/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16423341]

Why is it so hard to find any books that aren’t packed full of leftist propaganda? Seriously. I started reading pic related and about half way through it just turned into an attack on right wing politics, advertised as a book that teaches history. Same with plenty of other contemporary books. Does anyone else feel the same?

[Anonymous No.16423390]

>>16423341
>written by a jew
>oh no has leftist propaganda on it
No shit Sherlock!
>contemporary books
I must say /thread?

[Anonymous No.16423396]

Huh interesting

[Anonymous No.16423491]

>>16423341
Yeah same here. First half was pretty interesting and then pure jizz. I hate it.

[Anonymous No.16423702]

>>16423341
>start reading WWII history book
>"and then Hitler did a very very bad thing"
I swear Mein Kampf gave me a better interpretation of the German situation at that time without all the bullshit.

[Anonymous No.16423827]

>>16423341
Because leftism is the consensus opinion among intellectuals, in fact it's generally the consensus opinion among people who aren't retarded.

[Anonymous No.16423865]

>>16423827
>I'm pretending to be retarded on lit give me (yous)
Please stop attention whoring
Your mother is a dog

[Anonymous No.16423889]

>>16423865
People on here forget that outside of their 4chan echo-chamber their opinions are very much in the minority among non-retards.

[Anonymous No.16423920]

>>16423341
im currently reading it. I think it shits equally on both tankies and nazis. His 2nd book, 21st Lessons for the 21st century shits on liberalism aswell

[Anonymous No.16423921]

>>16423341
The book is built on a left wing assumed history that is of linear progress, are you surprised that it devolves into further left wing thought? Read Decline of the West instead its a much more interesting work then this crap.

[Anonymous No.16423936]

>>16423341
I highly recommend reading pic related, it's a less watered-down unbiased sapiens.

[Anonymous No.16423940]

>>16423341
As much as this book is pop-lit (which I admit not to have read), I'm sure his attacks on right-wing politics are justified since right-wing politics is wrong.

>>16423827
>>16423889
Also this. Why are there no real right-wing intellectuals? Because right-wing politics is anti-intellectual, and always has been. If subscribing to /pol/'s brand of fascist degeneracy makes you feel good or cool, then you've simply strayed too far from reality and becomes obsessed with concepts which simply aren't real (race, differences between the sexes, etc.) and which distract from what's truly wrong with society, i.e. the ills of capitalism.

[Anonymous No.16423945]

>>16423341
Because there are no controls for it.

[Anonymous No.16423959]

>>16423940
Pop-lit
>haven't read it
I'm sure his attacks are justified
>haven't read it
epic

[Anonymous No.16423974]

>>16423940
>no real right-wing intellectuals
Why are there no left wing intellectuals in Saudi Arabia? And why were there a ton of right wing intellectuals in Germany at the start of the 20th century? I do not deny the American elite is left wing; however, this does not mean that right wing politics is dead because it has been disprove. Its more so the case that as far as it comes to pop-lit elites decide what is popular and not. Western elites today are left wing so no real surprise.

[Anonymous No.16423981]

>>16423940
The American right has become more anti-intellectual in the past few decades, but we used to have William Buckley, and Henry Kissinger is still around. They no longer hold any real significant power in right-wing politics, and, as a result, the Right is more insufferable than ever.

[Anonymous No.16424013]

>>16423981
>The American right has become more anti-intellectual in the past few decades
That's because they kept losing the argument, so instead they choose not to engage, like the cowards they are.

[Anonymous No.16424018]

>>16423341
>right wing politics
You mean sucking dick of your masters?

[Anonymous No.16424035]

>>16424013
I think they realized they didn't need to win an argument in order to keep winning. Reason doesn't decide what happens in politics.

[Anonymous No.16424038]

>>16423702
This is such a reoccurring problem that it makes me wonder why no mainstream historian confronted it. The only one I can think of is Peter Novick.

[Anonymous No.16424041]

>>16423974
The American elite are not left-wing. See: health insurance, money in politics, wall street donations, etc. There are no left-wing intellectuals in Saudi Arabia because it's an Islamic dictatorship where dissent is not tolerated.

