Why doesn't Veeky Forums give right wing literature any respect?

get real pouty little man

cause preachy political texts are depressing.
i like political themes to be secondary, or to have some degree of subtlety and ambiguity.

You can so obviously tell he was bullied as a kid.

>right wing
>literature

Nice try.

There are lots of right-wingers that Veeky Forums jerks off all the time (Dostoevsky, Mishima, Eliot, Heidegger, Evola)

Richard Spencer is a fucking meme and shouldn't at all be consider relevant besides as a provocateur.

>nazis
>right-wing

>William Blake
>Heretical Gnostic
>Supported Libertine Revolutionaries
>"right wing"

Louis Ferdinand Celine
Houellebecq
Jack London
Carl Schmitt
Sam Francis
Francis Parker Yockey
Alfred Rosenberg
Arthur de Gobineau
Robert Ardrey
Gerald Lorentz

And W. B. Yeats?

Jack London? He was a socialist. That's why Martin Eden is so popular in Russia and so neglected in America.

>Pound's Cantos
>Eliot
>Dostoyevsky
>Bulgakov
>Mishima
>Mann
>Plato
>Hobbes
>Chesterton
How can lefties even compete?

Yes but there are right-wing ideals expressed in his work. He is popular among right-wing thinkers. I was turned on to London by Boyd Rice. Tom Metzger (leader of White Aryan Resistance) is also a huge fan.

Wallace Stevens and William Carlos Williams crushed Pound and Eliot. Right can't even hang.

ITT: /pol/tard fuckwits desperately try to claim any writer that wasn't a paid up revolutionary socialist

Giving litterature another purpose than to be for itself discredits your approach.

Celine was a straight up nazi, but a great writer too, we discuss his books here, not his ideas.

Bringing the subject this way makes the thread look like it was posted on pol, you are better than that.

And some that were!

>Jack London passionate advocate of unionization, socialism, and the rights of workers. He wrote several powerful works dealing with these topics, such as his dystopian novel The Iron Heel, his non-fiction exposé The People of the Abyss, and The War of the Classes

Shit sux.

I think OP was referring more to the social and ideological aspect of being right-wing. Right-wingers aren't inherently capitalist, and many are pro-worker.

>Shit! There are some elements of that obvious socialist explication that I can't deny/quite like.

Um... er... t-t-they must be right wing bits!

>Right-wingers aren't inherently capitalist,
Wrong

>and many are pro-worker.
True

The only good right wing author I know is Mishima.
most of these are very seious stretches.

Because "right" and "left" have changed meanings so many times since the beginnings of american politics that nobody knows what they mean anymore. They, like most "isms" exist only to disguise the philosophical pretenses of the speaker who has no idea how to contour his argument to the specificities of the subject matter.

He posted a pic of Richard Spencer who is literally NatSoc though.

American politics is probably not the best prism through which to separate left and right out, user. The Democrats are pretty right wing, comparatively speaking. Although, do you think some stormcuck /pol/tards might be socialists without realising it? That would be vey funny.

America was a country founded upon, liberal, republican, Enlightenment values. It's an inherently Left-wing country.

cos they're spooked af lmao

I don't know about that, user. I'd say the lefter the wing the more the tendency towards Marxist economic ideas and, from what I understand, the mood of the founding fathers was quite the opposite.

Are we talking about Junger, Mishima, Hamsun etc? Graham Greene, Endo, or Flannery O'Connor? Roth?

Heidegger or Schopenhauer?

They all get respect. I really am having a hard time understanding what you are talking about unless you are conflating fascist with conservative, in which case it is due to the fact that proto fascist literature is always engaging salutatory yarns of national bravery and adventure (hopefully from "yore"), whereas actual fascist literature is always propaganda trash written by committee and censor.

Why is Plato right wing ?
I haven't read all of his work but for example Crito seems more left wing than right wing to me, with his emphasis of respecting the rules of the City.

>left wing emphasizes respecting law and authority
?????????

>Crito seems more left wing than right wing to me, with his emphasis of respecting the rules of the City.
That sounds more right wing.

