/lit/ - Literature

You're well-read on a certain subject when you can longer have a conversation with common people regarding this very topic.

If you're slightly well-informed and clued-up in History for example, you're still going to bother explaining people the misconceptions they have regarding the Roman Empire, the Middle Ages, the French Revolution and so on. On the other hand, if you're properly well-read, every word coming out of their mouths will sound as painful as listening to your loved ones getting raped.

>>6396156
>>6396170
I actually have a theory for that.

The principles the Right usually stands for, by which I mean the principles of tradition and liberalism, are the ones that can fully operate "in inertia"

That is, you don't need an intelligentsia to run them, you just need a mass base to support it. On a market society unified by mass culture, this is simply the natural course of things. It's the Left, with the idea of breaking social and cultural constructs and limiting capitalism (or fighting against it) that need an "intervention" and therefore a higher concentration of purely intellectual power.

The Right on the other hand requires people to maintain these constructs intact and make capitalism work well, so men of faith, men of the military, managers, technicians and vocational workers became their base, instead of intellectuals. For them, standardisation with the lowest point as reference is not a problem, and people like Buckley might even alienate some of the bottom. The Left without "thinkers" on the other hand is, as we see today, a disaster.

It's amazing how boring and predictable we feel writing those

>I guess I just found it more pathos than logos