/lit/ - Literature

irving kristol
leo strauss

It's kinda hard to write when you can't read.

The Thomas Sowell Reader is readable, as long as you don't think too hard about a laissez faire economist complaining about how left-wing academics are insulated from the real world.

FICTION OR NONFICTION?

What about Evelyn Waugh or Graham Greene? Their stories are laden with respectful satire of the upper-class and bigoted descriptions of the world, and it's the sort of thing you enjoy reading if you're in a certain mood. Though I have no idea if you actually want fiction, and further if you want an author who is explicitly advocating his political views.

>>2341149
>>2341149

Non-fiction. By right-wing authors I mean writers on politics who happened to be right wing.
Most fiction- particularly poets like Eliot - seem to be mostly right-wing for whatever reason

>>2341147

It's kind of hard to speak for anyone when you can't think for yourself. AM I WRITE?!!

Stealth Ayn Rand thread?/

>>2341158
>Harry Potter
>right wing

Go to the politics section of any book store, and there will be an entire isle full of books with titles like "The Islamic Threat: How Obama and his Socialist Terrorists are Destroying America".

>>2341151
>>2341151

>laissez faire economist complaining about how left-wing academics are insulated from the real world.

I think this is amusing given how divorced from reality neo-classical economic theory is

>>2341158
It's easier to write fiction from a right-wing perspective, since you can rely on a primitive binary conflict of good versus evil where problems can best be solved through the physical destruction of one's adversaries.

>>2341166
um
austrian economics rather differs from neoclassical economics.

>>2341156
>bigoted descriptions of the world,

I believe you mean accurate descriptions. Reality does not meet your left wing fantasies of "we're all the same" bullshit.

>>2341165
and they are all pretty damn accurate.

>>2341171
>Has never actually read Harry Turtledove

Did somebody say something about binary conflict settings and primitive ideological generalizations?

Orson scott card hates them gays. you can start with that

>>2341175
>>2341175

Im not american, I dont know much, or care about Sowell. Austrians and Neoclassicals utilise "Subjective" value theory, are fixated on market prices and make absurd assumptions about human nature. Although more realistic, a lot of Keynes' work on business cycles and "imperfections" in the market were pointed out long before him by "Marxist" economists - and Sismondi and a few others

william buckley

c'mon /lit/!

Anthony Ludovici, Charles Conant Josey, Jared Taylor, Tomislav Sunic, Paul Edward Gottfried, Samuel T. Francis and Alain de Benoist.

>>2341191
>keynes
>more realistic

loool

There are no imperfections in the market, it is the failures of your measuring tools, not the market.
The market is as it is, it is optimal whereever free beings are interacting without coercion.

The value of something is 100% subjective, value is not cost, cost is set by the market via supply and demand.

Oh, you are a marxist?

omg people still seriously read hegel? for real? how tragic

You just haven't been looking hard enough OP.

>>2341220
>>2341220

>Believes markets are perfect/efficient despite there always being crises every few years
Supply and demand dont explain anything when they are in equilibrium. The important question is what is being equilibriated?
What one individual finds "valuable" has no place in a social science i.e. economics. What matters is investigating what is socially necessary, not what any one individual prefers.

>>2341241
BUT BUT

something about the government

>>2341241
Who said anything about perfection you silly commie?

>What matters is investigating what is socially necessary

the fuck does this mean? Hurr i know way more then everyone else, let me run your life for you!

>>2341241
>Supply and demand dont explain anything when they are in equilibrium.

they are never in equilibrium, dumbass, because demand is infinite.

>>2341241

>He thinks economics is a social science.

>He thinks he can control the unquantifiable.

confirmed for borg drone.

>>2341252
What is economics?

>>2341241
Lol, social 'science'.

>>2341177
Who said I was left-wing? Waugh's description of the world is quite blatantly bigoted. "Oh yeah I walked into Ishmalia and some negroes are having some irrelevant war about Marxism, none of them understand it and none of these journalists sitting in this really posh hotel ran by uncultured negroes can be bothered to actually find out anything about it?"

>>2341257
Do you even know what the word "bigot" means?

And how is that not an accurate description of the antics of a people with an average IQ of 70?

I think OP is confusing Right Wing with Libertarian.

Henry Hazlitt
Thomas Sowell
Murray Rothbard

>>2341258
>2012
>Still thinking IQ is an accurate measure of intelligence

Just read Republican memiors dud

>>2341248

Lol. Lowered the tone after one post - and didnt bother to answer any of my points.

>What matters is investigating what is socially necessary
>the fuck does this mean?

Let me explain (again). Economics is a social science. Therefore if we want to analyse the economy we have to look at what is socially necessary for it to operate - like for instance what is socially necessary for capitalism to function.

>>2341271
>read a summary of The Mismeasure of Man and goes around acting like IQ doesn't indicate anything

>>2341255
>He has to ask what economics is.

