/lit/ - Literature

here we go

peter storteldijk or whatever his name is.

philipe aries, amazing historian

von hofmannsthal , god tier poet


the left wings are not the only one, they are the popular plebby ones. there are tons of right wing oriented figures in the intellectual history.

>>5016251
omg lold hard. great post

>>5016241
Davila
Evola
Carlyle
Straus( mai husbando <3)
Bloom
etc etc

>>5016241
You know every intellectual to ever exist, and you know all of their political affiliations?

OP is god

>>5016241
Montherlant
Barrès
Sainte-Beuve
Mauriac
Wilde

the list goes on forever

>>5016272
>In my experience most intellectuals have been left wing.
>In my experience

Most throughout history, until the 19th century. And even then. Most in general are statists to some degree, just by virtue of presupposing a fairly strong state. Right up to the war, you had lots of openly, prominently right wing dudes like Ezra Pound, DH Lawrence, Martin Heidegger, etc., too. Could give a big list of "YOU'LL NEVER GUESS WHO WAS RIGHT WING ;)" trivia but who cares.

Since the war people tend to keep it to themselves. My university has 200 political clubs, every single one of which is leftist or Marxist, except a handful which are generically "liberal democratic" or some centrist crap like that. Maybe one or two libertarians, too, but I can't recall. Recently, a student at a nearby university received disciplinary action because he emailed a gif of Obama kicking a door, with the caption "Seriously, fuck exams". He was accused (convicted, really, and then he admitted guilt under pressure to apologise) of committing a racist 'micro-aggression'. Even more recently, a club in the UK discussing traditionalist philosophy in a non-racist way was banned outright because, to quote the petition that prompted the action almost verbatim, it discussed philosophers who *happened to have* misogynist/racist/etc. views - like Heidegger, Nietzsche, Evola.

The last fifty years haven't been an appropriate atmosphere for being openly right wing, or even having any of the beliefs typically considered fellow travellers to the right. If you do, you're just shunted, really efficiently, into a tiny little marginal crackpot fringe by polite society. Alain Soral will always have a massive footnote in any print publication saying he's obviously crazy. Alain de Benoist only appears in fringe documentaries. Norman Finkelstein, for daring to be an antisemite (read: for daring to criticise a Jew for his behaviour in any capacity) has been completely blacklisted, despite being one of the most amazing scholars and historians in a generation. Kevin MacDonald has been very effectively pushed into the white nationalist camp, openly admitting it now, and writing for Occidental Quarterly. Gottfried, who also writes for the Quarterly, is a great juridical historian and scholar, and has been pushed into the same fringe. And so on and so on.

Just not the right climate.

>>5016272
>in my experience
>most

This wasn't intended to be a troll thread, it's just that most modern intellectuals that I've read up on happen to be leftists. Sorry to disappoint.

>>5016279
>Most throughout history, until the 19th century

You didn't even Right/Left defined until the very ending of the 18th century

>Most in general are statists to some degree
>statists to some degree
>statists
Thank god you used that stupid term right in the beginning I was just about to read your tl;dr display of stupidity

By today's standards, and in many cases by their own contemporary standards,

>Wordsworth
>Coleridge
>Byron
>Edmund Burke
>Borges
>Thomas Carlyle
>John Buchan
>Chateaubriand
>Chesterton
>T.S. Eliot
>Ezra Pound
>Wyndham Lewis
>John Milton
>JF Cooper
>John Dos Passos
>Richard Yates
>Dostoyevsky
>William Faulkner
>Robert Frost
>Knut Hamsun
>Ted Hughe
>Huysmans
>Kipling
>CS Lewis
>Thomas Mann
>HL Mencken
>Nabokov
>Walter Scott
>Jonathan Swift
>Tennyson
>Evelyn Waugh
>Wodehouse
>WB Yeats

I could go on. I have no idea where you got this notion that 'most intellectuals have been left wing'. Contemporary academia is certainly overrun with lefties, but - if anything - that contradicts intellectual history.

N.B., in several cases - Wordsworth, Dostoyevsky, Coleridge, Dos Passos, etc. - the people I posted had 'leftist' tendencies in their earliest youth but quickly swung to the polar opposite in their twenties or thirties. Predictably, the left tries to use their fledgling idealism as evidence of lifelong devotion to their side. In reality, all the names I posted spent more time as 'conservatives' than as 'liberals', though the terms are fluid and difficult.

>>5016286
I'm glad we both know the origin of right/left terminology. Maybe we were in the same undergrad class together. If we ever meet, give me the secret hand signal, and I'll know it's you, so I can avoid you because you're a retard.

The point is, most intellectuals throughout history have had beliefs commonly held by what would come to be defined as the 'right', i.e. authoritarianism, reactionary statism, explicit anti-radicalism (e.g. sovereignty in se over 'popular right' or 'will of the people' in all cases), blah blah blah. Anything you want to define as 'right wing' from the Revolution or after the Spring or whatever, pick the features you think best represent conservative and reactionary elements, and you'll find them in pretty much every political philosopher of the last three thousand years.

Or continue not reading which I'm sure is your specialty.

>>5016286
> not being a statist
> being sane
Pick two and only two, mongofuckingloid.

>>5016241

Because 'intellectualism', that is to say, the class of people who live off their words rather than their deeds, is primarily a liberal phenomenon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmFBzuLJ6ac

>>5016269
>Bloom
When I read The Closing of the American Mind, I really didn't pick up a right wing vibe... more of a regretful tone of a deteriorated society and education. What's the general consensus about him being right-wing, other than his admiration of Plato?

I think it's worth to note that what you in USA consider Left wing, most other places think of as far right. Your liberals are far righter than even the most right-oriented party here in sweden for example.

Point is, left-right definition is filled with flaws and is only a contemporary definition, the right in America a hundred years ago still wanted slaves and stuff.

>>5016363
>a regretful tone of a deteriorated society and education.
That sounds right wing enough.

>>5016381
Teddy Adorno would like to have a word with you.

>>5016363
>admiration of Plato

Is that your definition of right-wing? Well I guess we can include 99 percent of all contributors to civilization to the right-wing then.

>>5016369
that depends on what you mean by right and left. left and right in america are on different planes than they are in much of the world.

>>5016302
>I'm glad we both know the origin of right/left terminology. Maybe we were in the same undergrad class together. If we ever meet, give me the secret hand signal, and I'll know it's you, so I can avoid you because you're a retard.

Jesus, where did you get that one from? That was horrible.

>The point is, most intellectuals throughout history have had beliefs commonly held by what would come to be defined as the 'right', i.e. authoritarianism, reactionary statism, explicit anti-radicalism (e.g. sovereignty in se over 'popular right' or 'will of the people' in all cases), blah blah blah. Anything you want to define as 'right wing' from the Revolution or after the Spring or whatever, pick the features you think best represent conservative and reactionary elements, and you'll find them in pretty much every political philosopher of the last three thousand years.

You're assuming a static, unchanging criteria on what constitutes a conservative and a progressive set of beliefs. If what was held as progressive a thousand years ago was still considered progressive in this day and age, the entire left/wing dichotomy would be superfluous. In order for it to exist at all it must change its parameters culturally, historically, and so on to adapt new ideas and circumstances.

For example, wouldn't a modern-day socialist of liberal frown upon the french revolutionary Left's jingoism? Sexism? Militarism? Deism? Would a conservative three hundred year's ago approve of a contemporary conservative's republicanism, liberalism?

Of course that up until a certain point in history people mostly followed ideas we now deem as uncompatible with our contemporary, "progressive" beliefs. This is not the same thing as saying they were all "conservatives" for their times, even if we'd compute them as so today.

>Or continue not reading which I'm sure is your specialty.

Wow! Good one!

>>5016351

WHAT THE FUCK?

why is /pol/ all up in my /lit/?

>i watched a 9 minute youtube video about a book by thomas sowell, the thesis of which is that intellectuals should stop commenting/participating in fields which are not their specialty, the irony of which is that its written by an economist who now feels it is within his expertise to comment on INTELLECTUALS as an entire phenomenon. Therefore I am an expert on "intellectualism"

Fuck you.

>>5016369
>Your liberals are far righter than even the most right-oriented party here in sweden for example.

This is a myth and you know it.

The average american liberal is pretty progressive even for european standards, they're simply not given the opportunity to elect people who share them.

>>5016423
Absolutely false. You have no idea what you're talking about.

>>5016418
Most of academia (except the field of sociology) agress with him.

I'm thinking you dont know shit about science.

>>5016241
Define right-wing, please. I see many names here in this thread that could lead to the conclusion that right-wing is only a phrase for "not socialist" or "rather apolitical" or something like that.

The overall definition of right-wing is just insufficient as hell, since it tries to encompass so many different, sometimes outright opposing ideologies.

>tumblr freakshow is converting 80% of the left into tranny-worshiping cultists and "PoC"
>the remaining 20% are badly divided over whether to accept or reject the trannystorm
>progressive stacks hobbling leftist activism
>traditionally leftist think thank private colleges turning into SJW fashion exhibits
>average joe getting fed up with the tumblr freakshow
>need for austerity on the horizon
>racial and economic tensions leading to rise of right wing populism

AHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>5016418
>a book by thomas sowell, the thesis of which is that intellectuals should stop commenting/participating in fields which are not their specialty, the irony of which is that its written by an economist who now feels it is within his expertise to comment on INTELLECTUALS as an entire phenomenon
Ha, an economist trying to "depoliticise" academia and thus making it as political as it can get, nice!

>>5016425
Prove me wrong. Oh and keep in mind, american liberals grew in a multicultural society and due to its history and culture, they're also far more sensitised to race issues than any other people on earth.

European progressives often turn right-wing when they start seeing a little bit of color here and there.

>>5016443
You're talking about Sweden and how your average, I repeat, average liberal is a left-wing as those in Sweden? I mean, shit mate, you're talking about Sweden. That's like [one of] the most leftist non-socialist country on earth.

>>5016296
I would like to point the fact that most of these people wouldn't agree with each other on most political and religious issues.

There are a lot of right-wing intellectuals, but they're always self-styled to a certain degree. Specially those who come from a left-wing background.

>>5016428

>Most of academia agrees with Thomas Sowell


What kind of light-obliterating rock are you living under you thick-skulled fuck?

>you don't know shit about science

You cannot possibly consider "Intellectuals and Society" relevant to science except in the most oblique way...

please tell me you're trolling man, i'm having a rough day as is. can't deal with this shit.

>>5016417
The point is that if you atomise the right wing you will find that its beliefs are continuations of mainstream political philosophy as it existed before the Revolution.

