/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.8446573]

Why do right-wing authors produce the best literature?

>inb4 George Orwell or some shit

[Anonymous No.8446578]

Best philosophy and poetry too

[Anonymous No.8446582]

>>8446578
True. T.S. Elliot and Ezra Pound among others.

[Anonymous No.8446588]

>>8446573
Because leftists are mentally ill cucks who care more about feels than truth

>>8446578
>>8446582
this, left-cucks are embarrassing

[Anonymous No.8446595]

>four posts
>three posters
hmmmmmm

[Anonymous No.8446596]

>>8446573

Because only rightists are stupid enough to think in terms of "best" and "worst." Amazing how critical insight is completely barred to reactionary thinking.

[Anonymous No.8446597]

the only point of right-wing literature can be to negate literature because it's inherently a degenerate form of exposition which can only cause trouble and cause decline

[Anonymous No.8446600]

>>8446595
I'm OP and >>8446582

[Anonymous No.8446601]

>>8446595
Can you count?

[Anonymous No.8446602]

>tying the aesthetics of art to politics

[Anonymous No.8446603]

George Orwell was a leftist soc-dem. In fact he was sympathetic to anarcho-communism.

[Anonymous No.8446605]

>>8446596
>Because only rightists are stupid enough to think in terms of "best" and "worst."
>implying there is not a degree of objective measurement regarding literature

[Anonymous No.8446608]

>>8446601
yes?
at the time i made the post there were four posts and three posters

[Anonymous No.8446611]

>>8446603
Yeah, that's what I meant.

[Anonymous No.8446618]

>>8446605
a degree =! a complete best and worst system

[Anonymous No.8446624]

>arbitrary left/right dichotomy being shoe horned where it doesn't belong

[Anonymous No.8446626]

>>8446588
/thread

[Anonymous No.8446638]

>>8446624
The writers in the OP are CLEARLY conservative.

Carlyle was a reactionary monarchist.
Jünger was a revolutionary conservative.
Raspail was a trad Catholic anti-immigration.
Hamsun was straight up fascist.

[Anonymous No.8446641]

>Zola
>Wilde
>Shaw
>Hesse
>Steinbeck
>Tressell
>Orwell
>Camus
>Zola
>Zola
>Zola

We literally only need Zola and Wilde and you're BTFO'd

[Anonymous No.8446655]

>>8446641
Oh shit, I forgot Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and Gogol.

Can rightists even compete?

[Anonymous No.8446661]

>>8446655
Dostoyevsky is conservative although he wouldn't really fit in with modern rightists

[Anonymous No.8446665]

because it's obvious you're right wing and fairly stupid so you'll praise anything that reinforces your beliefs without actually critically analyzing it

[Anonymous No.8446673]

>>8446661
Pretty sure he was a socialist

[Anonymous No.8446678]

>>8446588
epic

[Anonymous No.8446690]

>>8446641
Shaw, Steinbeck, and Orwell were total hacks.

[Anonymous No.8446699]

Is anarchism considered part of the left-wing?

[Anonymous No.8446700]

>>8446690
>of mice and men
>the work of a hack

[Anonymous No.8446702]

>>8446690
Of Mice and Men is probably one of the best pieces of lit of the 20th century, off yourself

[Anonymous No.8446705]

>>8446699
Yes, of course. Anarchists are socialists. They want worker/public ownership of the means of production just like the rest of the rad-left.

[Anonymous No.8446707]

>>8446618
Incrmentalism is a disease.
Glorious and inglorious are not a scale that changes daily like your self diagnosed gender identity.

If you care only for glorious, everything else is inglorious.

If you want the task of orientating piles of shit in the dark to prove a point go ahead be my guest.

In reality the best choose only the best mercilessly

[Anonymous No.8446710]

Not to mention Henry Roth, George Eliot, Henry James, Emerson, Thoreau, Hugo, Pushkin,and de Assis (a liberal monarchist),

[Anonymous No.8446712]

>>8446707
*unsheathes katakana*

[Anonymous No.8446717]

>>8446705
What about anarcho-individualism like Proudhon, Spencer and le spookbuster?

[Anonymous No.8446718]

>>8446702
>>8446700
How's 8th grade?

