# How can the Right reclaim/produce culture?



## Meat Target (Jun 26, 2020)

I know a chunk of Righties shun entertainment as the Great Satan, and there's a reason for that. But politics is downstream from culture, and that's why the Left is winning. They have had a stranglehold on entertainment and academia since the 60's, whereas the Right has focused on maintaining public office.

How many Righties can you think of that have written an influential book or directed a hit movie in the last 50 years? Only ones I can come up with are maybe Robert Heinlein, Mel Gibson, JRR Tolkien, or Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Anyone in entertainment who isn't a complete tankie tends to get cancelled sooner or later.

One could also argue that conservative thinking tends to hinder one's creativity. Someone prove me wrong on this?


----------



## gobbogobb (Jun 26, 2020)

Lol Tolkien wrote lotr in the 70s ok.

Tell us what smoking crack feels like to a true conservative?


----------



## Kosher Dill (Jun 26, 2020)

Meat Target said:
			
		

> Robert Heinlein, Mel Gibson, JRR Tolkien


Any grouping that includes these three men is too broad to be useful.


----------



## Classist. (Jun 26, 2020)

Well the left is aware of how they themselves took power so I doubt the righties could retake whats already held by the lefties, that door is locked, barred, and welded. If right wingers are going to be able to have culture that's legitimately theirs again I think they would need to build separate parallel institutions of their own. It would be alot of work and they would be constantly attacked for it, but it's the only realistic way of accomplishing that I think.


----------



## Lone MacReady (Jun 26, 2020)

The left can't meme, this has been beneficial to the "right". Whatever that means these days.


----------



## Krokodil Overdose (Jun 26, 2020)

Giving anyone who materially supports antifa a helicopter ride. Sure, the chest-pounding jingoism of Pinochet, Putin, or Franco may be cringe (though you have to wonder: who told us that fervent patriotism was cringe, and why did they tell us that? It's not like that's always been the standard) but at least it's a positive identity. The American right shot itself in the head when it tried to adopt the personality of not having a personality. Nature abhors a vacuum, and if you don't provide something to believe in, someone else will.


----------



## Meat Target (Jun 26, 2020)

Lone MacReady said:


> The left can't meme, this has been beneficial to the "right". Whatever that means these days.


True, but memeing is useless when anyone to the Right of Lenin is being systematically shithammered from social media for "hate speech".


----------



## 5t3n0g0ph3r (Jun 26, 2020)

The cultural marxism is too entrenched in American institutions at this point, a fatal mistake if you ask me.
The marxists used the first amendment as a shield to spread their discord and seized key positions in society.
I'm afraid the time to reverse the damage done has long since passed.
Though his methods are demonized, Joe McCarthy was right.


----------



## Kosher Dill (Jun 26, 2020)

Krokodil Overdose said:


> though you have to wonder: who told us that fervent patriotism was cringe, and why did they tell us that?


Everyone who survived World War I, because they didn't want to see another World War I.


----------



## Furina (Jun 26, 2020)

Lone MacReady said:


> The left can't meme, this has been beneficial to the "right". Whatever that means these days.


Pretty much this. The Left took power because they had several things on their side. Some good arguments, a sense of humour, that touch of rebellion, and the drive to accomplish their goals. The conservatives, meanwhile, where more concerned with maintaining the status-quo. They only had territory to lose and have been on the back foot ever since. Some of that territory deserved to be lost, but they've been backpedalling so long now they hardly know anything else. Any one willing to stand and fight died several hills ago. 
What's happening now is that the Left has lost those key position they once held. They no longer have good arguments, or any arguments at all, in fact. They no longer have a sense of humour about things (especially their sacred cows), and they have become the very institutions they once fought against. They keep insisting they're the poor, downtrodden underdogs, because they need that narrative to continue because they loath the idea that they're no longer the "good guys". 

People say that the "right" is the new counter culture, and they're right to a certain extent. We're still in the very early days. Memes are the little jokes you share among friends, but the ideas are still there and if you keep pushing them they'll get into the minds of creatives. The right needs to expand aggressively into culture. There'll be a lot of resistance, of course. But it took the left decades to get to where they are. It'll take the right just as long. It stars here, though. Jokes, memes, underground communities, all laying the roots for bigger things down the line. Just don't give up. Demoralisation is the left's biggest weapon and they know it. Never give up. Never stop fighting. Defy them until your last dying breath.


----------



## Too Many Catgirls (Jun 26, 2020)

A good start would be to not attempt to lump culture and creativity into political forms. Jesus dude, go outside or something.


----------



## RichardMongler (Jun 26, 2020)

Meat Target post: 6793154 said:
			
		

> politics is downstream from culture


I'm not so sure I'm on board with this sentiment that's expressed in almost every dialogue about politics and culture. If you ask me, both influence each other greatly, so it's difficult to say if one is downstream from the other. 