It's not about whether people would approve of the Terror or whatever. Regardless of that, the Jacobins were novel. Monarchist reaction was not, even if it took on a new and more intentional form. If you read Schmitt, political discourse since the Revolution (and before, sorta) pretty much did only one thing: create the false concept of a dilution of the executive by judicial and legislative wings. It's just a nonsensical encroachment on classical sovereignty, which has reigned supreme (no pun intended) since the dawn of political philosophy, and which continued in various forms after the Revolution.

To say "is it just me or have most philosophers been anarchist??", and to try to answer this by assuming opposition to "anarchism" began with explicit responses to Bakunin, is nonsensical. Most smart people in history have agreed with Metternich.

>Wow! Good one!
Better than replying to an insult with "wow! good one!", o creative one.

>>5016369
>>5016369
>I think it's worth to note that what you in USA consider Left wing, most other places think of as far right. Your liberals are far righter than even the most right-oriented party here in sweden for example.

Can people stop regurgitating this bullshit? It's only really true about economics. Look at Europe's views on immigration, for example. Seriously, if you honestly believe this shit, ask the most left-wing European how they feel about the Roma. Or compare Russia's stance on gays vs the US's or Golden Dawn vs the Tea Party.

>>5016456
lrn2read, most Academia agrees that you shouldn't comment on things outside your field of expertise. It's a fucking fact, that is how the entire scientific community is built. It's the fundament.

Isn't it illegal to be right wing now? Pretty sure it's detrimental to society to have people running around being racist, misogynistic, fascist homophobes.

>>5016473

>most Academia agrees that you shouldn't comment on things outside your field of expertise.

NO FUCKING DUH. The debate is never about this in principle, it's about questioning whether or not a particular work is within the appropriate range of a particular author.

>that is how the entire scientific community is built. It's the fundament.

are you implying that all fields of knowledge and their corresponding experts should seek to emulate science?
Are you implying economics is scientific?

I'm not about to talk about the Sokal affair, just cut it out.

>>5016458
>The point is that if you atomise the right wing you will find that its beliefs are continuations of mainstream political philosophy as it existed before the Revolution.

Wrong. You could be as vague as you'd like and pander to silly terminology as "statist" as much as you'd like, this statement would continue to be wrong.

>It's not about whether people would approve of the Terror or whatever. Regardless of that, the Jacobins were novel. Monarchist reaction was not, even if it took on a new and more intentional form. If you read Schmitt, political discourse since the Revolution (and before, sorta) pretty much did only one thing: create the false concept of a dilution of the executive by judicial and legislative wings. It's just a nonsensical encroachment on classical sovereignty, which has reigned supreme (no pun intended) since the dawn of political philosophy, and which continued in various forms after the Revolution.

As stupid as this was in general, it had absolutely nothing to do with what I've said. I'm so glad I didn't read your original tl;dr nonsense

>>5016480
Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being “pushed to an extreme;” not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case. Strange that they should imagine that they are not assuming infallibility when they acknowledge that there should be free discussion on all subjects which can possibly be doubtful, but think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is so certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain. To call any proposition certain, while there is any one who would deny its certainty if permitted, but who is not permitted, is to assume that we ourselves, and those who agree with us, are the judges of certainty, and judges without hearing the other side.

>>5016488
>You are wrong, and stupid.

Thanks for the content, typical leftist. Enjoy the progressive irrelevance of your movement. Tell all the teenage Trotskyist trannies I said hi at your next meeting.

>>5016501

i'm all for free speech but that sentence gave me a headache and you should definitely be arrested for it, you bigot

>>5016501
>teenage Trotskyist trannies
oh no he didn't!

>>5016509
It's Mill. http://www.bartleby.com/130/2.html

He was part of that phase where English authors really liked commas, I think.

>>5016513

well i'm glad he's dead anyway

>>5016278

>expecting reading comprehension from /lit/

>>5016501
>Tell all the teenage Trotskyist trannies I said hi at your next meeting.

Your gift for insults is only second to your gift for writing in lengths that are inversely proportional to your knowledge of the subject, bro.

>>5016363
In a few books he's expressed that he's fairly conservative economically and he's also pretty open about the fact that he hates niggers.

>>5016521
That was slightly better.

I still think I win for actually saying something other than 'ur wrong' but we can agree to disagree.

>>5016458
>continuations of mainstream political philosophy after the Revolution
Just like every fucking political philosopher that ever existed, and yes, even and especially the "fringe" philosophers.
In general: the fact that so many thinkers are tried to be attached with labels that were completely irrelevant to their whole process of thinking (and their way of life) is just stupid.

>>5016363
He's a straight up reptile. Neoliberal in economics, muh degeneration, says "political correctness" in complete earnestness, etc.

Personally I love him and his politics never bothered me

>>5016418
>muh /pol/ bogeyman

>>5016418
/pol/ want /lit/'s dick, hard.

>>5016501

I just made this for you. Your welcome.

>>5016418

you seem upset

by 'intellectuals' he mostly means politicians, who are not really qualified to do much of anything besides flap their lips

>>5016607
I feel ambivalent about this image

I think Obama and Democrats apart, I'd gladly welcome those on the left square into any left-wing movement I'd be part of

But for my personal philosophy, I wouldn't even include MLK and Abbey. Pacifism and enviromentalism are cool and all but not the proper path to follow right now

>>5016631

sorry I went to go post it on /pol/. figured if the image was on /lit/ it'd be here for like a month.

yeah Leftism is actually not a good word since different people desire different aspects of it in different proportions.

Also, why on Earth do you want to be associated with Tumblr-tier feminism? How do you not think environmentalism is "the right path to follow right now"? I reckon now's as good a time as ever.

>>5016580

>/lit/
>having a dick

/lit/ will be the one bending over, I assure you

>>5016653
>Also, why on Earth do you want to be associated with Tumblr-tier feminism?

They can be silly in their demeanor and have ideas that go way beyond their hability to articulate them, but I don't think there's anything wrong with their core beliefs per se, only the way they choose to express them.

Also, I think the person who made that image simply wants to distinguish himself from modern feminism because they're such an easy target. I really do believe we shouldn't back off from a valid movement under any circumstance, that's how we get divided.

I remember reading MLK once talking about how white conservatives weren't the real obstacle of the Civil Rights movement, but white moderates who were afraid of commiting themselves to a radical movement that didn't sit well with the mainstream sensibilities of the time. That really stayed with me, and I really want to avoid making the same mistake they did.

>How do you not think environmentalism is "the right path to follow right now"? I reckon now's as good a time as ever.

Absolutely but not the radical version I associate Abbey with. But I'm not too familiar with his writings to be honest.

If they're intellectuals, they doesn't care about which wing they use...

>>5016748

>being associated with feminism in any capacity

>>5016655
>2014
>denying the possibility of taking it

stay prehistoric pol
your type has no access to /lit quality vaginas

>>5016905

Some of the most influential in my life:

Patrick J. Buchanan
Geert Wilders
Jerry Lamon Falwell, Sr.
Marion Gordon Robertson
James Clayton Dobson, Jr.

>>5016905
lol. Are those quotes even real? I tried searching for them and couldn't find anything. I'm not denying Nietzsche was a misogynist, but to the best of my knowledge, the term "feminism" didn't exist in his day. I don't know why someone would bother to make up a bunch of fake sexist Nietzsche quotes when you have such a wealth of real sexist Nietzsche material to pull from, most of which is far worse than either of those two quotes.

>>5017053

I believe they're translated from unpublished notebooks in German

And they're not misogynistic, if you actually read them closely. He's calling the feminists misogynists incognito.

>>5017053
Please explain what is sexist about those quotes, whether they are real or not.

>>5016525
>he's also pretty open about the fact that he hates niggers

source? I know he's expressed admiration for at least a few black authors.

>>5017731
he doesn't like toni morrison therefore he hates niggers

>>5016241
No, because those of the "right wing" are necessarily anti-intellectuals, despite what they may think.

>>5016241
Why did you use that picture? Don't you know Hitler hated smoking? And why is it filtered?

>>5017745
You know the idea of universal public education in the U.S. was once pushed very strongly by the KKK?

>>5017053
I think they're fake, but very good imitation of Nietzsche's style.

>>5017112
I guess you don't know, but back then marital rape was legal and women couldn't vote.

>>5016425
Actually >>5016423 is right. If you actually read poll data of people on their thoughts instead of what political affiliation they think they are their issues end up being far more progressive than is represented in politics. They just go with the less bad choice that is left to them so people assume everyone is right-wing as hell (many people are, but far from everyone).

pic related

>>5017934
Also forgot to say many people are ignorant and/or stupid and are tricked by fear mongering into going against their actual wishes as that picture suggests (most people actually think what The Affordable Care Act entails is an improvement but when they hear it called Obamacare they hate it without thinking).

>>5017946

Wouldn't it be a more cogent point to make that the ACA is literally an adaptation of a policy created by Republicans and test-enacted by a Republican governor?

coming at this from a psychology perspective, there's a huge correlation within "openness to experience" between curiosity and liberal political beliefs (and conversely, conventionalness and conservative political beliefs).

so it stands to reason that there are gonna be fewer right wing intellectuals, as right wing people, generally speaking, are less into being intellectuals or professors or whatever in the first place.

>>5017999
I think this might flip soon, now that the left is the dominant culture.

>>5018004

That's a cool hypothesis and totally makes sense in the context of /lit/ trending right-wing, but it doesn't really cohere with the nature of conventional people as being simpler and curious people as being more diverse. you get a lot of right-wing, conservative ideology being promoted in places like the bible belt, where people put their faith in a higher authority, and you get a lot of left-wing, liberal ideology coming from universities, where professors are naturally more liberal (as getting a doctorate pretty much necessitates curiosity and interest in differing opinions).

also, don't wanna inspire a shitstorm or whatever, but liberalism also correlates with intelligence (not causal, obviously, but still worth noting). So I don't think universities are ever going to be anything other than left-wing, and I don't think the prominent scholars or prominent thinkers of any generation are going to be right-wing. maybe, as society liberalizes, they'll be seen as right wing in retrospect.

>>5016241
Left-wing politics allow for these "intellectuals" to be employed. Of course they are left-wing. What else would an "intellectual" with no real skills do?

>>5018047
Well I'm right wing and "high IQ", but even just look at some of the stuff you've just said.
The culture of academia is liberal and leftist, and people with higher IQ's are often liberal and leftist. A lot of conservatives think the universities are "liberal indoctrination centers" because kids sometimes leave right-wing, then come back left-wing.

Recently I read an article in the guardian about how the better historians today are right-wingers, although it used to be that the best historians were Marxists. I think when people feel that they've got more to fight for, they go to greater lengths. Another idea I've seen is that people who "feel insecure" work harder than people who "feel secure".