Right wing intellectuals at the start of the 20th century? You mean the Nazis?

>>16423981
Henry Kissinger is not an intellectual, he's a war criminal.

>>16424018
Yes.

>>16423959
Nicely ignoring my point. You'll notice he was making a general point about left-wing politics in literature. Must be difficult to have bad reading comprehension on a literature-focused board.

>>16424013
>>16424035
These guys get it

[Anonymous No.16424046]

>>16424041
>Henry Kissinger is a war criminal
I know. You can be a war criminal and an intellectual; all you have to do is write books. "Intellectual" is just a pose you can adopt in order to seem like an authority.

[Anonymous No.16424080]

>>16424046
Was Hitler an intellectual? If the application of your ideas leads you to do things that are unjustifiable, is your system of thought to be considered sound?

[Anonymous No.16424083]

>>16424080
>Was Hitler an intellectual?
No

[Anonymous No.16424088]

>>16424080
You don't have to have a "sound" system of thought to be considered an intellectual. Again, its a social pose. I think Jordan Peterson's ideas are gibberish, but I wouldn't deny that he is a public intellectual

[Anonymous No.16424093]

>>16424088
I would, he’s a fraud and got exiled by Zizek to the shadow realm.

[Anonymous No.16424102]

>>16424041
>elite are not left-wing. See: health insurance, money in politics, wall street donations
This isn't incompatible with left wing ideologies. Its just not Marxism or something far on the specra.
>Misses the entirety of the point.
I understand I need to walk you through this but damn I wish you were higher IQ so I wouldn't. Yes Saudi Arabia suppresses its left wing movements. Yes the German state in the 20th century be it the Kaiser or the Nazi Party suppressed or encouraged right wing philosophy due to their elite being swayed by it. See Spengler, Evola, Heidegger, Nietzsche, and countless others being popular. The point being that when an ideology is popular the elite (which in the case of the US is a left wing ideology (even if it is not your flavor of internet left wing)) they will make those figures who champion the popular idea popular as well.
Today the US has so few right wing intellectuals due to this in part. if it was more profitable to be a right wing intellectual because of elites taking the task of advertising or not striking down your work we'd without a doubt see more then retards like Jordan Peterson, who is nearly as big an entrancement as the neocons.

[Anonymous No.16424108]

>>16424093
I think he's those things along with being an intellectual. You don't actually have to be smart or right about anything to be an intellectual. You can be an intellectual and a fraud simultaneously. Its not an ethical category.

[Anonymous No.16424112]

>>16424102
>entrancement
embarrassment*

[Anonymous No.16424126]

>>16424102
The neocons are still an influential elite movement which is right wing. You don't need to be intellectual to be the elite. In fact, I'd say most of the American elite is fairly anti-intellectual. They go to college to get practical degrees in business and engineering, not to study philosophy or classic literature. The richest people I've met have been philistines.

[Anonymous No.16424157]

>>16423390
Not only a jew, but a gay vegan buddhist jew

[Anonymous No.16424165]

>>16424108
>the village idiot is technically an intellectual because he brings new and controversial ideas
YAWN KYS

[Anonymous No.16424168]

>>16423341
Facts don't care about your feefees sweety

[Anonymous No.16424172]

>>16424088
Then "intellectual" is a category without meaning that is assigned to people who write books and seem "smart" by their supporters, i.e. it's totally partisan. Donald Trump can be considered an intellectual, so can Trump Jr.

To me the mark of an intellectual is recognition within academia. I'll admit that political science is a difficult area to cut clearly through, which is why there's a debate about Kissinger (given his influence on the study of international relations), but anyone who thinks that people like Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro are intellectuals just hasn't realised that they are frauds for the most part (especially Shapiro).