I'd tell you to go read something but that would just make it worse for you, so I'll just tell you good locke in your endeavors as they maybe.

>>2341274
>deflecting

No, seriously. What is economics to you?

>>2341272
>Was told he had an IQ slightly above-average and since then attached personal significance to it and berated races of a lower meaningless statistical measure than him

The Federalist Papers

>>2341277
Go to africa and tell me again that IQ doesn't mean anything.

>>2341268
You made no points, you speak in feel good rhetoric and clearly don't understand anything about economics.
There is no such thing as "socially necessary" or "necessary for capitalism to function".

>>2341282
>he thinks africa is backwards because of IQ

>>2341251
>>2341251

>Demand is infinite

>>2341275
Care to explain why you would need someone else's opinion to formulate and substantiate your own when making accusations of ignorance and foolishness?

>>2341287
>deflecting again

You:
>economics is not a social science

I'm just asking what you think it is.

>>2341283
and whats your explanation?

>>2341285
If guns and ammo were free, how much would you buy?

>>2341283

>The irony of using a tin-tin reference to illustrate his communist musings.

hahahaohwow howd'yalikemenow?

>>2341289
>If guns and ammo were free, how much would you buy?
I wouldn't. Can you tell why?

>>2341282
The poorer parts of Africa have weak educational infrastructure and residents are more concerned with poverty and security than learning to read/write. Well done for pulling the anecdote card though, and I have been to Africa, although I haven't been to Somalia as of late.

You get massively different IQ scores every time based on the time of day, the mood that the people are in when they do an IQ test and the type of test. If you could measure someone's height and one day get 6"4 and another day get 5"6 would you have any faith in the results? It's quite clear it's far from objective.

>>2341282

>There is no such thing as "socially necessary" or "necessary for capitalism to function".

Its socially necessary, for instance, for capitalism to have (among other things): a large class of people who have no access to the means of subsistence and therefore have no choice but to sell their labour; for there to be a single, stable currency, a framework of laws allowing guarantee of private property, competition between firms, etc

I win.

>>2341292
You wouldn't buy any?

>>2341293
wah africans don't have education, that's why they are savages!

Of course, then you see all the brutal mass murdering dictators went to the west and got their fancy educations in prestigious schools.

>>2341295
I believe you are mistaking "necessary" with "desirably(in my opinion)"

>>2341297
>You wouldn't buy any?
Correct. Can anyone explain why?

>>2341302
Where do you live?

>>2341304
whats your address mr. i don't own any guns or weapons?

>>2341303
In a house.

>>2341297
Many Africans dictators who happen to be mass-murderers are intelligent people who exploit corruption in their nation and take intensely reactionary stances to civil conflicts in their homelands. Since when did malignity correlate with intelligence? I'm sure Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, General Pinochet etc. were very smart men.

You also didn't actually address my rebuttal about IQ, which makes me wonder what your actual point was.

>>2341289

>Marxism: An authoritarian ideology that encourages individuals to have others think for them.

You make the grand assumption that because you have communist flirtations, I am required to share or participate in these. You are mistaken sir. Now I ask again, why do you as a sentient being need me to think for you? Who asks for something like that? You made the claim, now you back it up, if you can.

>>2341305
I'm sure a number of things I own could be used as weapons. Though you don't need to know any of this to know that stockpiling unnecessary freebies is pretty stupid.

>>2341306
You are a lunatic who thinks government run education is a prerequisite for civilization.

It wasn't a rebuttal, nature vs nurture has been solidly settled in the side of nature.

You can't keep bringing up shit that has been proven wrong.

>>2341313
I am a lunatic who thinks that having schools will produce a more educated population.

You deliberately ignore my comments about IQ tests being flawed and not an accurate way to measure anything. You are unable to accept that "intelligence" is something inherently hard to define and something that is essentially abstract, and therefore cannot reliably form a component in the "nature vs. nurture" debate.

You provided no evidence for your "nature vs. nurture" debate and I doubt you know anything about anything mentioned in this thread other than the race debate.

Why are you on /lit/? Why don't you infect /pol/ with your capacity to make anything about racism?

>>2341322
You claim they are not accurate, that is your opinion.

>You are unable to accept that "intelligence" is something inherently hard to define
lol
you are the one who automatically assumes that IQ is trying to measure intelligence. And then you go on to say "hur you can't cuz intelligence is poorly defined".

You put a nigger in a school for the first 20 years of his life, and he's "educated", but he's still STUPID, VIOLENT, AND CRIMINAL.

>>2341322
>speaks about human intelligence being abstract and unknowable.

>tries to quantify human beings making economic choices.

>marxists not the masterrace of fantasy storytelling.