And if I recall, though I've never read Hegel myself, his ideas were "right-wing" and that's why Marx and friends distinguished themselves by calling themselves "left-Hegelians".

What's the study of this kind of crap, btw, is this sociology, cultural anthropology, or what? This is the stuff I'm interested in and right now I'm working toward a History degree that I plan on getting, but so I can study this stuff in particular as a side activity, what is this called?

>>5018047
>he believes curiosity and interest leads you to being left-wing
>he thinks that's why professors are left-leaning
>not because of shameless self-interest

What the fuck is a philosophy professor going to do in the real world? What skills does he have? What skills does he have that produce tangible value? The guy is laughing in your face because he knows 1% of you will get a legitimate job after you've turned in a decade of cocksucking just like he did. That's his tangible skill - cocksucking and promoting a system that allows for cocksucking to pay him a salary because he's useless at everything else. "Curiosity" "Interest in differing opinions" SMH

>>5018062
>>5018068

uhhh hopefully you guys are posting from a university or a library or somewhere where you can read these two articles:

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/120/3/323/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188699900135X

but if not, you can snoop around wikipedia re: Openness to Experience, a big 5 factor of personality and how it relates to authoritarianism, curiosity and the like

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openness_to_experience#Intelligence_and_knowledge

what I'm saying is that the idea of a right-wing university is less likely to happen, simply because people who go to universities in general are more liberal, because liberalism is correlated with facets of personality (goals and ability) that put the person on a path to becoming a person at a college. There's probably a weak correlation with liberalism and attending university, because it is a right of passage that is culturally expected among americans who can afford it. but there's a HELLA STRONG correlation between liberalism and being a professor, because only the most open, curious (and very likely liberal) people become professors.

I'm NOT saying that there can't be conservative intellectuals, or that right-wingers are dumb, but that the reason for a vast majority of academia, philosophy, etc, being left-wing is because personality is causally related to what you do in life, and liberal people wind up as intellectuals

>>5016369
>the US democrats are more right wing than the Sweden Democrats

uhh ok

>>5016471
Also the fact that they always compare the entire US to just the nordicks, Germanic countries and France. Ignoring the parts of Europe that are more conservtive and 'traditional'

>>5018099
no you are retarded. there's no such thing as being genetically predisposed to left wing. the reason they are is out of self-interest. academia needs left wing ideology to survive you are horribly indoctrinated sorry man

>>5018099

hey pal, do you have any evidence that it's not genetic? Cuz there's this pretty convincing ACTUAL STUDY that's got some evidence that it is. Not that specific party affiliation is heritable, but that political attitudes in a more general sense are (being left or right, essentially)

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=307693&fileId=S0003055405051579

I suppose I can't change your mind if you're rejecting peer-reviewed science in total. Kinda hard to argue with that. but maybe someone else will skim the thread and check it out.

>>5018105
>Tips fedora

>>5018134

haha oops i quoted myself instead of this guy

>>5018114

>>5018136
i have no idea what you're trying to imply, i'm just pointing out that one of Sweden's main parties whole platform is 'remove kebab' and is probably just a tidbit more right wing than the US Democrats.

>>5018114
>you are horribly indoctrinated
Everybody is doctrinated, but me!

>>5018134
correlation causation blehblebh won't read that diatribe

>>5018068
>What the fuck is a philosophy professor going to do in the real world?
Being a philosophy professor?

>>5018156
>Tips fedora

>>5018174
that ain't the real world, that's a leftist creation in a bubble that would collapse at the slightest breeze of real

>>5018156

but it IS causal. Variations in a person can come from either the environment or genes. If you vary the environment across a number of cases with identical twins separated at birth, the constant has to be a causal result of genes.

simplified: a bunch of people have the same genes, and different environments, and similar political affiliations. So it's genes causing this.

not that there's a specific "liberal" gene, or that there's a specific gene for any trait, but that a combo of genes work together to determine people's political affilations to some extent. genes do some, the environment does the rest.

>>5018177
Oh yes, the Real World™, where all jobs are directly useful for society and which is a constant and cannot be questioned.
>leftist creation
You have no idea about philosophy or academia...

>>5018190
>simplified: a bunch of people have the same genes, and different environments, and similar political affiliations. So it's genes causing this.

prove it.

>>5018205
>Tips fedora

>>5016296

>By today's standards

well there's your problem, they didn't have today's standards did they? many would have been considered quite radical at the time. stop imposing your politics onto theirs.

>>5018219

check the article I posted. >>5018134 There's a wealth of research on this because it's a cool topic.

Russell Kirk

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, of course, the finest rightist thinker of all-time!

Right-wing politics were purged from universities in the 1960s.

Pic related, this is how marxists took control.

>>5018464
When you mention this, or the fact that people outted as far-right usually have all of academia waiting to get them fired, the lefties call you paranoid

G. K. Chesterton, Léon Bloy, T. S. Eliot, François Mauriac, Julien Green, Flannery O’Connor, Georges Bernanos, Paul Claudel, Miguel de Unamuno, Gerard Manley Hopkins, Graham Greene, Evelyn Waugh, Charles Péguy, Hugo von Hoffmansthal, Hermann Broch, Gertrud von Le Fort, Giovanni Papini, Giuseppe Ungaretti, Henrik Sienkiewicz, José Maria de Pereda, Eric Voegelin, Michael Oakeshott, Leo Strauss, Xavier Zubiri, Bernard Lonergan, Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, Thomas Molnar, David Stove, Roger Scruton, Hilton Kramer, Roger Kimball, Keith Windschuttle, John M. Ellis, Mary Lefkowitz, Judith Reisman, John Lewis Gaddis, John Earl Haynes, Stephen Koch, Harvey Klehr, R. J. Rummel, Christopher Andrew, Herb Romerstein, Ronald Radosh, Arthur Herman, Ludwig von Mises, Marcel de Corte, Willmore Kendall, Russel Kirk, Erik von Kuenhelt-Leddin, William F. Buckley Jr., M. Stanton Evans, Irving Babbit, Paul Elmer More, José Ortega y Gasset, Vilfredo Pareto, Carl Schmitt, Robert Michels, Gaetano Mosca, Martin Heidegger, Claudio Gentile, Edmund Burke, Franz Rosenzweig, Rene Guenon, Julius Evola, Frithjof Schuon, Johan Huizinga, Nikolai Berdyaev, Vladimir Nabokov, Alain Peyrefitte, Vladimir Solovyov, Malcolm Muggeridge, Louis Lavelle, René Girard, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Benedetto Croce, Viktor Frankl, Andrzej Łobaczewski, Mircea Eliade, Nicolás Gómez Dávila, Vladimir Bukovsky, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, Peter Hitchens, Henry Hazlitt, Mario Vargas Llosa, Vladimir Tismăneanu, Charles E. Lindblom, Irving Kristol, Daniel Bell, Christopher Lasch, Robert Nisbet, Werner Sombart, Christopher Dawson, José Guilherme Merquior, Modris Eksteins, John Henry Newman, Joseph de Maistre, Rivarol, Pat Buchanan, Samuel P. Huntington, Konstantin Leontiev, Alexander Solzhenítsyn, Jacques Barzun, Raymond Aron, W. H. Mattlock, Karl Popper, Jean Sévillia, Julien Benda, Leszek Kołakowski, Niall Ferguson, Bernard Lewis, Kenneth Minogue, David Stove, Theodore Dalrymple, Mikhail Sholokhov, Marshall McLuhan, Mortimer J. Adler, Joseph Sobran, Albert Jay Nock, Hilaire Belloc, Louis de Bonald, Leonardo Castellani, Emil Cioran, Petre Ţuţea, Anthony Esolen, Juan Donoso Cortés, Edward Feser, Paul Gottfried, T. E. Hulme, Ernst Jünger, John Kekes, Arnold Lunn, Alasdair MacIntyre, Gabriel Marcel, Julio Meinvielle, Álvaro Mutis, Juan Manuel de Prada, E. F. Schumacher, Igor Shafarevich, Alfredo Sáenz, Karl Ludwig von Haller, Evelyn Waugh, W. B. Yeats, Romano Amerio, Jaime Balmes, Thomas Fleming, James Hitchcock, Béla Menczer, Percy of Newcastle, Félix Sardá y Salvany, David Warren, Fred Reed, James Kalb, Richard Weaver, M. E. Bradford, Peter Viereck, Jean-François Revel...

>>5018538
Most of those, of course, are from before the 1960s. See >>5018464

For all leftist criticism of power politics, their monopoly over the intelligentsia since World War II has been largely a result of their stranglehold of academia, a power so big they manage to not only destroy opposition, but to deny their existance (and the mere possibility of it, see all the talk about a natural predisposition for leftist among "intelligent" people).

>>5018464
>occupy campuses in the 1960s
>demand the creation of useless courses like gender and ethnic studies
>make the attendance of these courses compulsory
>fill these positions with leftist people and use this new-found majority to indoctrinate everyone else
>WHY ARE INTELLECTUALS SO LEFTIST ARE RIGHT-WING PEOPLE JUST DUMB?

Classic power grab. Why guys like Pierre Bourdieu who spent all their lifes studying the power relationships in judgements of taste and in education didn't dwell on this shit? This is exactly what they were talking about, except that unlike the borgeouis bogeyman they accused of manipulating everyone, this shit was actually happening, and they were the ones doing it what they were accusing others of doing.

>>5018542
>>5018538
Thanks for this, m8

>>5018553
>they were the ones doing it what they were accusing others of doing.
This seems common among them. Dehumanizing is something Marx said was a terrible effect of capitalism, but the left seems to think dehumanizing right-wingers is just a good tactic.

>>5016241
Machiavelli and Nietzsche come to mind first.

>>5017920
Interesting. I didn't know that.

>>5018225
No, no you're wrong. Soz m8. Everyone there was by contemporary standards a naughty, nasty rightist! Why I bet C.S Lewis and Tennyson masturbated to social inequality.

>>5017745

>people have already posted numerous examples
>lol nope, le one sentence response face

>>5016423
since when left means liberal?

mario vargas llosa

>>5018564
>but the left seems to think dehumanizing right-wingers is just a good tactic
Its actually a tactic utilised by Saul Alinsky. A far more vile form of that has been taken up by Arthur Chu. That chubby bastard who won some game show- turned leftist super villain.

>>5018579
nietzsche?

have you read what he wrote about the states?

>>5018824
He really is.