Plot hole alert: if the retard was always squeezing shit so hard why didn't he crush his own dick long ago?

[Anonymous No.8446720]

>>8446699
Junger is a right anarchist, tolstoys anarchism can not be called left anarchism but it cant be called right either

>>8446705
dumb as shit post

[Anonymous No.8446722]

>>8446712
Nothing personal kid

[Anonymous No.8446729]

>>8446717
Followers of Stirner, whom I have read, such as Karl Schmidt, cited that Stirner believed he was a communist.

Proudhon was a mutualist, and mutualism is socialism, as it asks for worker ownership of the means of production. "Property is theft" n shiet.

Never read Spencer.

[Anonymous No.8446732]

>>8446718
>right wing lit analysis

[Anonymous No.8446734]

>>8446720
>right
>anarchist

Hello molybot, read Rothbard before advocating his "philosophy" next time please, he admitted he was not an anarchist. It's etymologically invalid.

[Anonymous No.8446738]

I also forgot Chesterton and Wells.

[Anonymous No.8446747]

>>8446734
>Hello molybot
fucking retarded analysis bro, Junger has nothing to do with Rothbard or any of those people
Eumeswil describes what is best called right anarchism turdhead

[Anonymous No.8446750]

>>8446734
You ignorant twat, had you read any of Jünger's philosophy you would know he is a right anarchist. No need to jump into Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarch_(sovereign_individual)

[Anonymous No.8446751]

>>8446747
>influenced by Stirner
>didn't realise that if labour is free the state is lost

[Anonymous No.8446757]

>>8446751
stop posting right now

[Anonymous No.8446758]

Best philosophy as well

[Anonymous No.8446759]

>>8446758
Based virtue ethics.

[Anonymous No.8446760]

>>8446732
I know leftists are infatuated with normalizing mental disability.

In reality of you've ever volunteered to help with retards they are tugging on their dicks constantly.

It's an exaggeration worse than any committed in all of Romanticism

[Anonymous No.8446770]

The left-right dichotomy moves with the times. One era's liberal is another era's centrist and eventually conservative.

[Anonymous No.8446771]

>>8446770
That's called Overton window, but the progressive - conservative dichotomy always stands. In politics, history, literature and psychology.

[Anonymous No.8446774]

>>8446655
>>8446673

Read Demons or C&P. He would definitely be more right wing than left. I also agree with >>8446661 though.

[Anonymous No.8446786]

>>8446605
What is the degree of objective measurement?

[Anonymous No.8446793]

>>8446786
7

[Anonymous No.8446798]

>>8446786
What I like, obviously

[Anonymous No.8446801]

>>8446758
Read Macintyre :^)
Virtue ethics is anti-capitalist

[Anonymous No.8446804]

>>8446573
Literally who ?

[Anonymous No.8446806]

>>8446774
that was a reaction to the socialist party he had been associated with's actions. He was a socialist though. It's just a fact.

[Anonymous No.8446811]

>>8446673
Pretty sure you haven't read the Brothers Karamazov

[Anonymous No.8446813]

>>8446811
Pretty sure you haven't read anything about Dostoevsky. Nor do you understand the Brothers Karamazov.

[Anonymous No.8446814]

>>8446588
>unironically saying cuck
W E W E W
E E E
W E W E W
E E E
W E W E W

[Anonymous No.8446827]

>>8446758
Was Aristotle a ring wing writer/philosopher or is he just a writer/philosopher the right adopted?

[Anonymous No.8446836]

>>8446827
The second, the 'right wing' didn't exist for 2000 years after he was around

[Anonymous No.8446849]

>>8446655
Tolstoy was an orthodox Christian who believed tying himself to a political ideology was heresy. Try again.

[Anonymous No.8446853]

>>8446641
If we start counting closet lefties - closet in the sense of not really rallying, although the work leaves little doubt - we can count the Mememasters themselves, Jamba and Pynch

[Anonymous No.8446859]

>>8446849
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/leo-tolstoy-on-anarchy

yeah

[Anonymous No.8446870]

>>8446758
Aristotle is only conservative if you pretend the Catholic tradition of interpreting him is canonical. He is very easily adapted to liberal thought.