>>16424102
I'm sorry man but I'm struggling to get around what you're trying to say, the way your write is a little convoluted. If I catch your drift, you think elites popularize the intellectuals that support their views. I don't disagree with your point, but the issue is few left-wing intellectuals are actually public intellectuals who have a genuine impact on policy today. That's because elites are right-wing in that they are pro-capitalism, and most left-wing intellectuals recognise that society's ills are rooted in capitalism. That means that those left-wing intellectuals won't be recognized by "elites" and therefore won't be recognized by the policymakers supported by those elites. The reason there are no right-wing intellectuals on the other hand is that there is not intellectual justification for the status quo (i.e. the status quo which elites benefit from). Those right-wing "intellectuals" would therefore be mostly rejected by academia for having unsound ideas, hence the way that they only appeal to people on the fringe, such as those that populate this cesspool of a website.

[Anonymous No.16424174]

>>16424165
>new and controversial ideas
You don't even have to do that. Its really nothing to be an intellectual.

[Anonymous No.16424177]

>>16424080
>>16424093
Imagine being this ideologically possessed, very sad.

[Anonymous No.16424179]

>>16424126
>The neocons are still an influential elite movement which is right wing
I sorta agree, though its without a doubt very weak today, as we can see with people like Francis Fukuyama and most other non political elites jumping ship from the movement. I think its something that exists in so far that it still has its foot in the political elite, but most other elite groups (academia, wallstreet, and big tech) have mainly dropped it.
>don't need to be intellectual to be the elite.
Of course, but being an elite with a set of beliefs means you generally want to give those who justify your beliefs a platform. So even if you are not an elite if you have an opinion that is wildly circulated chances are you have some foot in with the elite.
>most of the American elite is fairly anti-intellectual
Yah I agree.

[Anonymous No.16424188]

>>16423341
That's why I don't buy the paper jew

[Anonymous No.16424192]

>>16424080
Yes

[Anonymous No.16424198]

>>16424177
Does having your ideas challenged make you feel small? Does it make you angry? It's okay, just go back to /pol/, and cover your eyes one more.

[Anonymous No.16424199]

>>16424172
>recognition within academia
I disagree with this definition, so I guess give mine. An intellectual is just a person whose professional reputation is based on his 'intellect,' a person who makes their living off of other people perceiving them to be intelligent. That's all it means to me.

Peterson has branded himself as a professional smart person, and has developed a following based on this. That's what an intellectual is. Basically, any person in academia, whether or not their peers respect them, is an intellectual.

[Anonymous No.16424205]

>>16424198
No youre just parroting memes from reddit and your discords, no value from your thoughts at all

[Anonymous No.16424206]

>>16424205
Cope

[Anonymous No.16424217]

>>16424179
>most other elite groups have mainly dropped it
Yeah, the right is pretty fractured right now between aging neocons and other groups that are gaining traction. Institutionally, they'll probably always have the church, which is a pretty substantial platform for them.

[Anonymous No.16424232]

>>16424172
>few left-wing intellectuals are actually public intellectuals who have a genuine impact on policy today
I can agree with you here but I'd say that policy is a bit different as I alluded to here>>16424179 which is due in part to elites not being able to control the democratic process entirely, so today in main part of the West the right wing controls government elite positions even if generally speaking the elite is "left wing".
>most left-wing intellectuals recognize that society's ills are rooted in capitalism
I agree, which is why elites today focus on other systemic issues rather then this issue in which the more socialist left focuses on. But I'd say your "left wing" movements get some sway in other respects due to generally speaking other ideological tents within your movements in which the elite endorses but that the right wing argues against. I could give you examples if you care but to be brief I will not here.
>The reason there are no right-wing intellectuals on the other hand is that there is not intellectual justification for the status
This sits real weird for me due to your next statement
>(i.e. the status quo which elites benefit from)
I have no idea what you mean here, it sounds contradictory, that is:
Elites benefit from status quo but elites dislike status quo.
Could you clarify what you mean by this?

[Anonymous No.16424233]

>>16424205
I go on neither Reddit or Discord. I suggest you read David Harvey's A Brief History of Neoliberalism. It's quite short and should give you a gist of where I'm coming from. We're after all on a literature board, so you should probably read a bit more that it looks like you do.

[Anonymous No.16424240]

>>16423702
What’s your point? You don’t want history books to mention the Holocaust and Generalplan Ost?

