/lit/ - Literature

>>21326851
I concur in a sense

>>21326851
>Pound was fundamentally a monarchist. he was not truly committed to fascism as an ideal.
Elaborate

>>21326851
Fascism has too many plebian tendencies.

>>21326862
so does monarchism, you think the poorfags crying 'God save the Queen!' in unison are not plebeians?

>>21326851
I concur in a sense

>>21326851
I concur in a sense

>>21326851
Writing is feminine. Fascism is masculine. Fascists would never write stuff. They would conquer and subject people. They would live in the real world and not escape into books like Jews.

>>21326851
>supporting the aristocracy
Absolute Monarchism is better.

>>21326897
Fides to your monarch is the far from plebian

>>21326851
Nonsense, _currently_ no one wants reestablishing monarchy and you wouldn't claim that the right-wing simply doesn't exist.
Conservatism is fluid; the right have adopted (first, btw) and changed their goals.

>>21327052
>Fascists would never write stuff
Except manifestos

>>21327077
btw, obviously fascism is a left-wing idiocy but your elaboration doesn't make sense.

>>21327078
a utility.

>>21327052
All creative and artistic endeavors are fundamentally masculine. Don't let women and closeted homosexuals tell you otherwise.

>>21327077
>the right have adopted
You mean cucked lmao

>>21327082
Feminine = Jewish. Masculine = Aryan.

>>21327083
we are having a discussion here, gtfo with your codewords to your containment boards.

>>21327085
It's not a codeword. If anything it's more precise and therefore more relevant.

>>21327077
Yeah, well, "conservatism" has conserved nothing, and its adaptation is nothing more than a nice veneer over the fact that conservatives have no lasting fixed principles whatsoever.

Hell, that gets back to the main point of this thread, doesn't it? What do you need to be a great artist? Creativity, obviously, but what else? You need principles. You need standards. You need things you truly believe in, things you hold fast to, things that form a bedrock sense of your view of the world. Reactionaries have these things, "conservatives" do not, and that's why every right-wing artist is reactionary. Have you ever read a conservative's attempt at writing a book? It's never pretty.

>>21327084
There are masculine jews and feminine aryans. Ethnicity (if we can even call it that ) doesn't equate to sexual expression. This is a textbook /pol/tard post.

>>21327110
Conservatism is about gradual, evolutionary changes and testing the waters before committing; leftists want revolutions (and they changed their specific positions gazillion times as well)
I am an ancap btw, not much axe to grind.

>>21327174
Not him but I'm an amateur cartoonist and you gave me a nice idea for a strip so thank you :)

>>21327066
Anarcho-Monarchism is better. Nobility is evil and corrupt but the King is good and just.

>>21327527
You stormfront guys are losing it.

>>21327541
A what? I am talking about what Tolkien thought of as an ideal monarchy.

>>21326851
>All the great right-wing writers, poets, and critics were monarchists at heart.
lmao tell that to the ancient Greeks you dimwit

what gives people with zero knowledge of history or literature or anything else really such confidence to speak on matters which they know nothing about?

Tolkien was an anarchist.

>>21327606
Which ancient Greeks? You mean the Athenian playwrights and philosophers who never grew tired of ridiculing it in their works?

>>21326851
>fascist
Fascism is a slur. It can mean way too much different things, so that in effect it means nothing.

>monarchists
That's also vague as fuck. Read:
Morgan E.S. - Inventing the People. The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America (1989)

How "king's 2 bodies" monarchists fought with "popular sovereignty" monarchists, and kings were to be executed for the sake of their kingly well-being.

>an established religion
Read:
Smith W.C. - The Meaning and End of Religion (1964)

Religion is a concept used only by people suspicious of the whole religious enterprise. People who actually "had" a religion, never thought of themselves as having it. They were just performing some practices, that coincidentally were considered necessary and "true". Speaking against religion would have sounded like a blasphemous act of covid-denying.

>>21327052
>Fascists would never write stuff.
Henri de Man
George Valois
José Antonio Primo de Rivera
Ugo Spirito
etc.
Not to mention their genealogical relationship with syndicalism (Georges Sorel) and the Conservative Revolution.

Though, admittedly, none of it is actually good, quality-wise.

>>21326851
Monarchists are even more cringe than the fascists. Time to step up to the present day because those systems are never coming back, so stop idealizing them you cringe fuck.

>>21327867
>idealize the worst possible system listed in Aristotle's catalogue of political systems because it's modern!
No thanks

fascism only appears in democracies btw

Some great right-wing authors who don't really fit into OP's scheme:

D. H. Lawrence
Robinson Jeffers
Zbigniew Herbert

OP moves the goalposts when he slides from *great* artists to merely *creative* ones. Great != creative. If we're allowing lighter authors (undoubtedly creative, but perhaps not, depending on your definition, 'great') then

Wyndham Lewis
Robert Heinlein
Robert E. Howard

are three more obvious examples. Lewis was a painter more than anything but he still wrote a lot, especially criticism. Heinlein is, I would say, equal parts libertarian and fascist. (Time Enough For Love = the former; Starship Troopers = the latter.) REH much the same. (Yes, Bran Mak Morn is 'King of the Picts', but he's a strong man leader. REH never endorses the idea that X should be king just because he's Y's son. If you can't tame the proud beauty, laugh in the face of certain death and break your bonds with one mighty effort, it doesn't matter whose son you are. Führerprinzip incarnate.)

>>21327066
>>21327527
>OUR master will put you decadent aristocrats underneath OUR thumb!
Pathetic slave morality.

>>21327527
>Anarcho-Monarchism is better
Anarcho-Tyranny is even better

>>21327084
You’re misunderstanding Weininger. Aryanism is just the attempted attachment of masculinity to worth, self-worth, Jewishness is just the attempted attachment of femininity to ‘worth’ (want of worth). The Jews trick is to stand beside God, to say that nothing is real. The Aryan believes in the real, but only temporary, only for himself, in this he becomes the enemy of Christ. Worth, value, quality, are all interchangeable, the conquering of time through song, and the Jew lacks confidence to even sing for himself. Character, appearance, soul, talent, are all just the attempted attachment of worth, and as much strength as worth can muster corresponds to obliterating vanity, which is just the Achilles heal of the artist. Art is ‘universal’ only when it hides how much the artist is straining to overcome his retardation, trying to bubble his way past his own crooked timber thoughts and attach real value to existence. Men just have the self worth to be themselves, but the point isn’t the worth, but the being, it’s all a by product of something originally worthy that has to be found internally. Women are not themselves, they live in deceit, they live cut off from whatever quality femininity might have derived from, but only because they don’t believe in themselves, like the Jew who won’t sing. Everyone that hates song is evil. If you can’t stand someone singing you are a monster and Christ is going to hunt you and gore you open like a boar.

>>21327052
this

>>21326851
Why did you post someone who was very obviously not a monarchist if you've ever read anything he wrote whatsoever? Tolkien's idea of a good king is one who exercises no authority whatsoever except raising the armies to defend the realm if need be.

>>21327077
>you wouldn't claim that the right-wing simply doesn't exist.
the origin of the term refers to those that opposed the revolution against france and i maintain that anyone that supports the ideals of the revolution against france is not right wing.