>>5018771
They thought a strong U.S. education would kill off Catholicism in the nation
They also had some advocacy of women's voting once because they thought good WASP women would vote the niggers, Italians, Irish and Jews away

>>5019076
And prohibition would destroy German culture.

>>5019098
They didn't need the prohibition to do that, hatred against Germans generated by the World Wars killed German culture here in the U.S.

I think if the KKK had succeeded with their goals of universal public education back when they advocated it, they may have succeeded in wiping out the Catholics here, which would have been unfortunate for my family considering how strongly Catholic Italian Americans they are.

>>5019104
Yes, I should of noted that it was part of a larger wave of anti-German sentiment. This is just mentioning another 'progressive' social movement of era that throws into doubt that narrative of left=progress right=conservatives, which is really just a anachronism to give the modern progressives a sense of being right about everything always since the beginning of time.

>>5019181
Well that thing where the seem to claim any old philosopher or politician or reformer as "leftist/liberal" causes a lot of confusion and ignorance among young people. A lot of kids who ARE leftists here in the U.S. at least don't know that there's a difference in leftist, progressive, liberal, etc., and then project their idea of what their opinions are today onto people from all those years ago.

People actually buy that stuff about Republicans and Democrats just flipping their ideology around sometime in the 50's or 60's, and don't get that it was a gradual change that made the current parties so different than they used to be.

The idea that the KKK was COMPLETELY on board with some "progressive" ideas of yesterday would make some people's heads explode

>>5016241
I MADE THAT PICTURE!
I MADE THAT FUCKING PICTURE :3

>>5018099
>because liberalism is correlated with facets of personality (goals and ability) that put the person on a path to becoming a person at a college.


>but there's a HELLA STRONG correlation between liberalism and being a professor, because only the most open, curious (and very likely liberal) people become professors.
Speaking as a non-american, even the most "open minded" progressives and americans tend to be extremely closed and predudice, they only take on causes like "anti-racism" or "anti-sexism" to distance themselves from the "racist" or the "sexist", which they see as a modern day nigger.
Also liberal is more of an economic view that a social one. I have trouble seeing how supporting capitalism and imperialism has anything to do with someones personal life.
Finally, although you seem like your entire understanding of politics comes from SNL and the YTs, but the fascists where pretty transgressive at the time, and conservative has nothing to do with "sitting around reading the bible and hating things you don't know".

>>5016296
Congrats on removing Blake from that list after all this time. Now it takes 3 seconds to see you don't know what you're talking about, as opposed to the usual 2.

>>5019206

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Nice try... IMPOSTER! Only I have the first hand access to pictures of Hank and my secret Gribble fotshop. Now tell me willingly and without any need for blood shed. You better crawl back to your fed hole!

>>5019181
Eugenics was another progressive cause that got swept under the rug when it became unfashionable. The only people opposing eugenics in the early 20st century were Catholics.

if you didn't get bullied throughout highschool i see no reason to be right wing

>>5019366
But right-wingers ARE the bullies

>>5019369
>non-christians
>bad guys
Kill yourself wanker.

>>5019366
What? Wouldn't someone who was bullied find liberalism more attractive?

>>5019370
Who you callin' wanker, kid? And heathens are, in general, definitive bad guys

>>5019372
You'd be surprised. If a kid gets bullied, it's much more comforting to believe he's just a misunderstood part of the higher echelon and the bullies are filthy working class/black/etc. scum who he's naturally superior to than to accept that he and the bullies are equal and both shaped by outsider forces like capitalism.

>>5019381
>implying the bullies aren't superior

Left wing - Right Wing is a largely meaningless dichotomy now.
Take Nabakov for example, many fascists or reactionaries would have considered him leftist, whereas commies would have seen him as right wing.

>>5019370

>responding to tripfags

newfriend, press settings, allow text filtering, highlight his tripcode then press the triangle and "filter text"

it should automatically select his tripcode and filter it

check hide and be done with this attention nigger

>>5019405
>not niggering attention
>2011
PLEB
L
E
B
>>5019404
Commies see everything that's not commie as right wing, and the far right sees everything that's not them as left wing. Only difference is that the far right is correct

>>5017053
>I'm not denying Nietzsche was a misogynist
>He doesn't agree with muh legbeard lesbian men hating radical leaders, so he must be against all women.

>>5018062
Colleges aren't necessarily liberal indoctrination centers, but they are massive liberal circlejerks.

>>5016279
What's so bad about centrism

>>5019452
Same thing, tbh
If you hang out with a certain group long enough, and don't explicitly fight against it, you wind up taking on parts of their culture. Lefties go to redneck areas and start to "understand their way of life", rednecks go to college towns and finally understand what the lefties were all about
Hanging out with a group of people the poop particular ideas is probably the best way to understand an ideology, in my opinion

>>5019421
i dont think /lit/ can go lower in tripfag quality

>>5018464
I know you are using "Marxist" without" any substantial meaning, but:

>the university judicial system was the center of a controversy in connection with the disciplining of African-American students who had engaged in a protest. As racial tensions escalated, some African-American students demanded amnesty for the accused protesters
Yeah, seems justifiable for me.

>as well as the establishment of an Africana Studies center
So they wanted a similar institution for something that is common practice for all over the world for similar areas (Oriential studies, Sinology, slavic studies). Completely unscientific, yes, those smelly blacks.

>this is how marxists took control
"Marxists" simply have no profound influence on academics. You will find people that are declaring themselves as Marxist or similar things, but this is only because academics is probably the only area where you are able to do this without being denied competence, accused of destroying a country or wanting to establish a dictatorship or shit like that.
And it is completely idiotic to equate black emancipatory demands and practices with "Marxism".

>But they are reading Marx, Adorno and all the other bad men in courses!
Of course, why wouldn't they? These guys are read next to Carl Schmitt, Hegel, Max Weber, Hobbes etc.
Not because of some kind of conspiracy, but simply because they provided some profound knowledge into how society works nowadays.

>>5019527
>implying I'm not the best trip
lmao

>>5019512
I draw a distinction because the liberal twist is localized to the unemployable degree paths.

As a someone in a STEM field, professors have no ability or desire to soapbox about their political ideologies. As a result, I'm not really being indoctrinated to do anything other than math and science, and from what I've noticed, the students typically come in and leave with a variety of political opinions.

It's really just a localized instance of hard left individuals in the departments where the only job that graduating students can get is teaching a course related to their major. It's a feedback effect of shitty ideas.

>>5019549
I'm a history major and I've had a few right-wing teachers, but they were adjunct professors. A lot of professors are adjunct nowadays because it's cheaper to pay a bunch of those guys a part-time wage than it is to pay a full-time indoctrinator the full wage and benefits.

You should take some non-STEM classes for shits and giggles, take some philosophy and /lit/

At my school we had a few "core classes" forced on us so even math and science guys had to take a few classes, one class being blatant leftist indoctrination, which pissed off one of the adjunct history guys, though he taught the leftist indoctrination class sometimes because it's money.

>>5019556
>the leftist indoctrination class
What did this class consist of?

>>5019563
A bunch of random stupid shit, it was just called Diversity class. Different teachers apparently taught it differently, it was mostly just an excuse for some woman or black guy to sit and preach on a soapbox.

One thing that stands out in memory is a day where the boys were told they had to defend female circumcision, and the girls had to explain why it's wrong.

It was basically light sociology mixed with a bunch of random shit SJW's bitch about, and every couple of weeks we'd watch something about the holocaust or slavery

>>5019381

it's also pretty comforting to construct conveniently elaborate back stories for people you've never met tin order to invalidate their opinions

it's funny how you say they're using minorities as bogeymen when you do the exact same thing with "muh capitalism"

either way I thought leftism was about kindness and empathy. what are you proving by insulting people who have been bullied?

>>5019579
Jesus, that sounds like a complete waste of time, but I really wouldn't call that shit leftist.

>>5019594
I'm American, m8, in our culture there's leftist shit and there's conservative shit, and we have to hate each other because that's the rules. Democrat/liberal/progressive/leftist are synonyms, as are Republican/conservative/reactionary/right-wing

But the left and right accept this as fact and shame anybody who says otherwise. Such is America.

>>5019529
>"Marxists" simply have no profound influence on academics.

kek

>>5019751
>strawmen
>completely arbitrary definition of Marxism
>Pat Buchanan
At least you didn't even try to form an own argument...

>>5018863
right wing =/= statalist, mate

>>5019756

I must have state that I agree with anons in this thread in regards to how classes are taught at university level.

It seems that an overwhelming majority of professors are Marxist or at least very liberal.
I only had one super conservative professor who I have had my freshmen year and therefore I did not value it as much as I would now. This is how the students view a right winged professor who doesn't follow the Social Marxist in-doctrines:
>http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=171605

On the other hand, all the liberal white kids, faggots, and shitskins just LOVE professors who preach equality and make the White man the villain:
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1508614

It's very a very sad time to be a right-wing youth these days especially at the universities, as any one is always called names such as "homophobe", "sexist", "racist" when the left wing side has not arguments and is obviously very butthurt.

Is there even any hope? If one is being taught and punished from the earliest age to not think outside the box and only uphold the beliefs that the majority agrees with, then where are we heading to?


Btw any right winged clubs at your schools?

heidegger

>>5016279
>racist 'micro-aggression

I'd probably sue the school if they accused me of that. I'm not American. But being labelled a racist is fucking damning, and for the accusation to come from something so amazingly benign I really wouldn't have any choice.

The left thing is mostly just for the humanities though, isn't it? The humanities classes I took in high school were pretty leftist, often flat out stating certain policies as objective truth while in real life those policies are controversial.

I imagine that engineers (and economists but I don't know whether to group them as STEM or humanities) as a group tend towards the right wing, while scientists and mathematicians would be right around even, or center on average.

I supposed you could consider someone like David P Goldman an intellectual. Check out his latest article http://www.atimes.com/atimes/World/WOR-01-160614.html

I personally think its a terrible article that shows little to no introspection or meaningful reflection that he complains about others not doing but some might find it interesting.

>>5020019

No that's how students view a christian professor. I hate christians as well, and they're simply not worth trying to learn from.

>>5020030

Racism seems perfectly natural, even preferable. Society's intolerance of racists is the greatest injustice of our time.

>>5020115
>Society's intolerance of racists is the greatest injustice of our time.
Oh wow...

>>5017987
That would be a good way to sink down said Republican governor. If it hadn't been done already.

>>5020054
>The humanities classes I took in high school were pretty leftist, often flat out stating certain policies as objective truth while in real life those policies are controversial.

Yeah, this.

To take one obvious example, the 1929 crash was essentially taught as "the tragedy of laissez-faire" and Keynes as the guy who "saved capitalism". In economics, those are controversial statements; in high school, it was solid fact. In hindsight it is fairly obvious that most humanities classes I had in high school and college were taught from a social democratic POV.

