Can someone explain why the right has no serious literature ?

Can someone explain why the right has no serious literature ?

The right has plenty of great literature. Judging by your picture you're rather looking for some good edgy /pol/ teenager literature, which is absent for obvious reasons.

What serious literature has the left produced?

...

...

WHO CARES IF STEFAN MOLYNEUX PUT HIS DICK IN 4-YEAR OLDS HE'S FIGHTING OFF DISGUSTING LIBERAL MUSLAMMUNIST PC CULTURE

It takes a modicum of intelligence to write a good novel.

TFW you're to intelligent to win the presidency

Or the house,
or the senate
Or the majority of governorships.

Maybe Eliot or Pound. But if you are talking about American conservatives, it is because their world revolves around gay wedding cakes and prayer in school; their worldview is too narrow.

I imagine Tom Clancy is pretty conservative.

...

>enjoying Tom Clancy
stop being a russophobic cuck

Uh, what is Atlas Shrugged??

Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Twain, Wilde, Gorky, Brecht, Steinbeck, Orwell, Hemingway?

really bad

This is probably the reason OP. Noticed how spamming completely unrelated pictures is all that /pol/tards are capable of? Formulating anything coherent of their own making is way too difficult.

>Democrats
>Left wing

>all of humanity
>not serious literature

what does the left have? the communist manifesto? 50 other works on communism which has never worked in the history of ever?

>Dostoevsky
>Wrote a book about people starving from socialism(which became a true story btw)
>Leftist

Michel Houellebecq is quite a conservative man.

retard detected

Start with the greeks.

>left right dichotomy

Brainlets.

What are you talking about?

why would i read a fuckin' book when i could watch a youtuber?

How do you niggers deal with the fact that all the most acculturated and civilized states, with the best cities and the best universities – those states that totally drive America's progress by themselves – voted for the Democratic party?

>fake news

?

>everyone who's a left is a socialist
Kys /pol/tard

prove it faggit

>America's progress
'America's progress' is the progress of the Antichrist , though

“Progress”.

...

>Ironically greentexting me with the favorite word of every American

If you think the right has no serious literature, you probably know nothing about the right. Nietzsche, Spengler, Evola, Schmitt, Hoppe, Gentile, Sorel, and Land are just a few serious right-wing thinkers. This is coming from a leftist.

Oh, yes. Well, then…

“Progress”?

That's exactly what your brothers back home (who you should go back to) think. Besides, lefties can't simultaneously say nation-states need to die and their legacy destroyed and also play fucking patriot.

>Land
>serious right-wing thinker

why do the right get suckered in by memes?

Dante and Borges come to mind.

>the "left" is a singular, cohesive, unified ideological position.

all feminsts are the same too, right?

Memes have power, you know.

All of the literature of value is right wing.

Left wing literature has starved over a hundred million people and retards are still trying to recreate their fairy tale utopia like a cult.

>Memes have power.....over weak-willed digital natives.

FTFY

wtf

>cries /pol/ against anyone not from his safe space
>claims to be a unique special snowflake who isn't stupid like everyone else in his pond

hmm

>tfw no Gramsci

Without having read any of his works and only reading about his ideas indirectly, how is Nietzsche a right thinker? Doesnt his idea of making your own moral code and being independent go against nationalism and definition over family and race and massthinking it entails? I would argue that he is neither left nor right since both sides more often than not lay an emphasis on groups rather than focusing on the individual.

What's wrong?

plato

>literally wrote a book for republicans
>left wing

what?

Boy what?

> a /pol/tard unironically denigrated the idea of a "safespace" near me


shoo shoo back to your echochamber

The Orwell that fought with the Worker's Party of Marxist Unification during the Spanish Civil War?

Nietzsche was certainly not rightist. I think people make that claim because of his sister's modifications to his work after his death. He was also not a nihilist, you dumbasses.

He was very much anti-leftist and many of his views on aristocracy put him on the right group. His sister only touched The Will to Power, and you don't have to actually read that book in order to put Nietzsche in the right field.

Huh, thought so too but I wasnt sure since like I said I didnt read any of his works yet. That you replied instead of the poster who claimed that he was rightist speaks for itself.

>Uh, what is Atlas Shrugged??
A steaming pile of shit

>volume 1
>chapter 1
>first edition

Him being anti-leftist doesnt make him right though. As I understood it, like I said hes against both.

I wonder if you compared books written by left wing thinkers to each other, would you find more similarities than just theme such as language use amd metaphors? Do they have similar voices? Do they communicate similarly?

A similar analysis of right wing wroters would also be interesting.

He was elitist, yet he despised aristocracy.
His elitism is closer to Aristotle's elitism more than anything. He doesn't give a fuck about rich men and royal bloodlines, he's only interested in great men, wether they're historical, artistic or philosophical figures. It's not about power, money and lineage: it's about greatness.

There is really no modern right wing ideology that comes closer to his thought (which is natural, since it would alienate 99% of their voters).

Hmmm?

>Dostoevsky
>left

After saying something so idiotic its no surprise you have such shit taste to think the rest are any good.

anyway for OP Carlyle, Hamsun, Celine, Pound, Wyndham Lewis, Houllebecq, Larkin just to name a few utterly non-contentious ones.

literally the entire Western canon from Homer to Shakespeare prior to the 17th century.

The idea of greatness implies inequality ergo not left ergo right.

Because right means very little except not-left. And Nietzsche definitely was not left.

Shit authors

Most leftists do not believe in absolute egualitarianism, but still believe in certsin rights. Under communism there are still CEOs, but they would not have the right of exploiting people to buy themselves a sport car.

That said, I haven't implied that Nietzsche is leftist. I've only said that a Nietzschiean politic is not able of exploiting any kind of populism, nationalism, traditionalism and libertarianism.