[Anonymous No.16424257]

>>16424232
> elites today focus on other systemic issues
What are those? Because I'd go as far as to say that most "systemic" issues are rooted in capitalism.
> Elites benefit from status quo but elites dislike status quo.
That's not what I said. Elites like the status quo, and would like to have it justified by intellectuals, but since there is not intellectual justification for the status quo (i.e. the status quo means extreme poverty, social unrest, etc.), you won't be able to find academics or real intellectuals that support it. In my mind, the status quo is of course one where there's high inequality, low levels of government support for the poor, low union-membership rates causing degrading industrial relations and low worker autonomy, etc.

[Anonymous No.16424261]

Because you're not really looking.

[Anonymous No.16424291]

>>16423940
>then you've simply strayed too far from reality and becomes obsessed with concepts which simply aren't real (race, differences between the sexes, etc.)

[Anonymous No.16424296]

I got mostly annoyed by his constant remark on how we are 'enslaved' by wheat. Which is just fucking bizarre when you think about it.

[Anonymous No.16424297]

>>16424257
>What are those?
Race relations is one big one. Could be because a more diverse workplace also decreases the likelihood of unionization and makes labor cheaper. Could be because its latest fashionable opinion among elites today. But some could be detached from the issues of leftist critiques on capitlaism. Such as elites generally speaking liking materialism and looking down upon anti/non-materialistic groups/ideologies. See the attacks on Christianity and Islam today, which are encouraged by elites.
>but since there is not intellectual justification for the status quo (i.e. the status quo means extreme poverty, social unrest, etc.), you won't be able to find academics or real intellectuals that support it
If I am to take your straw-man of the status quo as a given which I will, even if I disagree with it, I know that in the past there have been justifications for such things. In Rome 2/3 people were slaves and the Roman elite did not care even after the slaves had a massive revolt. Similarly, I find it doubtful that the reason elites suddenly do not support "status quo" or right wing ideas is because there is no justification for it possible. I think the reason is due to it not being fashionable within elite circles due to the culture today within the US.

[Anonymous No.16424311]

>>16423341
>>16423390
Maybe, just maybe, leftism is correct and you are fucking retarded. Ever thought of that?

[Anonymous No.16424322]

Why does this thread have so much bad b8

[Anonymous No.16424326]

>>16424322
The sad part is most of the b8 isn't even good nor is it b8.

[Anonymous No.16424335]

>>16424297
Race relations is a systemic issue, but in practice elites only pretend to care about it when it helps them justify their position in capitalism.
> a more diverse workplace also decreases the likelihood of unionization and makes labor cheaper.
??? Also, your point about Rome doesn't make any sense and/or isn't articulated very well.

I mean this in the nicest way possible, so I'm sorry if I sound like I'm condescending, but you need to read more. Honestly I'm not sure where you should start since I don't know your background, but David Harvey's A Brief History of Neoliberalism is a good start, after that you can delve into more complex stuff Piketty's a good start if you want a more economic explanation of the status quo. You can read about Marx too, you don't necessarily have to read Capital.

On race, I suggest you start with this, which coincidentally also covers a variety of right-wing pseuds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4ciwjHVHYg

[Anonymous No.16424358]

>>16424322
If it's left-wing, chances are it isn't b8, it's a lifeline towards a frame of thinking that isn't based on hatred of others (other races, the poor, women, etc.)

[Anonymous No.16424363]

>>16424322
Leftists really are this middling yet pretentious, it's not an act.

[Anonymous No.16424376]

>>16424335
>so I'm sorry if I sound like I'm condescending
No problem yah sorry English isn't my first language and I'm dyslexic so I don't even read, audio book everything.
>You can read about Marx too, you don't necessarily have to read Capital
Already have regretted it since I disagreed on too many of Marx's premises to take too seriously.
>Rome doesn't make any sense
Okay I'll lay out my arguments differently so that it can make more sense.
>Elites generally speaking act the same across time/space
>Roman elite uphold your view regarding conditions within status quo (status quo means extreme poverty, social unrest)
>Roman elite continued to justify their ideas despite this
I could use a similar analogy to other peoples, cultures, and ideologies if you think Roman society is an exception. Such as Egypt, China, Africa, and the Eastern Europe.
>On race, I suggest you start with this
Could you give me a non vod or explain the ideas you wish for me to be educated regarding. I'm pretty open minded up if there is an axiom I disagree on or if I find the theory to have a rather low power to predict other situations I'd rather not waste my time regarding it.