>>5020111
Christian = conservative

>>5020171
That is EXACTLY the example I was thinking about. Every time something economical was brought up, it was something keynesian stated as fact. Especially the section on New Deal, and we even had a section on Maynard Keynes himself. It was pretty obvious that the author was a fan of Keynes.

>>5018177
>academia
>philosophy professor
>leftist creation

History is not your thing, is it ?

>>5020180

Nah not really. There are plenty of anti-christian rightwingers.

>>5020193
Or Christian leftists.

>>5020171
Why has Keynes become seen as leftist over the years? Nothing about him screams leftist to me.

>>5020214
After Marx fell out of fashion, he became the preferred thinker among the mainstream left, especially among people who wanted their lunatic positions to be regarded as reasonable and moderate.

>>5020226
>especially among people who wanted their lunatic positions to be regarded as reasonable and moderate
What?

>>5020115

Eliot Roger is that you? How are you still alive?

>>5020171
>>5020226

Keynes is not "leftist" in any way, apply yourself, you amerifat.

>>5020214
Muddy terminology, I guess.
(Modern) social democracy is pretty much in favour of corporatism, because they are convinced that this will harness capitalism for the good of all people.
The fact that they used to be in league with Marx and other socialists still clings to their name, and there actually were currents within social democratic parties that intended to establish a state with classes but without class struggle at the same time when other party members still interpreted Marx.
And since Keynes tried to alleviate capitalism (at least for the workers in the respective countries), he is seen as being leftist by some people.

>>5020019

>On the other hand, all the liberal white kids, faggots, and shitskins just LOVE professors who preach equality and make the White man the villain.

Well you are by definition and by your own admition a racist, why be a pussy and try to hide it?It seems to me most right-wing young people like yourself, revel at the idea of being edgy and contrarian, while at the same time flaunting your pathetic victim complex.

>>5020240
Pretty much every social democracy in the world today is very much in favor of Keynesian thought.

>>5020214

Keynes proves a theoretical framework within which state intervention (often done with the explicit aim of benefiting the ruling elites) is seen as legitimate and necessary. The degree of intervention adopted by current states and justified by Keynesian thought goes well beyond what Keynes himself considered reasonable.

Keynes was overall a pro-market capitalist liberal who had some interesting new ideas about the role government could play to alleviate economic depressions, which he saw as an inevitable feature of capitalism (and capitalism was, after all, his economic model of choice). This matches well with modern day "high liberalism" of the American kind, which is willing to sacrifice some economic liberties for the sake of what they perceive as social justice. I wouldn't really call Keynes a left-wing economist overall, though, except maybe in a very strict american POV.

>>5020249
No I just do not believe in equality. There are higher man and then there are masses of sheep.

> why be a pussy and try to hide it?
I'm not hiding anything, I am just not voicing my opinions every three seconds as other sheep are. Furthermore, equality seems only to protect the victims and not people upholding counter believes to that of frankfurt school.

>>5018795
>Milton was right wing in his own day.
Ha.

>>5018863
Have you read what he wrote about power and hierarchy?

>>5018542
Most proper intellectuals, regardless of political alignment, are from before the 1960s.

These days, all you really see coming out of the academic community is critique. People spend whole careers complaining about "problematic" themes in a few passages of Nietzsche or whatever, while producing little or no new material themselves.

>>5020262
Belief in the very concept of social justice as something different from the outcome of free interactions in the market is inherently left-wing.

>>5020397
Have you read the stuff he said about states, family and tradition?

>>5020446
No, it isn't. Fascist argued for the same restriction of the market for the benefit of all members of the people.
It's ultimately corporatism.

>>5020475
*Fascists

>>5020142
>>5020235

bigots

>>5020111

>>5020446

I disagree. Even some radical free market advocates believe in social justice.

>>5016434
Whenever I come up with this point (i'm probably left-wing, though I try to avoid this dichotomy since "left" is way too institutional for me) people say I'm just being contrarian and trying to supress other peoples fights because I'm a straight male

Should I just say fuck it and start reading some Evola or some shit?

>>5016434
>racial and economic tensions leading to rise of right wing populism

Sad, but true.

YOU ONLY HAD TO LISTEN.

People need to stop replying to these b8 threads.

>>5020745
What's so b8 about it? OP was just asking for right wing intellectuals.

>>5020469
There's more there that would be considered right-wing than there is left-wing, that's all that matters.

>>5020818
If he is to be categorised under a left/right dichotomy, that would imply that he actually displayed some kind of coherent stance regarding politics.
Fact is he didn't, he mocked leftist and rightist ideals and specific political parties alike.
Even his inequality is completely "apolitical" if you will, because he stressed that only certain individuals, not groups, are able to do great things and that those individuals don't care about a specific established order (or to give the world any order).

>>5020818
I dont know man.

I guess it depends on your interpretation of the "will of power". You can even concider Nietzche an anarchist.

>>5016241
Right wing is by default, stupid, it's like asking why there are no astrologist scientists.

>>5020738

and do what?

>>5020891
>

>>5020235
>>5020142
Racism is a natural phenomenon. You can go *tip swastika* all you like but humans are pattern finding beings and racism will always be there.

>>5016369
>the right in america wanted slaves

no...liberals were pro slavery

>>5020710
you should always read both sides of the story to form a cohesive argument.

I for one fucking detest cultural Marxism but I am probably gonna read some stuff from the Frankfurter Schule one day. Going to read Das Kapital as well since it was such an influential book

>>5016975
>Geert Wilders

yes his works have truelly inspired and enlightened my mind...

>>5021040
>Racism is a natural phenomenon
Never experienced it myself and I heavily doubt its existence, but the general hostility against strangers is a natural defence mechanism as well. That doesn't mean that people don't warm up to each other or at least are able to behave rationally when around strangers.
Hume's law does apply to your "natural racism" as well.

>>5016241
Pretty much everyone in 19 and 20 century were right-wing by modern standarts.

>>5021045
>liberals were pro slavery
I'm pretty sure most of the people who described themselves as liberals were against slavery back in the day.

I want to start getting into Evola. Which one of his books should I start with, /lit/?

>>5021081
Iam not defining racism in the way by which individuals instantly shun out people due to their color. I define it in a way by which individuals can and will create certain predisposed opinions over a certain type of group who are identitified by their physical appearance.

We do this all the time. Blacks, Whites, Asians, Hipsters, Gamers etc. There are always preconceived ideas and notions when confronted with certain type of people.

>Hume's law
>the six trillionth apple might be purple!!11!

>>5021097
Haven't read him myself (yet). But most people say Ride the Tiger is a good one

>>5021081

You've just exchanged one group for another. I'm not sure what markers you would identify with, but race is an immediate and powerful, deeply ingrained kin marker for the a lot of people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocentrism

>>5021097
I started with Revolt Against the Modern World. 8/10, would recommend.

>>5021081

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophily

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Putnam#Diversity_and_trust_within_communities

>>5021115
Mere preconceptions should be separated from racism as a categorative belittlement or even denial of personhood of entire groups of humans.
The fact that they are false as well I evident (for me at least).

>Hume's law
Is a deductive principle.
>the six trillionth apple might be purple!!11!
And all apples are apples, even the bad ones, even the purple ones and the cuntish.

>>5021134
Can't fkn wait till its summer and I can start reading again...

>>5021127
>>5021136

That's entirely not my point.

>>5021144
I don't think he was advocating racism in the sense of a superiority of on race over another, or the inferiority of certain races. I think it was more along the lines of there are natural inclinations to live amongst people of your own race and culture, and by artificially changing the demographics of a nation you damage the well being of a lot of individuals and communities.

>>5021144
Put bluntly. If I have multiple negative experiences with a certain group of people. It will definitely change my behaviour the next time I come in contact with said groups.
Philosophical and ethical ideals will not prevent me from doing so. But perhaps I might not thoroughly understand your comment

>>5021081

So why do the vast majority of people marry within their own race?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_United_States#Census_Bureau_statistics

Why are demographics in cities clearly delineated along racial lines?

>>5021159
>artificially changing the demographics
How do you naturally change demographics?

> I think it was more along the lines of there are natural inclinations to live amongst people of your own race and culture
Which dicks over the majority of larger cities and campuses. Even if you consider certain neighbourhoods where specifically one group lives, that is usually only the case, when they have the same economic situation.
Just look at things like Irish neighbourhoods or Italian neighbourhoods back in the day when they tended to be pisspoor immigrants.
It is more like the way you are being brought up and your experiences that shapes your idea of how to live.

>>5021166
>So why do the vast majority of people marry within their own race?
Because humans are a bit narcissistic and tend to use their own image as a measure of physical attraction? I don't know nor do I care. If you love somebody and are attracted to him or her, why should I?
Problems only arise, if you think the majority of cases constitutes some kind of "natural rule" or "order" that defines what is best.

>Why are demographics in cities clearly delineated along racial lines?
See the Italian/Irish thing above.

>>5021164
>If I have multiple negative experiences with a certain group of people. It will definitely change my behaviour the next time I come in contact with said groups.
Yeah, probably. But there is again a difference between personal experience and the actual situation. But I agree with you that if you are personally involved in some shit, you are less likely to be able to "keep a distance" and to not let your sentiments influence your judgement instead of abstract principles, if you know what I mean.

>>5021185
>How do you naturally change demographics?

Good point. Artificially changing demographics doesn't make sense if you consider that. Regardless, I'm still sure you know what I meant and why I chose that term. Perhaps saying changing demographics for ideological reasons would be more appropriate.

I'm not sure what you are saying in your second response. Cities are known for racial tensions and broken communities, being natural targets for immigrants. And you think self segregation is solely the result of economics? I'm not sure about that, although perhaps being monied is a more powerful identity than even race, although I doubt rich neighbourhoods are models of diversity.

>>5016251
Is that Khal fucking Drogo?

>>5021145
Australia?

>>5020738
>implying the economic crash of 2008 wasn't due to people reading too much hayek and friedman

>>5019751
>>5019982
fucking hell, I can't believe someone actually managed to connect Marx with those shitty tumblr cunts and their "privilege" shit. Talk about clutching at straws

>>5021284
>Cities are known for racial tensions and broken communities
Broken communities that stem from a negative economic development (And I'm pretty sure a broken community can only one that has been part of an area for more than one generation). I can't stress this fact enough: Those phenomena usually stem from economic developments (or sometimes a longer terrible economic situation) or the reactions thereof.
Racial tensions (i.e. actual hostility as opposed to tolerating and having resentments) arise when there is either an influx of immigrant workers during a depression or a stagnation or when there is a negative economic development in a multi-ethnic society, usually both phenomena appear at the same time.
Look at better of, multi-ethnic neighbourhoods. They are less dependant on the market in a way and don't suffer as much as poorer communities do, resentments are less likely to realise themselves here, since they are used to live door to door and know each other as neighbours, not as that guy from that certain, disreputable neighbourhood.

