/lit/ - Literature

>>17646735
>A right-leaning book
>In the sense of self-respect
Holy bias batman

>>17646735
>written by a female
>written by a jew
>advocates for (((laissez-faire)))
>egoism good!!! Nationalism, family, union bad!!! Do not feel pride for your race's and Nations achievements goyim!!!!
>just wageslave until you're dead goy!!!! Trust (((us))) you can be a CEO too!!!
No actual rightwinger likes this kike garbage either, fuck off.

>>17646735
>right-leaning book (in the sense of individualistic and self-respecting)
Total gibberish.

>>17646773
Yes, tax is theft.

>>17646773
>feeling pride
That's a sin anon

>>17646735
These books are poorly written and flawed. Everytime two characters argue, one is an author stand in, the other is a cheap strawman. It's transparent to the point of being annoying. Also Rand has the blandest taste for symbolism out there.
>Get it? He builds light bulbs in his spare time to represent that he has ideas! No one is gonna figure that out! I'm so clever!

>>17646867
one is an author stand in, monologueing for fifteen pages straight, and the other is a life-hating death cultist whose only rebuttal is "this doesn't FEEL right"
^ really this should be pointed out way more often, it's like the exact opposite of the religion debate in brothers karamazov

>>17646867
>work of moral philosophy has character that represent ideas BAD!

>>17648106
>other is a life-hating death cultist whose only rebuttal is "this doesn't FEEL right"

that's most people's response to economic issues. It's a simple fact that price controls and rationing do not work and lead to worse results. There is a limited number of flashlights in a certain state, If during an emergency you let flashlights rise to their natural price of say $400 based on supply and demand, bob may buy 2 flashlights for him family to share, if you force them to be sold at 3 dollars he's going to buy one for each member of his family and other people will miss out.

>>17648119
then... economics bad

thank you all for coming to my reenactment of most of the debates in atlas shrugged (and possibly the sex scenes too because I fucked you good)

>>17646773
Rand never advocated for the destruction of the family unit.

Never wrote anything about race in her books.
>Claming pride in things or actions of people that you have never interacted with and only share the melanin percantage in your body.

She tells people outright to not wageslave their lives away.
Seems to me like you didn't read a single page of her, but just watched some rightwing faggot talk about her.

>>17646735
Anon, how old are you?

>>17646735
When I got my MBA all of the professors talked a lot about Atlas Shrugged and the motivation of man.
Who gives a fuck what critics think.

>>17646751
>self-respect must come at the expense of respecting nothing else
sounds right-leaning to me

>>17646735
And yet Clint Eastwood is adored by leftist film critics. Huh.

>>17646735
> the average, real-world-living person recognizes them as literary achievements
How many real persons like that have you met? Don't lie.

>>17648228
>Rand never advocated for the destruction of the family unit.
She openly had affairs with other married men while she herself was married.

>>17649508
Because he's actually good.

>>17649572
it turns out you can have both jingoism and meaningful commentary. who'd a thunk.

>>17649508
he never won an oscar for a raeson

>>17649587
he won 4 what the fuck are you on about

>>17649572
Quite. That's exactly the point that I meant to imply.

>>17649508
>leftist film critics
who?

reminder : liberals are not leftists

>>17646735
As said already in the thread, it is because it is Cringe: The Book.
Also, the real right-wingers, especially those in business like Bezos, mostly only read non-fiction like The Black Swan and autobiographies of great men like Sam Walton or John D. Rockefeller.

>>17649639
The high esteem for his films is basically ubiquitous among film critics and scholars. Richard Brody (New Yorker's leftist film critic) comes immediately to mind, as do Jonathan Rosenbaum of the Chicago Reader, Duncan Shepherd from the SD Reader (this is decades ago now though).

>>17649616
not as an actor

>>17649733
So? The point is that he makes conservative films, and even though the vast majority of film scholarship and criticism is penned by leftists and leftward leaning neoliberals, his films are nevertheless critically acclaimed.

