church say and since you're ordained by the divine then you will win leadership no matter what. That seems to be my understanding of it at least, I'm not OP though. Tory-anarchism just seems to be OP asking for works about that specific strain of Anarcho-monarchism.
>>24881129Leon Bloy, very nice. I've got the whole gamut of kino indie fin-de-siecle translators on my shelf. Wakefield Press (which has several Leon Bloy IIRC)SnugglyDedalus Books UKAtlas Press UK (which stopped shipping internationally I believe but they have such high quality books)And the oft missed but no less great - Twisted Spoon Press who specialize in Eastern European works that absolutely nobody has translated before. Brian Stableford is the goat for translating so much wonderful stuff for me so I can continue to be a lazy piece of shit and not learn a foreign language.
>>24881131That is as batshit and contradictory as it sounds
>>24881159Jesus was the original Anarcho-Monarchist and based on the usual posts on this board I think it's statically likely you love Jesus
>>24881157Nice collection. Not often you see someone with taste as unique as that.>Twisted Spoon PressBrand new to me, but since I've got at least one book from all the other publishers you've mentioned I no doubt will find something I like from this one.Cheers again, anon. You made coming to /lit actually worth it today. Keep rec'ing books like this, we need people like you on here to get others reading outside the /lit 100. Some of us still appreciate it.
>>24881188I really enjoy Paul Leppin's work from them if you're looking for something a tad average for the time (1905 - 1913, he kinda never recovered from WW1) but not bad. His book "Severin's Journey into the Dark" is a nice novel about this guy devolving. But I personally like the short story collection "Other's Paradise" by him quite a lot which is exclusively in English from Twisted Spoon. It has a range of tales about various decadent happenings in Prague, goes well with some Gustav Meyrink short stories for obvious reasons. I just reread some of them and it reminded me why I enjoyed it so much the first time. I'm a sucker for a good short story collection though. His works are sort of like of Gothic Horror met Bartleby the Scrivener (he worked as a scrivener and absolutely hated his job to the point of near suicide which is actually the topic of one of the stories in the collection, lol). But he has a lot more varied topics than just "sad office worker"
>>24881226Damn, a lot of good recs. Will be checking them out, probably ordering most of them. Thanks again.
>>24881091>>24881114>>24881157>>24881226Wow, you have great taste, anon. I've been trying to expand out. What do you think of "Moravagine"? I know it's published by NYRB so probably more mainstream than the books you've mentioned, but I really enjoyed it. I guess it's the first time I've read something a little more out there than what's usually posted on here.
>>24881233Thanks for reminding me I need to download that, I've been eyeing it for a while actually. There are a lot of books that could be called similar to it. I think Les Chants De Maldoror is often compared to it but my personal favorite book in that vein is The Book of Monelle by Marcel Schwob. With a special mention of The Passion According to G.H. by Clarice Lispector which is similar but comes from a wildly different time and place.
>all this actual /lit/ discussionThis displeases me.
>>24881318Sad but true
>>24881305>>24881233By similar, I mean they're all sort of surreal prose poetry narratives. The aesthetics may be wildly different but the strange, meandering, poetic introspection is a common thread throughout them all.
>>24881305Nice, thanks. Book of Monelle looks really good.
>>24881318I get the feeling they read Pynchon and got Pynched (what we Pynch fans call getting filtered by the Pynchmeister) so to compensate they had to go and read their indie books no one else has heard of =/
>>24879377You need to be shot
Judging by this thread it seems like there's about 4 or 5 people who actually read books on this whole board. It's actually crazy how there are probably less than 100,000 westerners who actively read literature (not genre slop and romantasy BS) in the world. And that's being extremely generous. If we include under 40 it's probably less than 10,000. That sounds absurd but like, where are they? Modern literature is lucky to sell 1000 copies.
>>24879377So a nightwatchman state with a king running it, but not very actively?
>>24880370>Anarchism organizes itself through direct democracy. You're on crack.Anarchists are just a bunch of anti-social degenerates who should be nailed on a cross for the betterment of society.
Bumping again to hopefully get some discussion about some actual books going again.
>>24883149go fuck yourself
>>24883157Bot
>>24882475>AntisocialWrong. They literally stem from socialism. You've narrowed your mind to the individualist thought. This aspect takes up maybe as much as a 1/3rd of their writing. Individualism is the American cult the secret societies use to divide people with. Ayn Rand, John Wayne, Easy Rider, all that rugged individualist shit. As normal as it is to understand yourself as separate entity from a collective, no man is an island and you don't like like a castaway (Tom Hanks movie guy had to invent a friend in ball). Teenagers need a period of growth and learn how to survive outside the family unit. But he must return to the community, commune, collective. Anarchism is more about collectivism, actual communism.
>>24883149The ideal is to be rid of the state. It was discovered early on that the state will always respawn if you leave its lifesblood MONEY flowing around and corrupting people. It literally creates the hierarchies, classes, and castes of the state. The "anarcho-capitalist" will tell you to not worry about it and offer up a mountain of contracts to smooth things over, and people would go, "ah, that's fair" and eventually you have the richest men back in power. Anarchism cannot happen without taking out state-capitalism. No monarch but the imaginary ones. Tolstoy's anarcho-Christian alone is acceptable. Anarcho-Paganism? Maybe invent Anarcho-Tolkienist too if you want
>>24883762>>24883778Embarrassing posts.
>>24883798Literally the same bot that I've seen on this board for years at this point. Always the same dismissive replies on any thread that's about books of whatever this fuck doesn't like
>>24883824Embarrassing paranoid delusions.
>>24883798Explain your embarrassment. You believe in this thread's contradictions? Can you explain them? No one's done that yet.