>And you think self segregation is solely the result of economics?
No, you can of course say that people tend to go towards that group whose habits, customs etc. they are familiar with (chinatowns, little italy, etc.).

Sorry for the short explanation, but it is really late here, so I have to call it quits.
See you tomorrow!

>>5018806

Since the French Revolution.

>>5021374

Bra Hayek and Friedman had incompatible views on monetary economics. The former was Austrian and the latter was Chicago school. They had completely different ideas on the business cycle and Hayek would say that Friedman's monetarism would obviously cause business cycles.

>>5021402
>thinking those shitty tumblr cunts and their "privilege" shit are not cultural marxists running unfettered and rampant

>>5021542
I never said they were the same, but neo-liberalism was heavily influenced by them both. Hayek used to write to Thatcher/ Reagan/ Pinochet, and Friedman was theur economic god

>>5021570
Jesus Christ (another jew who's running our society!!!!), using a lot of buzzwords, relying on 1930s german science, grouping selective people together by ethnicity and making up image macros of all of this shit is not an argument- and does not display any semblance of understanding what cultural marxism is

>>5021570
>Germans of Jewish origin in the 1950s and 60s tended to be left wing

Gee I wonder what events in the previous decades could possibly have put them off right wing ideologies?

What also makes no sense is the "jews control the international corporate media and control everyone through this!!!" rhetoric, alongside talking about the Frankfurt School, Leon Trotsky etc- people who actively seeked to dismantle the corporate media/ the capitalist system in general?

>>5021570
>libertarianism was invented by Proudhon

Anarchism was invented by proudhon, you know the left wing communist variety of common ownership. To try and conflate that with what Americans understand to be "libertarianism" is ridiculous and laughable

>>5021570
So many classic infographics condensed into one grand collage...

>>5016655
>/lit/ isn't a power bottom.

>ctrl f
>no spengler

read Spengler damn it

>>5020863
Emma Goldmena did, and I've seen him mentioned by quite a few anarchists in a positive light

>>5021483
Since murricans tried to say shit, actually

Liberal is pro-free market
Libertarian is pro-personal freedom

But murricans got it backwards for some reason

>>5020863
>You can even concider Nietzche an anarchist
No you can't. Nietzsche recognized anarchism and Christianity as having parallel origins. He was as much against anarchism as he was Christianity.

>>5016655
>implying I won't use a strap-on

>>5018538
/thread

>>5021588

Fair enough. Whether you want to say Pinochet = 2008, that's up to you. Actually no it's not because it just ain't so.

>>5022034
pls do me

>>5016241
All of the smartest people I've ever met are conservative. Except me. It makes me nervous. I think it might just be because I go to college in alabama.

>>5022302
It's just because you go to college in Alabama. I go to college in Cali and everyone here is basically liberal regardless of intelligence.

The biggest one of them all... Jorge Luis Borges.

>>5022358
explain

>>5022413
He was famously a supporter of Pinochet, the fascist ruler of Chile in his time.

>>5022358
>>5022413
Towards the end of his life he was moderately conservative. The dictator he lived under wasn't very left or right, but he cost him his job at one point. Probably rather apolitical for most of his life.

In his youth he was excited by the Russian revolution though.

>>5022443

Pinochet was right wing as fuck. He had Milton Friedman as his economic advisor ffs

>>5018795

>Huysmans

totally apolitical, only "right" because because he would constantly proclaim how crap the fin de siècle was, but that was mainly in terms of stagnation of literary/artistic culture.

>WB Yeats

revolutionary who fought against imperial oppression

>John Milton

supported church reformation and the parliament (rather than the king) in the civil war

>Byron

died fighting to greek independence from turkish colonial rule. ideas were primarily aesthetically influenced than rooted in any substantive political philosophy or conservatism.

>Coleridge

wanted to found a utopian hippie commune based on radical egalitarianism


i don't know too much about the others but it is obvious that many of them were not clearly "rightist" at all.

>>5016471
Or Germans with the Turks. I had a German friend in college that would make fun of us for being a backwards conservative nation. Whenever he'd go on about this, we'd just ask him about the Turks.

I'm of the firm belief that libertarianism in modern Western society has lost its true purpose.

This is a particularly strong phenomena in the U.S more so than in any other Western nation as far as I can tell.

The combined results of complacency, abundance, a culture of greed and gluttony including a diminishing rate of hardships leads to people losing direction in life as well as a sense of inherent purpose to it all. There used to be a time where people had to do what's right for their nation and the world at large, starting with supporting troops during WW2, then stopping the war in Vietnam, then advocating for Women's Rights, then equality for Black people, etc. People had a sense of duty and obligation.

But this new generation Y has none of those things. Everyone is more or less equal already, there's nothing left to fight for or any sense of moral obligation for anything.

So instead, people are making up things to be upset about and pretend that their activism is important and earth-shattering. Whether it's the 'fat pride' crowd, the new wave of obnoxious feminism, the contrarian 'mens rights' wave, and others.

They all just try to emulate the real changers of society during the 20th century because they are the "middle children" of history. Their reasonable concerns are drown out in a sea of unreasonable aggression and hatred towards anyone who does not believe in their cause. They are oblivious to the fact that in order to get people on your side, you must be able to remain calm and explain what it is you believe in instead of lashing out at people for supporting the patriarchy or the 'rape culture'.

This isn't to say that the U.S is now a shithole just because people are able to live comfortably. But there must be a certain balance of hardships and comfort to promote both intelligence and reasonable, critical thinking.

>>5019529
>"Marxists" simply have no profound influence on academics.

What is:
>Frankfurt School
>Long March Through the Institutions
>Cultural Marxism
>Eric Hobsbawm
>Marxist Historiography

Derp.

>>5024304
Profound influence as in "control every line of thought within academics because of some kind of secret agreement to destroy Western civilisation/Christianity/whatever".

>Cultural Marxism
Oh, piss off!

>>5021570
>this pic on the bottom left
>demonizing environmentalism as derived from socialism
>a moral/ethical issue spun to be an economic one

why is the right so confused? environmentalism used to be a right wing thing.

>>5022662
But that's not right. What our culture is doing now is removing the last obstacles to equality for all members of the culture.We're not flailing aimlessly, we're taking the first shaky steps toward a utopia.

>>5024495
>Implying cultural Marxism isn't true

>>5024646
If it's true you should be able to define it, point to us that major actors of this conspiracy that seeks to destroy America, and explain why and how they do it. Go on.

>>5024652
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism

cultural marxism = marxism applied to culture

major players = jews

>>5024882
>cultural marxism = marxism applied to culture
So just like any other theoretical structure in social sciences? And what kind of Marxism? And why is it bad?

>jews
Even conservative jews? Or reactionary jews? Or apolitical jews? Or small jews?

>>5024949
Well, I'm a big goy

>>5016241
Rightism advocates anti-intellectualism.

>>5021058
If you read the Frankfurt School, you'll realize your definition of "cultural Marxism" and actual cultural Marxism are very different

>>5024949
i know your tricks, juden. i won't be racemixing or taking out loans or reading the guardian any time soon.

>>5024961
Not always. And the Left is sometimes anti-intellectual, or at least critical of intellectuals as a group

>>5024978
The left hates any intellectuals who disagree with their shit.

>>5025524
Nah, Marx was extremely fond of Hegel, Gramsci of Crosce, Adorno and Lukacs liked Thomas Mann, Lenin was an avid reader of Clausewitz, Zizek likes Chesterton, and so on, and so on.
So please, don`t the "the left" what it has to like or dislike!

>>5025564
*don't tell

why is /pol/ invading /lit/?

why do you people think we're going to be convinced by your artifact riddled .Jpegs? how can you think your petty tinfoil internet ideology can possibly stand up against ideologies and systems of thought that have been created, improved upon, modified and sometimes destroyed and on which there is massive amounts of actually intelligent writing?

your attempts at political debate are embarrassing at best, and your shitting up this board. why are you here? what are you doing? DO YOU EVEN READ?

>>5025572
*gases you*

>>5025572
>G-get out connies

>>5019529
>These guys are read next to Carl Schmitt, Hegel, Max Weber, Hobbes etc

So, the only non-marxist thinkers read in universities are the ones who influenced marxists, this is how you want to prove that academia is not a marxist playground?

>>5025601
>probably every thinker in the history of mankind somehow influenced leftists directly or indirectly
>it must all be marxist then!
Good job!

>>5025601
>are the ones who influenced Marxists
>as something which proves Academia is a "Marxist playground"
The two biggest influences on Marx's economic theories were Adam Smith and David Ricardo, y'know two of the original classical capitalist economists. Are they now part of the "Marxist infiltrated academia"

Much of what Marx wrote was in disagreement with Hegel, especially later on in his life

Much of what Max Weber wrote was a direct response/ disagreement with Marxism

but yeah, they're all discredited now because Marxists have read them

>>5025601
Seriously, how is anybody supposed to argue against this?
1. Thinker X is not Marxist
2. If Thinker X is being talked about in seminars or books, he is automatically "Marxist approved" and therefore no longer an example of rightist or whatever thought

Do you see the problem?

>>5024961
How exactly do notions of equality support intellectualism at all?

>>5024652
After the failure of the Second International, where the revolutionary left stood waiting for the proletariat to grow a revolutionary consciousness but it just didn't happened as they wanted, professional revolutionaries in the West decided that they couldn't really trust the working class, seeing how they turned to nationalism instead of proletarian internationalism in World War I.

So Gramsci read some Georges Sorel, realized the power of myth and decided that the best way to achieve revolution was to build a cultural hegemony.

So they began their work. The Frankfurt School, specially Herbert Marcuse, expanded it through his creation of a new proletariat with the enlistment of blacks, gays and women to communism after the working class lost all revolutionary potential with the welfare state.

>>5018464
>>5018553

PS: I don't like the term Cultural Marxism itself. I prefer Gramscianism.

>>5025631
They are not necessarily connected, but leftists or left-leaning people had a harder time to argue why the world should be changed (and developed means of analysing society because of that) than conservatives to argue for why everything is fine.
So leftism tends to be more cerebral.

>>5025633
I seriously doubt the Frankfurt school had much to do with fomenting black and LGBT culture.