>why doesn't a predominantly liberal cucked board neglect to read patrician right-winged literature

Gee, I wonder why

>Why doesn't?
/pol/tard brainlet detected. Shoo!

Yeah I was thinking in terms of economics where the right wing wants a free market and the left wing wants more regulation.
I still don't see why Plato is right wing.

>I was thinking in terms of economics
>mentions Plato's social ideas not economic ones

>right wing
>literature

you and OP should get together and fuck, you have so much stupidity in common.

Why is Bulgakov right wing?
Nobody has read Naipaul (but they should) but Dostoevsky is one of the most respected authors.

>Kurt Vonnegut
>Hermann Hesse
Hahaha
Oh wow

I like hamsun and louise Ferdinand celine.

Why are the right always looking to feel hard done by and victimised?

Because the modern right are intellectual midgets that derive righteousness from the obstructions they face.

>Great literature tends, at scale, to lean left

In some ways, yes, but the definition of "left wing" has changed over time. For instance, the way that modern leftist has embraced mass immigration from third world nations? That would be inconceivable to most of these great leftist writers of the past. It's a very recent phenomenon. All of these leftist writers would probably have views that, today, would be seen as far-right in cultural/ethnic terms.

/thread

I could just as easily say the modern left derives righteousness from self-hatred and a borderline pathological out-group preference

Bollocks.
What is The Internationale?

Most of Veeky Forums are beta liberals who were raised by a single mother as an only child
>unfortunately even on Veeky Forums the topic of literature and philosophy are contaminated with leftism which would lead one to believe the two are inextricable at this point.

Read
Thomas Sowell
William F. Buckley
Ben Shapiro
Ann Coulter
Pat Buchanan

It's pretty similar actually. The more oppressed people are the more favorably they are looked on by most leftists. Watch the movie Get Out. The USA is the cultural leader of the world and we are intellectually bankrupt. People still read in this country but most is garbage and as we transition to a cybernetic society this will only get worse.

>I could just as easily say...
But you'd only be adding to the bollocks.

Its not fair to equate "right wing" purely with "neo-nazi" and yet it seems everyone on Veeky Forums does it.

Ann here
buy my books, losers.

Because the neo-nazis have hijacked right of centre politics. Take it up with the /pol/tards.

Autism

I'd rather shit in a bag, leave it open in the sun for a week, turn it into a smoothie and drink it. Fuck off, you spunk dribbling johnny.

...

The Liberal movement has two large branches - the Classical Liberals and the Progressive Liberals.
The American Democratic Party leans Progressive (or social) and the American Republican Party leans Classical (or individual).
Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Anarchism, Republicanism, Libertarianism, Objectivism - all firmly Liberal. The closest thing to a Right Wing movement in the West in the last century was Spanish Falangism (which was Monarchist) and some pro-monarchist movements in Liechtenstein.
*ALL* American politics and virtually all Western politics is an argument between Liberals where true 'Right Wing' ideas are so fringe as to be essentially absent

Is right wing literature unpopular now because literature bohemia is mostly leftie.
At least in Russia it's true. Russian modern writers are under huge influence of europeans. It's inexcusably for them to say things like "Russia for Russians", they make fun of this ideas.
Russian right wingers like Aleksandr Dugin are considered as freaks and became heroes of memes.

free market is about individual freedom
>That means it is by definition Liberal
>Thus the more laissez-faire your Capitalism the more Left Wing it is

>So that at the climax of the great occasion, as at the center of so many of the speeches, there was nothing. It was as if, in summation, the sentimentality, about religion and Americanism, had betrayed only an intellectual vacancy; as if the computer language of the convention had revealed the imaginative poverty of these political lives. It was “as if”—in spite of the invocations and benedictions (the last benediction to be spoken by Dr. Criswell)—”as if inspiration had ceased, as if no vast hope, no religion, no song of joy, no wisdom, no analogy, existed any more.”
-V.S. Naipaul
nybooks.com/articles/1984/10/25/among-the-republicans/

If you don't know who Naipaul is you can't call yourself a reactionary.

exiledonline.com/why-the-american-right-never-liked-v-s-naipaul/
>I now dread meeting Americans, especially their alleged intellectuals. Because here the intellect, too, is only a form of display; of all the chatter about problems (very, very remote if you live in an ‘apartment’ in Manhattan: something that appears to be got up by the press) you feel that there is really no concern, that there is only a competition in concern…The level of thought is so low that only extreme positions can be identified: Mary McCarthy, Mailer, Eldridge Cleaver and so on. Ideas have to be simple…The quandary is this. This country is the most powerful in the world; what happens here will affect the restructuring of the world. It is therefore of interest and should be studied. But how can one overcome one’s distaste? Why shouldn’t one just go away and ignore it?”