Comedy is an important weapon for winning hearts and minds. It's to the right's fortune that the left can't meme, but outmeming the left doesn't translate to actualizing longterm political goals. Ultimately, it doesn't matter that the left can't meme if they can deplatform you tomorrow. I would say it's far more important to seize political power first and then culture will follow, but to entertain the idea of how the right can win the culture wars, here's my .02

@Classist. is on the right track that the unrestricted development of alternative media would greatly assist in disseminating entertainment, but it would have to be something novel and both appealing to a deep-seated instinct and affirming a timeless idea that invigorates those who listen. Despite what capitalists may tell you, culture isn't something you can conjure in a boardroom with spreadsheets concerning target audiences. Simply mirroring the mainstream media would result in media that amounts to little more than cheap imitations of products so many more people have invested their fandom towards.

Kudos to @Terrorist for pointing out Thomas777 to me because that guy has an arsenal of nuclear takes, especially with regards to the problems with White Nationalism. Keep in mind I'm an unironic fan of RAC, NSBM and Hatecore, but I know full well these do not have mass appeal and cater to a very microscopic demographic. Still, these comments are quite illuminating: 



			
				Thomas777 said:
			
		

> All I really know of [April Gaede, mother of Lamb and Lynx of Prussian Blue] is what I have seen in various documentaries that have featured her and her family...and what I have seen in these pieces is a woman who has some sort of cultic fixation on "pop-Nazism" and seems to think that superficial canards about 'blood and soil', swastika cattle brands, and Dungeons and Dragons-style viking themed Hatecore somehow equates to genuine 'culture'.
> 
> I suggest you check out the Spiegel interview with Sohlzenitsyn that Bardamu posted yesterday. Sohlzenitsyn makes the point that a 'national idea' is not something that can be ideologically cultivated by political parties and/or the public bureaucracy...nor can it be cultivated by self-styled ideologues who harbor palpable (yet amorphous and vague) resentment against the multicultural/managerial state. I think that a lot of these self-styled 'Nationalists' would be well served to meditate on Sohlzenitsyn's insights...but I'm not going to hold my breath.
> 
> ...


----------



## Made In China (Jun 26, 2020)

Start by having a better ideology.  Preferably one that's actually rooted in reality, not severely outdated, and not obsessed with some weird idea of American masculinity and rugged libertarianism.


----------



## Meat Pickle (Jun 26, 2020)

> Robert Heinlein


Heinlein's works include the criticism of glorification of military and somewhat induced the concept of a strong female lead.


> Mel Gibson


Gibson's movies' themes often include anti-authoritarianism and and the horrors of war. 


> J.R.R. Tolkien


Tolkien's works were popular with hippies of the time, because it was pro-nature and anti-war.


> Trey Parker and Matt Stone


The duo typically go after who is easier to make fun of at the time.  See their depiction of rednecks and Donald Trump.

The point is that none of these artists are truly pro-conservative. For every criticism of the left, they include a criticism and a half of the right.


----------



## crocodilian (Jun 26, 2020)

The first thing you can do is stop endlessly prostrating before left-wing pop culture. Jewish producers and their walking investments set the standard (typically something only they understand or can perform reliably) for what a form of entertainment or media "should be", and everyone else decides to adhere to it because that's what's "in." Why is it "in"? Because it's what the mainstream media is doing.

By trying to 'reclaim' something so hopelessly corrupt, you continue to play into the hands of the people I describe. There is nothing worth possessing in the realm of mass media; it is pozzed, right down to its earliest foundations. Stop consuming it, stop patronizing it; make your own music, art and whatever else, and do it without emulating a group of people you know are intrinsically debased.


----------



## Boris Blank's glass eye (Jun 26, 2020)

It can't, and I'm not sure it should either. Things were just as bad when "the Right" held institutional power in culture.
No-one turned into a satanist just by listening to heavy/black/death/doom metal, or turned into a mass shooter just by playing violent and gory vidya.

People need to learn to not give half a shit about the woke twitterati, to never apologize, and to never ever give ground to the clown world idea _du jour_. Mass media and mass entertainment is also garbage, committe-designed movies/music albums/whatever entirely lacking any creativity or originality should fail instead of making billions.


----------



## gobbogobb (Jun 26, 2020)

Running threadsummay.exe

please wait.....loading

Analysis complete, outputting results


----------



## crocodilian (Jun 26, 2020)

gobbogobb said:


> Running threadsummay.exe
> 
> please wait.....loading
> 
> ...



The irony of using an internet meme /pol/ invented to complain about the right-wing.


----------



## Crabbo (Jun 26, 2020)

It would require the right to be proactive instead of reactive.
The primary issue with politics is that while the left had historically been reactive, there is now a specific element of their culture focused on finding, and broadcasting things for their group to respond to.
The right has no such element, and doesn't respond even while facing consistent abuse from aggressive elements.

Tldr:
Gamers.
Rise up.