>>5025655
No, black militantism and LGBT culture existed before, but the work of Herbert Marcuse, specially "The One-Dimensional Man" was influential in their adoption by the mainstream of revolutionary communism.

There is a reason he was called the "Father of the New Left". All this SJW thing boils down to him, even political correctness ("repressive tolerance").

>>5025633
>So they began their work.
Except there is no "they", not even after WWI. Why do you think there are so many jokes about leftist groups and their loves for splitters.

>The Frankfurt School, specially Herbert Marcuse, expanded it through his creation of a new proletariat with the enlistment of blacks, gays and women to communism after the working class lost all revolutionary potential with the welfare state.
First this >>5025655
And second, both are reactions that would have occured with or without any Marxist boogeyman. If you repress one group because of one certain aspect while society declares universal human rights, well, those groups will begin to demand to be fully treated like people.
And the fact that the form of protest will reflect the one aspect because which they have been repressed (skin colour, sexual orientation), well, that's again your own fault.
Reducing blacks and LGBT people to some obscure kind of Marxism (while most those people have no idea of Marxism or any leftist theory at all) is not going to help anybody except you by portraying the problem as some kind of evil.

> I prefer Gramscianism
Different name, same vague, boogeyman term.

>>5025666
I don't think One-Dimensional Man was a catalyst for black or LGBT culture.

Political correctness was called that because, well, it was POLITICAL. When certain groups got integrated into mainstream society, it became prudent politically for them to cease playing the role of Other in rhetoric. I don't think Marcuse favoring censorship had much to do with it.

>>5025633
>After the failure of the Second International, where the revolutionary left stood waiting for the proletariat to grow a revolutionary consciousness but it just didn't happened as they wanted
that isnt why it failed at all, it failed because none of the parties were ready to truly move away from nationalism when the first world war broke out and they all went off to fight each other in the trenches at the behest of their respective governments.

>So Gramsci read some Georges Sorel, realized the power of myth and decided that the best way to achieve revolution was to build a cultural hegemony.
no, he realized that that was one of the techniques the bourgeoisie was using to prevent it.

>creation of a new proletariat with the enlistment of blacks, gays and women to communism
except the civil rights movement in america succeeded without communist revolution, teh LGBT rights movement has literally nothing to do with communism and feminism, while it has links to it, exists as a separate entity.

the frankfurt school really isnt as big or as influential as you think it is.

>>5025686
*by portraying the problem as some kind of evil other's influence.
Important difference here.

Captcha: comrades execurrs

>>5016241
Yeah, all the good ones over 25.

>>5025687
>I don't think One-Dimensional Man was a catalyst for black or LGBT culture.
Why? You've merely given a disagreement without reason.

>>5025686
>Except there is no "they", not even after WWI. Why do you think there are so many jokes about leftist groups and their loves for splitters.

Because of Trotskysts. Everyone else is cohese and hierarchical.

>And second, both are reactions that would have occured with or without any Marxist boogeyman. If you repress one group because of one certain aspect while society declares universal human rights, well, those groups will begin to demand to be fully treated like people.

Except that the framing of certain differences as "repression" was a marxist tactic to enlist some social groups as a new proletariat.

It's like saying masturbators are repressed because they can't fap in public and create a whole social movement, with hierarchical links to communist parties, based on it.

This is regarding gay people and women, it was somewhat different with blacks, where communists appropriated of a existing movement (like Marcus Garvey said they would do).

>Reducing blacks and LGBT people to some obscure kind of Marxism (while most those people have no idea of Marxism or any leftist theory at all) is not going to help anybody except you by portraying the problem as some kind of evil.

Let's be honest. Marxism as a rigorous methodology died with Karl Kautsky and not even Althusser manage to ressurect it. To everyone else, it was just a sorelian "myth", so you don't need to actually know anything about marxism to be marxist in this terms.

>>5025688
>teh (sic) LGBT rights movement has literally nothing to do with communism and feminism

2/10, made me reply.

>>5025701
>no, he realized that that was one of the techniques the bourgeoisie was using to prevent it.

In the 1920s, if you think it's the same now you're falling to the same bourgeois boogeyman that Pierre Bordieau did.

There is simple no borgeois cultural hegemony since the early XIXth century. Every single educator and reformer since then (like John Dewey and Paulo Freire) was dedicated to revolutionary politics. The mere fact that this thread exists show how cultural hegemony since WW2 is leftist.

>except the civil rights movement in america succeeded without communist revolution

It depends on how you define communism.

Do you define as the common ownership of the means of production? Well, i don't. No communist country ever had that, even Soviet Russia at the height of Stalinism allowed some private ownership, so did every communist country. Communism is better define as a political system where every single organ of civil society is subjected to the Party, because this characteristic was shared by every communist country, from Cuba to Laos, passing through Hungary and Ethiopia.

Now, if we define the "Party" not as a single entity, but as the collectivity of the intelligentsia and the affiliated social movements and "organized civil society", it is clear that they hold power over most institutions in the United States, except maybe the Churches and the military (and this is why they are hated). So yes, America is a communist country.

>the frankfurt school really isnt as big or as influential as you think it is

I know, but Herbert Marcuse is. The entire modern day liberalism is a child of his.

>>5025749
>teh (sic) LGBT rights movement has literally nothing to do with communism and feminism
sorry, bad grammar

>LGBT rights movement has literally nothing to do with communism. feminism

>>5025756
>Every single educator and reformer since then was dedicated to revolutionary politics.
margaret thatcher? ronald reagan? michael gorbachev?
>The mere fact that this thread exists show how cultural hegemony since WW2 is leftist.
except right wing people are promoting right wing views and being taken seriously. oh and also that is a laughably untrue statement. furthermore you say 'leftist' as if the left is united. let me tech you something about politics which you would do well not to forget, the left wing cannot agree about anything. there a million different kinds of leftists and we all spend more time fighting each other than we do fighting against the right. so even if what you sad was true, 99% of the left wing would still oppose the current cultural hegemony.

>Do you define as the common ownership of the means of production? Well, i don't. No communist country ever had that, even Soviet Russia at the height of Stalinism allowed some private ownership, so did every communist country. Communism is better define as a political system where every single organ of civil society is subjected to the Party, because this characteristic was shared by every communist country, from Cuba to Laos, passing through Hungary and Ethiopia.
>defining communism by what form states that called themselves communist took
dont be an ass

>Now, if we define the "Party" not as a single entity, but as the collectivity of the intelligentsia and the affiliated social movements and "organized civil society", it is clear that they hold power over most institutions in the United States, except maybe the Churches and the military (and this is why they are hated). So yes, America is a communist country.
my god, this statement is so flawed it has literally folded through itself and entered another dimension.
firstly, the party is the communist party of whatever nation you are in (however many parties may lay claim to that title), and they do not have control over any of those things in teh USA.
secondly 'organised civil societ' means literally all of humanity, it applies to literally everything and everyone.
thirdly this stamen considers the intelligentsia as a single coherent body with coherent intents and beliefs, this it is not
fourthly you statement says 'it is clear that they hold power over most institutions in the United States' which, it is clear, is moronic, no one has that amount of power in the USA.
finally, its just a fucking stupid statement

>>5025761
Still wrong, though.

>>5025816
clearly you know nothing of the LGBT rights movement then

>>5025748
>Everyone else is cohese and hierarchical
Except they aren't. Any bunch self-proclaimed marxist groups isn't cohese or necessarily hierarchical and especially not leftist to left-leaning, social democratic groups.

>as "repression" was a marxist tactic to enlist some social groups as a new proletariat.
Well, according Jesus Marx himself, the vast majority of society would be part of the proletariat, because of their position within economy. So there is really no need for enlisting anyone.

>It's like saying masturbators are repressed because they can't fap in public and create a whole social movement
The one thing is an action that is considered to be most private and an indecency in public and an act of free will, the other stuff (the legality of marital rape, blacks as second class citizens, for instance) is a direct negation of basic (in theory constitutionally and internationally granted) rights because of some attribute a person happens to have.
So please tell me, if you really are unable to see differences in those actions?

>with hierarchical links to communist parties
Not really, the great Pasolini had to suffer because the PCI hated gays, just like gays were frowned upon in the bloc.

>where communists appropriated of a existing movement
Who would think that communists might be more popular where people got the shaft in capitalist societies?

>Marxism as a rigorous methodology died with Karl Kautsky and not even Althusser manage to ressurect it
Maybe, but that doesn't mean that every minor nuissance of the right should be subsumised as "cultural marxism", just because of an easy name for an enemy, a nice discreditation for any progressive group and actual marxist or leftist groups alike. Plus, it is completely useless as an actual term for debating because of this growing vagueness.

>so you don't need to actually know anything about marxism to be marxist in this terms
That is not the consequence from what you said above and what I said above applies here as well.

Muddy terminology means the death of any discourse, buddy.

>>5025756
I didn't write this so I'm only going to say

>The entire modern day liberalism is a child of his.
Except it isn't. Even if you actually try to deduce PC from his Critique of Tolerance:
Every society has ideological barriers that express themselves in semantic barriers, selections and effectively language control.
You are considered to be an asshole if you call some disabled person cripple, marxist plotting or not.

>>5025807
>margaret thatcher? ronald reagan? michael gorbachev?

These were politicians, not educational reformers like John Dewey, Paulo Freire or Jean Piaget.

>except right wing people are promoting right wing views and being taken seriously.

Threads about right-wing thinkers are purged from /lit/, except when they are created by communists asking if they even exist since right-wing people are so dumb.

>dont be an ass

I think it's better to define communism based on the form it actually acquired than by the definitions communists give to themselves.

The fact that communism is the only ideology to which we give this privilege is another proof that they hold absolute cultural hegemony.

Regarding my statement of America as a communist country, i know it is a very idiossincratic view of mine so i will not even try to defend it.

>>5024616
>last obstacles to equality
Really? Because I don't recall anyone fighting for me on account of my ugly mug, even though I was born this way.
Also, do you really think that in, let's say, 100 years, when all of your perceived obstacles have been eliminated, that the 16-24 age group of liberal arts majors will be done whining and complaining about things? They'll latch onto whatever zeitgeist movement makes them feel significant as non-working, parent-dependent students. Anon, pls.

>>5016241
that's because leftism is only for the privileged

>>5025845
>The fact that communism is the only ideology to which we give this privilege
Pffff, yeah, because "communism" is not something so vague and almost devoid of any concrete meaning other than "I don't like it"/"Stalin lover" and things like these in the public discourse...

>Regarding my statement of America as a communist country, i know it is a very idiossincratic view of mine so
You really should double-check your terminology then, because you will have a hard time in any debate with shit like this...