[Anonymous No.8446888]

>>8446827
Aristotle poster here

I was meming a bit

He's neither left nor right, because left/right is stupid, especially before the dichotomy was created

His views of Slavery wouldn't fit in well today though

[Anonymous No.8446894]

>>8446849
Tolstoy was excommunicated from the Orthodox Church and practised "rational Christianity" which is basically following the teachings of Jesus without believing all the spiritual stuff

[Anonymous No.8446898]

>>8446720
Junger explicitly stated he was against anarchism, because he needed authority, the Anarch is a concept of differentiated man, similar to Evola's "Ride the Tiger"

[Anonymous No.8446901]

>>8446801
All of the criticisms he (MacIntyre) makes of capitalism are not about its inherent properties but about non-intrinsic elements, and that those same criticisms could be just as easily leveled against communism.

>>8446827
The left right distinction breaks down if we look at situations radically different from our own. Conservatives are liberal in that they agree with the liberal project, they just disagree to the degree of how far to take the liberal project (another of MacIntyre's ideas). So once you go back before the emergence of liberalism there are no conservatives in the sense that we mean when we use the word. If we were to describe him in modern terms we still have to consider the world in which he lived. I guess you could call him a reactionary with his dislike of democracy and his Athenian citizenship.

[Anonymous No.8446942]

>>8446750
“Although I am an anarch, I am not anti-authoritarian. Quite the opposite: I need authority, although I do not
believe in it. My critical faculties are sharpened by the absence of the credibility that I ask for. As a historian, I
know what can be offered.” Pg. 67

“It is not that I as an anarch reject authority à tout prix. On the other contrary, I seek it, and that is precisely
why I reserve the right to examine it.” Pg. 246

“I mention my indifference because it illuminates the gap between positions. The anarchist, as the born foe of
authority, will be destroyed by it after damaging it more or less. The anarch, on the other hand, has appropriated
authority; he is sovereign. He therefore behaves as a neutral power vis-à-vis state and society. He may like, dislike,
or be indifferent to whatever occurs in them. That is what determines his conduct; he invests no emotional
values.” Pg. 249

All taken from Eumeswil. Junger was part of the Revolutionary Conservative movement in Germany, which couldn't have been farther away from the principles of anarchism

[Anonymous No.8446944]

>>8446894
Saying that Jesus was a good teacher is probably the most retarded position you can take from the New Testament. If Jesus wasn't who he claimed to be, he's either a complete lunatic or a very successful trickster. He constantly raved about the end times and preparing yourself for judgement, the sufferings of hellfire etc. The lifestyle he promoted is incompatible with modern existence and in many ways dangerous.

I don't think nobody who claims "Jesus is a good guy xD" has actually read the Gospels. A few cherrypicked verses that sound nice can't overshadow the core of his message as an apocalyptic messiah. If Jesus isn't God, it's completely pointless and patronizing to glorify him or turning him into a mascot. He wasn't fucking Socrates, going around the city bothering people and telling them how wrong they are, he was literally saying that he's the only access to God and without him you are doomed to eternal torment of suffering. Fuck this hippie appropriation bullshit.

[Anonymous No.8446949]

>>8446573
because literature is fiction

[Anonymous No.8446959]

>>8446944
Jesus wrote nothing. Everything is second hand at best regarding his thoughts/teachings. The entire New Testament was written by people with a clear agenda as far as getting people to wholly convert vs just treating God as just another god in Rome.

[Anonymous No.8446968]

>>8446665
this all day.

and they get a kick out of being ignorant scum because they know it frustrates people who disagree, but the main point of argument for the right today is "why wont the left listen to me", when all they do is rehash propaganda that's been fed to us for our entire life. so fucking sick of the internet

[Anonymous No.8446990]

>>8446959
That goes for a large number of prophets in the ancient world, it's nothing unique. The Gospels are the only relevant source for Jesus and inventing crazy conspiracy bullshit about him makes no sense. If he wasn't important for Christianity he would be a marginal figure among many prophetic truth-bringers of the era.
I just don't understand why people insist on a secular Christ, it's a total contradiction.

[Anonymous No.8447012]

>>8446603
Orwell was a political mess who couldn't reconcile his high Tory beliefs with his public image.

[Anonymous No.8447154]

>>8447012
He was a bleeding heart who wanted to help the colonized, but still kinda felt England was better.