Why do right-wing authors produce the best literature?

Why do right-wing authors produce the best literature?

>inb4 George Orwell or some shit

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarch_(sovereign_individual)
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/leo-tolstoy-on-anarchy
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Best philosophy and poetry too

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

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

this, left-cucks are embarrassing

>four posts
>three posters
hmmmmmm

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

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

I'm OP and

Can you count?

>tying the aesthetics of art to politics

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

>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

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

Yeah, that's what I meant.

a degree =! a complete best and worst system

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

/thread

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.

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

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

Oh shit, I forgot Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and Gogol.

Can rightists even compete?

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

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

Pretty sure he was a socialist

epic

Shaw, Steinbeck, and Orwell were total hacks.

Is anarchism considered part of the left-wing?

>of mice and men
>the work of a hack

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

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

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

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

*unsheathes katakana*

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

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?

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

dumb as shit post

Nothing personal kid

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.

>right wing lit analysis

>right
>anarchist

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

I also forgot Chesterton and Wells.

>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

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.

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

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

stop posting right now

Best philosophy as well

Based virtue ethics.

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

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

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

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

What is the degree of objective measurement?

7

What I like, obviously

Read Macintyre :^)
Virtue ethics is anti-capitalist

Literally who ?

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.

Pretty sure you haven't read the Brothers Karamazov

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

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

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

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

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

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/leo-tolstoy-on-anarchy

yeah

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

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

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

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"

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.

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.

“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

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.

because literature is fiction

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.

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

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.

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