Naipaul
>Weak-minded; profligate; leeched off his wife for money for most of their marriage; whoremonger; intemperate; dishonorable; supporter of Communists and Socialists.
>Right Wing
Pick one

that guy looks like such a massive oaf faggot

not evem fucking /pol/ respects him

Another day in germany.

>discuss his books, not his ideas

WORK!
NOT
FUCKING
TEXT

poststructuralists kys

good post

Bulgakov was very critical of Stalin's USSR and was believed to have been a monarchist.

I agree with your sentiment but not your subject.

For instance, Hamsun is by all means a fascist, but Hunger is not a fascist work.

Junger was an old fashioned conservative, but his works after storm are extremely humanist.

Mishima clearly wanted a Divine Imperial Autocracy, but his works rotated around aesthetics and identity and loyalty, with his politics sometimes used as window dressing.

>Conrad
>right wing

This is entirely wrong though. Sturm was released in 23 and Jungers most extreme and nationalist work was done throughout the interwar years. He was anything BUT an old fashioned conservative, there is a reason he frequently put at the centre the so called Conservative Revolutionary Movement. Because he genuinely wanted a radical upheavel of German society, you only have to look at his contemporaries in his brother, Heidegger, Schmitt, Niekisch etc.

Mishima will forever have limited understanding in the west considering the vast majority of his cutural and political essays remain untranslated. However it is not a stretch to see him as an extension of the Japanese Romantic movement, his aesthetics are unapologetically concerned with finding an autentic japanese being, one frequently coupled with the beauty of death and liberatory violence

I always define his political reality in On the Marble Cliffs, where egalitarian traditionalism and humanity are esteemed.

He's not, stop being a pleb.

He would be correct

Blake, Vonnegut and Burkhardt are hardly right wing, and pretending Plato is either left or right is bullshit and you know it.

By that acount, I got into Celine through Raoul Vaneigem, Barthes was a fan as well, are you telling me Celine was a situationist homossexual then?

Yes, a cretin made that list, I do not understand why it is so popular.

A lot of the left, including Stalin - and even Lenin - contemporaries were criticizing them. Are you telling me Kropotkin was a monarchist as well, since he was critic of the USSR and literally a prince?

Because at this point, this kind of Veeky Forums right wing is all but a step away from admitting they can only cling to life by larping a alternate history (and reality)

>me gusta

get out pedro

Yet he still reserved scorn for the "sickley" Prussians of the old order in the book who come to the cliffs to request the brothers help. The mythic power of violence still appears in the final battle, although it ends on a pessimistic note Junger reaffirms his interwar concept of the individual via "The Worker", it was this work that influenced Evola's differentiated man and Riding the Tiger

But they can make a fucking massive chart that actually makes sense, why go with this?

Well Bulgakov was also intensely religious. Not too many socialists in USSR thought that was a problem

You two should get a room and fuck

or the anti-colonial movements of the post-war periods.

the only good right wing author i know is a dead one

>heh the world would be a better place if everybody just agreed with me

>right wing
>literature
Top meme lad

Plato is the most right-wing person to ever live.

Heidegger is not rightwing, he's just a fat disgusting coward with poor understanding of how language works. :D

How is the left respecting of the rules of the city when proletarian expropriation is still a good idea for commies?

How come there is so many idiots in this supposed well-read board who have no idea there are differences between being 'rightwing' and being, for instance, a fascist - and that there are differences between fascism and nazism?

This post is identity politics drivel and is one of the reasons people with talent have been driven out of right wing discourse.

And Submission by Houellebecq?