>>5025832
>Except they aren't. Any bunch self-proclaimed marxist groups isn't cohese or necessarily hierarchical and especially not leftist to left-leaning, social democratic groups.

They may discuss over an specific interpretation of the fourth note on Feuerbach, but in the end they all hold the same views on the essential issues.

>Well, according Jesus Marx himself, the vast majority of society would be part of the proletariat, because of their position within economy. So there is really no need for enlisting anyone.

Of course that didn't happened and the classical proletariat shrinked so post-war marxist thinkers needed a new one. They found it in the black lumpenproletariat, a people Marx himself wouldn't be so fond of.

>The one thing is an action that is considered to be most private and an indecency in public and an act of free will, the other stuff (the legality of marital rape, blacks as second class citizens, for instance) is a direct negation of basic (in theory constitutionally and internationally granted) rights because of some attribute a person happens to have.

Marital rape doesn't even exist and considering blacks second class citizens because of segregation is like considering Dutch Catholics second-class citizens because of Verzuilling. Of course, they framed it differently so i am a huge heretical for saying that. Another proof they won.

>Not really, the great Pasolini had to suffer because the PCI hated gays, just like gays were frowned upon in the bloc.

Obviously, the communists in the Western bloc were trying to build a society, not to destroy one, so they wouldn't put up with gay people. And the PCI was notorously a soviet puppet.

>Who would think that communists might be more popular where people got the shaft in capitalist societies?

Why aren't Appalachian peasants Maoists then?

>Maybe, but that doesn't mean that every minor nuissance of the right should be subsumised as "cultural marxism", just because of an easy name for an enemy, a nice discreditation for any progressive group and actual marxist or leftist groups alike. Plus, it is completely useless as an actual term for debating because of this growing vagueness.

It's popularity vindicates it's usefulness. It's just not for you. There is a distinct trend of marxism, beginning with Gramsci and Lukacs and influencing the Frankfurt School and Post-structuralism. Some call it Western Marxism but Cultural Marxism is a better term because not every western marxist was a follower of Gramscian methods of cultural subversion.

>>5016241
thank god we're soon reaching 300 replies

>>5025845
>These were politicians, not educational reformers like John Dewey, Paulo Freire or Jean Piaget.
you said 'educator AND reformer' i assumed you meant one or the other, and consider that these people were motivated not by a desire to create a system that propagates their political viewpoint (if that was the objective they failed pretty hard) but to actually improve the education system

>Threads about right-wing thinkers are purged from /lit/
no, threads about /pol/ are purged from /lit/, i have many times had reasoned and constructive discussion with right wing people and about right wing thinkers and works here, just none of them thought that there was a cultural marxist conspiracy to use balcks, gays and women to create an new communist state.

>I think it's better to define communism based on the form it actually acquired than by the definitions communists give to themselves.
what did i tell you
not to do

oh yeah and remember about how left wing people can't agree, well we cant agree what 'real' communism is either.

>The fact that communism is the only ideology to which we give this privilege is another proof that they hold absolute cultural hegemony.
ok so let me get this straight, because communists cannot agree among themselves as to what communism is, and because that results in the soviet union and china and other communist states (which were all very different in many ways) not being seen as perfect representations of the communist ideology by historians and politicians, this means that communists have absolute cultural hegemony? i am an anarcho-communist and let me tell you we dont have a single fucking shred of cultural hegemony right now, and if we did, like hell we would be working to turn that cultural hegemony into change of the political system. if communists did have this hegemony they would be in charge right now and there would be no free market and the governments of the west would be completely different. how you can even make that statement seriously eludes me completely, the only conclusion is that you are trolling.

>Regarding my statement of America as a communist country, i know it is a very idiossincratic view of mine so i will not even try to defend it.

you might be completely and utterly wrong about everything, but at least you admit it

>>5025902
>you said 'educator AND reformer' i assumed you meant one or the other, and consider that these people were motivated not by a desire to create a system that propagates their political viewpoint (if that was the objective they failed pretty hard) but to actually improve the education system

No, they actually wanted to use education as a tool of subversive political activity, they admitted it and they did it and it worked.

Pic related, typical textbook in western countries.

>>5025902
>ok so let me get this straight, because communists cannot agree among themselves as to what communism is, and because that results in the soviet union and china and other communist states (which were all very different in many ways) not being seen as perfect representations of the communist ideology by historians and politicians, this means that communists have absolute cultural hegemony? i am an anarcho-communist and let me tell you we dont have a single fucking shred of cultural hegemony right now, and if we did, like hell we would be working to turn that cultural hegemony into change of the political system. if communists did have this hegemony they would be in charge right now and there would be no free market and the governments of the west would be completely different. how you can even make that statement seriously eludes me completely, the only conclusion is that you are trolling.

See, my point is that though all communist states were very different in many ways, they were all similar in one: absolute control of civil society by the communist party.

Communists may disagree on everything, but they always agree on policies that increase the power communists. This is why religion is being purged of the western world, but not the free-market. Why? Because Churches offer a alternative political institution to "organized civil society" of the communist-affiliated social movements, but the free-market? The free-market, even the Soviet Union had free-markets. The free-market by itselt cannot do anything to resist the advance of communism, it actually speeds it, when it leads to monopolism and the monopolists use state power to enforce their own domination through interventionism and socialism.

>>5025925
>No, they actually wanted to use education as a tool of subversive political activity, they admitted it and they did it and it worked.
if it worked people wouldn't generally not take anarcho communism seriously, and you certainly wouldn't be arguing with me

>Pic related, typical textbook in western countries.
maybe somewhere in spain what you think is true, but where i went to school, the UK, the textbooks on politics weer so utterly unbiased they all had a section on fascism equally as long as each other ideologies section and portraying it as a fairly legitimate and reasonable point of view

>>5025948
>Because Churches offer a alternative political institution to "organized civil society" of the communist-affiliated social movements, but the free-market? The free-market, even the Soviet Union had free-markets. The free-market by itselt cannot do anything to resist the advance of communism, it actually speeds it, when it leads to monopolism and the monopolists use state power to enforce their own domination through interventionism and socialism.

By the way, Hillaire Belloc's "The Servile State" and Daniel Bell's "Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism", through different angles, expand on this theme and explains it better than i can.

>>5025883
>but in the end they all hold the same views on the essential issues
Marxist do probably (but by no means necessarily, you have never experienced a Marxist debate if you think so), but you know, that is why they consider themselves as Marxists and actually joined their group...
Other leftists would probably disagree on many issues. The thing is, of course there will be some kind of consensus, as in all similar political movements or ideologies, but not one commanded by "the Party".

>classical proletariat shrinked
It remained exactly the same, even grew in size, but the consciousness began to fail.

>They found it in the black lumpenproletariat
Yeah, they included it as a part of the proletariat, so? Marx reasons as to why they should be excluded aren't very convincing anyhow.

>Marital rape doesn't even exist and considering blacks second class citizens because of segregation is like considering Dutch Catholics second-class citizens because of Verzuilling
Are you fucking serious?

>so they wouldn't put up with gay people
How do gays destroy societies exactly?

>Why aren't Appalachian peasants Maoists then?
Not settled near greater cities, no industry workers, so probably no "classic socialist" worker education, if you will.

>It's popularity vindicates it's usefulness
Appeal to masses, so no.
The same reason why "For America", freedom and so on are extremely shady terms and phrases that could mean anything and should always be met with suspicion.

>There is a distinct trend of marxism, beginning with Gramsci and Lukacs and influencing the Frankfurt School and Post-structuralism.
The tendency to pay attention to the superstructure and not only to the base of society, yes.

>Some call it Western Marxism but Cultural Marxism is a better term because not every western marxist was a follower of Gramscian methods of cultural subversion.
>People who are convinced that X is right try to propagandise X and implement it into society
Somebody call the cops!
And the problem is that X is just a substitute for every ailment rightist have with today's society.
By using "cultural marxism" it implies exactly what I said it applies.
>every minor nuissance of the right should be subsumised as "cultural marxism", just because of an easy name for an enemy, a nice discreditation for any progressive group and actual marxist or leftist groups alike. Plus, it is completely useless as an actual term for debating because of this growing vagueness.
Nice that you never felt the need to actually argue against anything what I said here.

>>5025887
Amen.

>>5025925
>typical textbook in western countries
Yeah, of course...

>>5025948
>absolute control of civil society by the communist party
not really, Yugoslavia and cuba were fairly free, not to mention the plethora of democratically elected communist governments which did not take control of civic society.

>but they always agree on policies that increase the power communists.
this may surprise you, but they actually dont, some promote 'any means necessary' others promote 'only the spontaneous workers revolution' yet others want to participate in the current political system.

>This is why religion is being purged of the western world
its not being purged, people just aren't peasants anymore and since churches are no longer the organizing point of communities its no longer mandatory to be religious. (pic related, its me)
>but not the free-market. Why?
because communists aren't in charge
>even the Soviet Union had free-markets
get out, get the fuck out, you are an uneducated moron, you know nothing of history politics or literature and have no place here, your political beliefs were formed from image macros on /pol/ and have no validity, you have no understanding of the modern world and what understanding you think you have is based on illusions and idiocy. you are objectively terrible in every way and a detriment not only to humanity and the earth, but to everything that ever was or shall be. since im probably becoming stupider simply bu arguing with you im going to stop now, please return to that smelly hole of morons and retards from whence you claim called /pol/ and never ever leave.

>>5016369
It was actually the democrats that wanted slaves, because the demographics of the political parties switched after the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, just further proving how contemporary it is. :p

Jesus Christ, this thread has been a ride...

>>5020891
Newton was a staunch Monarchist who wanted to draw and quarter all traitors to the crown.

What now?

>>5025994
>not really, Yugoslavia and cuba were fairly free, not to mention the plethora of democratically elected communist governments which did not take control of civic society.

Ask Milovan Đilas how free Yugoslavia was. And about Cuba, even neighborhood associations are controlled by communists through Committees for the Defense of the Revolution. This is just another example of what i am talking about.

>this may surprise you, but they actually dont, some promote 'any means necessary' others promote 'only the spontaneous workers revolution' yet others want to participate in the current political system.

They disagree because they don't agree on what method will increase their power.

>its not being purged, people just aren't peasants anymore and since churches are no longer the organizing point of communities its no longer mandatory to be religious. (pic related, its me)

And yet a massive educational and cultural campaign was necessary to get rid of religion.

Regarding free-market capitalism in the Soviet Union. See the black market, they were tolerated by the communist leadership and made the soviet economy actually more free than in countries like France or Italy.

The first half of this thread was way better than the second half.

>>5026073
very true.