He's not right wing nor left wing.

>Wrote a book about people starving from socialism(which became a true story btw)
Which book?

shit taste

>people interested in politics cannot simultaneously be interested in literature

the two are almost intrinsically tied

i think you are on the wrong site

how the hell is Dante right-wing?

>how the hell is a believer in classical monarchism right-wing

gee wiz I dunno karl

If anything Dante was a champion of the bourgeoisie, which is as left wing as it gets in the 14th century.
He believed in the necessity for church and empire, but he still wanted communities to be able to organize themselves. He wrote about it extensively in De Monarchia.

Because the Right is 95% nothing more than reactionism.

this desu

Holy shit, this is some next level mental gymnastics to tie some of the greatest works of their time to the ideology of a bunch of retards who praise a guy who never had a real job in his life and crashed economies worldwide.

This

Have you read De Monarchia? Have you read ANYTHING at all by Dante?

He was not a nobleman, he was a writer and minor politician who wanted basic democracy under the soft guidance of a Church and Empire. He was objectively a bourgeoise (in the historic sense) and wanted to relegate the 2 aforementioned institutions to a symbolic function.

He's not a commie, but that's still the least right-wing position you can take in a feudal system.

>Thinking the left is explicitly Communist.
>Thinking communism is the norm for the left, and not the extreme.
>Thinking Karl Marx didn't work
>Thinking Karl Marx was trying to create Stalin/Mao/etc.

>Thinking The Family Jams is explicitly The Donner Party
>Thinking The Donner Party is the norm for The Family Jams, and not the Extreme
>Thinking Charles Manson didn't work
>Thinking Charles Manson was trying to create The Donner Party

Left and right are terms relative to the politics of the times. Anyone who believes in a more hierarchical structure than what is acceptable at the time is a 'conservative' or to the right. In our times, if you aren't a socialist then you basically aren't a leftist. Please don't tell me you're one of those normie goons who goes on and on clarifying that he is a leftist as the term used to apply and qualifying all your statements as to make them seem 'common sense' and 'basically rational'.

The problem isn't Marx's intent, it's what he's wrought-- famine, death, tyranny. You can sit with your pipe and your turtleneck all day long and win scholarly debate, but it doesn't mean much if in the real world all your ideology creates is terrible.

>The problem isn't Marx's intent, it's what he's wrought
If you write books outlining your political ideology, and later on I implement your ideas poorly in such a way as to bring about famine, death, and tyranny, then the fault is on me, not on you.
>You can sit with your pipe and your turtleneck all day long
Leave the strawmen at home.
>and win scholarly debate
There's nothing to be won here.
>, but it doesn't mean much if in the real world all your ideology creates is terrible.
MY ideology? Did I ever say I was a communist? This entire conversation, if you care, began with a gentleman referring to Dante Alighieri's work as vaguely left-wing, and someone else taking offense at this, and insisting that to call Dante's work left wing is to compare it to Marx. Beyond that, a bunch of false (and tired) allegations were made, such as "Marx didn't work."
And yet none of these allegations and assumptions concern you so much as my criticisms of allegations and assumptions. Even now assumptions are being made. Including that I am attempting to debate, that I am trying to win something, that I am a communist, and that 21st century dictatorships were a direct result of someone who "didn't work" writing books.

The allegations are vacuous and rhetorical.
The assumptions are vacuous and rhetorical.
I have alleged nothing other than what has been said and can be directly referenced by scrolling up. It is not a debate.

If you are to bother making claims at all, make claims that aren't rhetorical and vacuous and presumptions and back them up. I like it better that way. It gives me a better idea of what you're thinking and why.

I'd say your defense of communism might work if there weren't the real world for it to contend against. If it did, or could have, we'd have already seen its wondrous effects in practice. Or, better yet, a smarter man than Marx would have come up with it while being a little more than a 19th century shitposter living in Engels mom's basement.

I am not defending Communism. It failed.

I am saying Marx's writings didn't cause 20th century Communism and it's horrible outcomes.

People chose to react to propaganda by believing in it. Marx himself describes this as being part of a political evolutionary process.


If I hand you a book saying "kill yourself" are you going to kill yourself after reading it? If you do is it my fault for writing it, or your fault for putting too much stock in it?

If you consistently apply your logic here, you would say that it is my fault for writing it, and not your fault for putting so much stock into it as to actually kill yourself?

>If I hand you a book saying "kill yourself" are you going to kill yourself after reading it?

No, because I'm not a communist.

I wish Marx did though, right at the end of the communist manifesto.

Okay, I've tried. You aren't willing to approach this conversation seriously. Have a nice day.

There's a great deal of them from the beginning to the mid 20th century, but the contemporary right doesn't have it in them.

>I am not defending Communism. It failed.

This is kind of like saying human flight has failed because DaVinci's funny corkscrew thing never actually flew.

Tell me how capitalism is much better. I simply want to own the product of my labor. Third world exploitation is shitty. Alienation from labor is dreadful.

at least youve admitted that you dont have a workable argument.

We have Moby Dick, thr greatest American novel. We have Blood Meridian, the second best american novel.


left
btfo

>and it's
>it's

Or that evolution is wrong because Darwin did not know about DNA sequencing.

Whoops.
Disregard my entire post, then.

>to each according to his ability to each according to his need

communist thought doesn't even try to deny people have differences, it just seeks to nulify these differences through social organization.

you are renting yourself.

form your own firm id you want to own the product of your meme labor

Source on Cormac being conservative? I have been trying to find any political statements he has made and can't pull anything up.

Or is this just an inductive claim based on the content of his fiction?

All those seats and Repubs can't even overturn the ACA