[Anonymous No.16424424]

>>16424233
"he got exiled into the shadow realm by zizek" jfl

[Anonymous No.16424656]

>>16424311
It’s besides the point of the entire book. Whys he gotta shill leftist propaganda in it

[Anonymous No.16424731]

The left are not elite
No other ideology is so myopically focused on reduction to the lowest common denominator
The left are not intellectual
Its narrative withers outside of safe spaces and in the the absence of censorship

[Anonymous No.16424759]

>>16423889
Not so, nigger lover

[Anonymous No.16424767]

>>16424311
lol. that's a pretty good joke anon

[Anonymous No.16424807]

Can someone point me in the direction of some right-wing writing that heavily features introspection and self-critique?
I've not come across anything from the right that didn't seem like a post-hoc justification of their feelings. They never seem like they want to seriously examine their starting premises.
But, that's just how it seems to me and I haven't been exposed to a lot of right-wing stuff really. Just /pol/ and IDW shit. I'm ignorant, I'm asking this in good faith.

[Anonymous No.16424822]

>>16424322
Right, there is one person or more who consistently spams basic leftist talking points in that extremely obnoxious chapocel/goon lingo, and it happens across the boards, the only issue is, that kind of person would consider 4chan irredeemable den of ultrafascism and wouldn't even bother.

[Anonymous No.16424872]

>>16423341
Jews, OP.

[Anonymous No.16424891]

>>16423827
where I'm from it seems the intelligentsia take it more as a duty than anything, as they recognize that the capital owning class will blast their narrative, and so someone should be raising a cohesive argument against that. so it's just straight up, the university teaches left wing propaganda, because there is no other force to counter the capitalists. I don't like it but there is a kind of a logic there imo.

[Anonymous No.16424898]

>>16423889
ironically the dominant leftism is quite detached from any economic reality

[Anonymous No.16424904]

it almost seems like lefties think it achieves something for the capital owning class that women stay in the kitchen, remain non-mechanically exploited, remain unprofitable.

[Anonymous No.16424909]

>>16424080
>he thinks Kissinger is the problem
this is the most bluepilled shit I ever did see

[Anonymous No.16424919]

>>16424822
>#primatesarenotpets
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNY6ZstdUdY

[Anonymous No.16425054]

Its probably the need to constantly remind themselves that they are correct and on the right side of history. Why this needs to be stated if they are correct and especially when they are usually already preaching to the choir is unknown. Its very religious behavior

[Anonymous No.16425145]

Why don’t the right wingers on this site ever engage with the ideas presented but instead post buzzwords and dismiss arguments out of turn?
Is that the extent of their intellectual capacity? Thing I don’t like bad, people that support it dumb?

[Anonymous No.16425828]

>>16424240
No, I don't want history books to wax poetic about the past using their own contemporary moral standards. Leftism especially seems incredibly pervasive in doing this.

[Anonymous No.16425860]

>>16423940
>concepts which simply aren't real (race, differences between the sexes, etc.)
lmao what? And I'm the anti-intellectual?

[Anonymous No.16425884]

>>16425145
This ain't it, chief.

[Anonymous No.16425929]

Here's a more interesting question. If Harari is such a leftist- and he does seem to flirt with certain ideas explored by let leaning academics- then why is he championed by the likes of Barack Obama? Is this an example of the toothlessness of the modern western left, or a dishonest appropriation of 'the left' by third way politicians and cynical climbers? Or both?

[Anonymous No.16426013]

>>16425929
I think both

[Anonymous No.16426028]

>>16423702
Notice how no one IRL has mentioned to you how Jewish communists led multiple armed revolts against the German government in the closing stages of WWI.

Even if a certain people are incredibly racist, they don't just systematically murder a shitload of people for no real reason. It strains credulity that everyone accepts that one day Germans just lost their mind and killed a bunch of people.