The big difference between Rand and Eastwood (outside of medium) is that Eastwood's work is legitimately good, while Rand's is mediocre. And I say this as someone who once kind of liked the idea of objectivism and who still has relatively sympathetic views of the basic individualism at its core.

>>17646735
I just want to read it because liberals try so hard to shit on it

>>17646735
It is amazing how one author can make everyone seethe rent free. Worth the respect.

>>17649521
But she told her husband and her lover's wife about it first, so that makes it okay.

>>17650052
Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not. Just in case you are not, no, announcing that you are going to have an affair does not make the affair ok.

>>17646735
Is that a new type of rasengan?

>>17646773
Objectivism, Libertarianism, and Ancap are more "right-wing" than NigSoc, sorry. I mean a good portion of the proponents of those ideologies will admit that they basically want neo-feudalism and prefer monarchism as a system of governance as the monarch is just a property owner exercising his rights over his land. Read Hoppe.
NatSoc is just White gibs me dats.

This goes for all the adaptions of Rand's books. They're not bad films, but critics would eat their shoes first before admitting the movies were good. They can't come to terms with the fact that objectivism is the answer to modern day problems and insist on government intervention

>>17646735
What about Anarchy, State and Utopia?

>>17646735
No, sorry, I’m afraid that Objectivism is objectively bad, Ayn Rand is objectively a giant bitch and you objectively suck big donkey cocks

>>17646735
am reading it right now, there's some cringy bits in this book, and I'm not a big fan of objectivism, but I'd be lying if I said this book isn;t enternataining and fun, it provides a nice perspective, that I feel like is changing my behaviour, I no longer feel the need to please others anymore, of course I still try to follow common courtasies, such as dressing well, and being hygenic, these things benefit you as well, I feel as if I'm much more honest and free, and the relationships I do form with people now are geniune. People shit on this book way too much, A lot of "intellecutal zoomers" are marxist as fuck and fucking hate this book so much, it's hilarious to watch them unironically seethe, although I sort of understand that a lot of them grew up forced to read this book in highschool, which sort of does ruin a book especially with a message like this.

>>17646735
>but because you cannot have a right-leaning book be praised by mostly left-leaning judges.
What about almost all Russian classic literature?

>>17646735
>real-world-living person recognizes them as literary achievements
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>17651711
Show Gulag Archipelago to any "academic" and watch their reactions

>b-b-but that wasn't real communism
>Solzhenitsyn was anti-semetic!
>I'm a DEMOCRATIC socialist

Just because Jordan Peterson read it and understood it doesn't mean that represents everyone else

>>17646773
objectivism isn't egoism lmao

>>17646735
I'm tempted to read those book simply because I'm baffled at how many people fall for an idealogy that seems simplistic

>>17649925
not worth the time investment, because whatever you imagine tobe the opposite of liberalism doesn't want the book either
I've read it and it's mostly shit

>>17646735
Baby's first epiphany about bias?

What I think people don't realize is we're coming up out of a cycle where the democrats and progressives once felt threatened by conservatism and were panicked into joining the media and social sciences to """change things.""" Now that they're the majority, the so-called right-leaners no longer feel as comfortable, and will now get off their asses and join the institutions at a higher rate to tip the scales back, while the (former) minorities start to relax. Basically, hard times strong men, good times weak men, but for political stances

However, the left knows the paradigm shift can be mitigated if
>suppress their political opponents (expelled from job unless you bow to blm)
>continue to insist victimhood past the point of it being believable to slow the public impression catching up to that they are, in fact, the powerful class

>>17652167
>>17649925
Don't listen to him. Libbies could never understand Rand because their worldview limits them. Go ahead and enjoy, they're pretty based

>>17646773
Nation is just a union of egoists where people with similar genes (ethnicity) profit by helping each other. Nationalism is not incompatible with egoism, in fact it is a natural conclusion of egoism.

>>17654208
Redpilled