I once borrowed A Wild Sheep Chase from a library and someone had scribbled in it, complaining about Murakami being left-wing,

>>2341293
>You get massively different IQ scores every time based on the time of day, the mood that the people are in when they do an IQ test and the type of test.

http://academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/hardyms/PS337-001_08/high_stakes_testing.pdf
>The authors review criticisms commonly leveled against cognitively loaded tests used for employment and higher education admissions decisions, with a focus on largescale databases and meta-analytic evidence. They conclude that (a) tests of developed abilities are generally valid for their intended uses in predicting a wide variety of aspects of short-term and long-term academic and job performance, (b) validity is not an artifact of socioeconomic status, (c) coaching is not a major determinant of test performance, (d) tests do not generally exhibit bias by underpredicting the performance of minority group members, and (e) test-taking motivational mechanisms are not major determinants of test performance.

>>2341334
I'm not the same guy debating about Marxism you humongous retard. I haven't mentioned 'Marxism' once. You're debating with two separate entities, try your hardest possible to understand that. You might get there with patience and hard work.

'IQ' is 'Intelligence Quotient'. Of course it tries to measure intelligence, and of course it's not a statistically accurate way to measure intelligence, thereby refuting a lot of your argument in which you try to cross-examine racial IQ scores.

I have done the same IQ test and I have got different results. It was a respectable IQ test. Various children throughout the country measure completely differently on different IQ tests.

What exactly are you trying to debate? Why are you harping on about 'marxism' when that's quite clearly a different guy you're debating this with? Why are you on /lit/ to bitch about your utterly retarded views on racism?

Did you enjoy "The Catcher in the Rye"?

>>2341356
Note the ambiguous wording in that study. I don't know what we're debating so I'll concede to whatever your initial point was, and I thank you for this enjoyable argument which you have won. I'll see you around, friend.

Marx wrote the same gothic styles texts are Mary Shelley. Capital isn't much of an economic theory as it is a contextual narrative. It should be considered alongside Frankenstein instead of Keynes or Milton

>>2341358
What we're debating is, that negros are not just "the same as all of us, but poor"

They are a wholly different race who are incapable of maintaining any aspect of civilization. Doesn't matter how much "education" they have, they cannot do it on their own without outside coercion.

>>2341355
>"I'm not the same guy debating about racial i.q.'s you humongous retard... You're debating with two separate entities, try your hardest possible to understand that. You might get there with patience and hard work."

right back atcha leonard. Marxist's all the same, viewing everything the same as being the same. stay classy you beautiful fuck.

>>2341361
>>2341361

>Clearly hasnt read Capital

But nevertheless, in general, imaginative literature > Social Sciences (like economics

>>2341322
>"intelligence" is something inherently hard to define

Dictionary definitions of intelligence are irrelevant. IQ tests are useful based on their predictive validity. If you are uncomfortable with calling what these tests measure "intelligence", it doesn't change anything. They still correlates with numerous social and economic outcomes, whereby the high scores correspond to outcomes that are generally considered desirable.

>>2341371
most economics IS imaginative literature.

>>2341376

If thats the case, then it is a very poor sub-genre

when i was 18 i scored a 135-140 IQ on an official test at a mental hospital administered by three different shrinks when i had been up for nearly three days on speed and was hallucinating bigtime. this was part of a full mental evaluation including MMPI and some other tests that i don't remember the names of

i've always been baffled and fascinated by how the fuck that happened, not just the score but the fact that experienced shrinks couldn't seem to tell that i was out of my mind

the last part of the test was an oral interview wherein a shrink quizzed me on trivia like "who wrote Faust?" (i think i got mad bonus points for pronouncing "Goethe" correctly, but i only knew that because i grew up near a street named Goethe) and asking me to elaborate on the meanings of various obscure words

anyone have links to academic articles about IQ test methodology that don't require subscriptions to scholarly databases?

Jesus Christ.

How honestly gives a fuck about IQ?

>>2341381

>economics is a poor

ohu

>>2341393
well i think an attempt to quantify something as intangible as "intelligence" is interesting

>>2341386

I'd first and foremost recommend the book "The g Factor" by Arthur Jensen. Unfortunately, I don't think thats available online anywhere.

>>2341386
>oral tests
>IQ

i don't think it was an accurate test

>>2341393

Economists.

>>2341398
>>2341398

I wasnt referring to the previous post, but the whole ridiculous argument throughout.

>>2341411

>>2341386
>anyone have links to academic articles about IQ test methodology that don't require subscriptions to scholarly databases?

Here is a decent introductory book on the subject:

http://nig.gr/8um

>>2341418

>>2341403
there was a bunch of shit, i played with shapes, had to analyze strange pictures, took math tests, written tests, reasoning tests, it went on forever as shadow people lurked in my peripheral vision and heard nonexistent songs and felt like total shit
and this was at a very reputable midwestern hospital
which is why i'm baffled/fascinated by how it turned out