[Anonymous No.16426038]

>>16425145
Because even if you make cogent points left wingers just dismiss them as racism. You can't have a rational debate with someone who does that, so it's more fun to troll them.

[Anonymous No.16426050]

>>16423959
>Pop-lit
>>haven't read i
I read it. It's pop lit, needs about 50x more citations to make it not feel like he's just making shit up or pushing his own theory/biases

[Anonymous No.16426185]

>>16423390
With Jews you lose.

[Anonymous No.16426353]

>>16424311
Yes, that's why virtually all the bloodiest dictators in history were, in one way or another, left-wing collectivists who exploited their supporters to carry out mass murders in the name of the "correct ideal".

[Anonymous No.16426422]

>>16426028
>how Jewish communists led multiple armed revolts against the German government in the closing stages of WWI.
>look it up
>basically the truth
wtf am I getting redpilled

[Anonymous No.16426438]

>>16426353
this looks relatively grounded but it should be noted that there are no good figures on anything happening within commie states, and that american numbers that many people still believe to be true are very much not so. stalins numbers here look believable if you count ww2 casualties. otherwise- you gotta realize that the total population of the USSR at the time is roughly 150 mil. If we're saying that he killed 23 mil of his own, that's like one in 6-7 people. that's a little hard to believe.

[Anonymous No.16426463]

>>16423702
Read David Irving. Even his critics can't deny that no one alive has done more research or interviewed more living witnesses than David Irving had. He doesn't explicitly deny the holocaust, but he leaves it out, because he has yet to find any evidence it actually happened. Literally all claims of the holocaust come from cyclic references. The oldest sources for the holocaust are always from jewish authors who cite other jewish authors as their sources. If you keep following the references, they end up going in circles. It's absolutely mind boggling that academia is still getting away with this shit today in spite of a complete lack of any evidence that it ever actually happened, along with mountains of evidence making it clear that it's not even possible for it to have happened.

Then there's shit like the jewish revolutionary war of 1918 being all but completely forgotten. It's genuinely infuriating. We're witnessing how fake history gets established in real time.

[Anonymous No.16426519]

>>16426463
If something gets repeated enough over time people believe it. It's not like the average person is taking the time to investigate primary historical sources.

With the German Revolution of 1918–1919 it is a little more surprising that no one talks about it, even in history classes. You would think that people would wonder about — if the Germans killed millions of Jewish people — why they did it. But this is typically just written off as insane racism, which isn't that logical of a justification as the world is full of racists who don't engage in genocide.

[Anonymous No.16426528]

>>16426438
Even taking the """official numbers""", it's undeniable that this is still a major genocide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin

[Anonymous No.16426899]

>>16423341
Read "A history of the world" by Andrew Marr OP.

[Anonymous No.16427064]

>>16426519

Any good book about the revolution?

[Anonymous No.16427086]

>>16423940
Bait

[Anonymous No.16427101]

>>16423341
What passages do you take issue with?
The only part of this book that gave me a headache was when he kept asserting that developing agriculture was a big mistake and we were better without it... even though the evidence he provides obviously points to the fact that populations were growing anyways and only agriculture could sustain them.
I don't know what you're talking about because "right wing politics" can mean almost literally anything.

[Anonymous No.16427104]

>>16427064
I'm not sure, I haven't looked for one, just have done a little reading about it online. If you read about it on wikipedia you'll notice that the primary actors were nearly all Jewish, but not much attention is explicitly paid to this in the description of the events.

[Anonymous No.16427120]

>>16426028
IIRC, the German Jews were quite assimilated, come WW1, hence the higher rate of volunteers and casualties as troops, given they wanted to prove their loyalty to the Empire, hence the stab-in-the-back narrative. Were the Spartacists outliers, or more indicative of the Jewish population as a whole?

[Anonymous No.16427144]

>>16425929
Because you're relentlessly dishonest about the meaning of "left wing"

[Anonymous No.16427330]

>>16423341
It's mental illness-- the original concept of meme.
This guy is essentially saying "hey, you'll have to accept much less when it comes to individual freedoms. Get used to it because it's inevitable!", which is of course bullshit. He's been practically forced onto public debate, much like Thomas Pikety previously.