----------



## Meat Target (Jun 26, 2020)

crocodilian said:


> The irony of using an internet meme /pol/ invented to complain about the right-wing.
> 
> View attachment 1407907


----------



## gobbogobb (Jun 26, 2020)

So by this threads logic since the ‘left’ invented or at the least took image macros mainstream the right should give them up completely?


----------



## Meat Target (Jun 26, 2020)

Pickelhaube said:


> Heinlein's works include the criticism of glorification of military and somewhat induced the concept of a strong female lead.
> 
> Gibson's movies' themes often include anti-authoritarianism and and the horrors of war.
> 
> ...


Keyword "maybe".


----------



## Kosher Dill (Jun 26, 2020)

Meat Target said:


> Keyword "maybe".


Maybe you should have a clear idea of what you mean by "the right" then. What is it you value that's not being represented in the culture as you see it?

Or do you just want more people to read Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed?


----------



## Troonologist PhD (Jun 26, 2020)

I’m going to add to what everyone else has said without making using a thousand quotes. If the right is going to create its own original culture instead of imitating and reacting it/we should study what people who were actually good to get inspiration. Tolkien wanted to tell a timeless story that appeals to universal human values instead of a commentary on the times of the times or some trendy/“intellectual” academic bullshit. The goal of Team Silent, the makers of _Silent Hill_, was to create a masterpiece instead of a money maker. CS Lewis wrote _The Chronicles of Narnia_ and _The Space Trilogy_ with love whereas Pullman wrote _His Dark Materials_ with hate and it shows. _Murdoch Murdoch _isn’t in this category but it’s at its best when it’s doing fantasy stories instead of redpill autism and memes.



gobbogobb said:


> So by this threads logic since the ‘left’ invented or at the least took image macros mainstream the right should give them up completely?


The left cannot meme. They just copy memes the right creates. The left has no creativity, no heart, no morality, no honor, no “soul.” All they have is “privilege.”



Meat Target said:


> Keyword "maybe".


Those themes haven’t been exclusive to leftists since at least WW1. Leftists are outdated. 

This entirely up to your own beliefs, but I believe the reason why the right has been losing so badly is because the left has actually been fighting a spiritual war when the right thinks it’s a cultural war. All the communism and pseudo-Marxism, euphoric atheism, Islam, Satanism, glorifying immorality and evil in media, witchcraft, voodoo religions, Zionism etc. Even the Jacobins, the first leftists to gain power, made killing Christianity and replacing it with their Cult of “Reason” a priority.


----------



## Meat Target (Jun 26, 2020)

Kosher Dill said:


> What is it you value that's not being represented in the culture as you see it?



1. Entertainment that provides some respite from the 24-hour air raid siren of news, instead of being a glorified sermon on current events.

2. Minority/female/LGBT characters are fine, but making that their one and only characteristic does not a character make. It's worse than bad writing; it's not writing at all. it's checking a box and calling it a day.

Our protagonist has a vagina or increased melanin? Okay, cool, tell me more about them. Make me give a shit about them.

Note that this cuts both ways. I'm white and male, and would automatically pass on say, a game where the protagonist's only selling point is that he's voiced and mo-capped by Troy Baker.

3. Cut out the wish fulfillment and historical revisionism that downplays the hardships and even outright persecution of women and minorities in the name of "representation. You want me to feel white guilt? Don't show me Black Panther, Django Unchained, Birds of Prey, or Queer Black Women fighting for Germany in Battlefield 5. Show me Blood Meridian.


----------



## gobbogobb (Jun 26, 2020)

Yes memes did not exist pre 8ch



Faked just like the moon landing right?


----------



## Return of the Freaker (Jun 26, 2020)

gobbogobb said:


> Yes memes did not exist pre 8ch
> 
> View attachment 1408015
> Faked just like the moon landing right?


So then the question becomes what happened to the online left since the Bush years that basically gave them a mass lobotomy?


----------



## Krokodil Overdose (Jun 26, 2020)

Return of the Freaker said:


> So then the question becomes what happened to the online left since the Bush years that basically gave them a mass lobotomy?


Epicycles. They went from "racism is bad" to "racism is bad but only when it's done by white people but sometimes not even then because [bullshit bullshit bullshit]," and "no means no" to "no means no but you're not allowed to say no to someone from the LGBTQWERTY community because your failure to be attracted to them makes you complicit in [bullshit bullshit bullshit.]" Basically, they had won all their battles, but Permanent Revolution can't say "OK, good job team, last one out turn off the lights and lock the door." They had to keep finding more and more things to be outraged about, and since they'd painted themselves into a corner with the expressed ideal of universal tolerance, they had to start dreaming up ways around their own stated ideology. The result is what we see today, "a rats' nest of unprincipled exceptions to unexceptional principles."


----------



## 737 MAX Stan Account (Jun 26, 2020)

Stop consuming and start creating. Time you waste being a mopey blackpill dispenser is time that could be spent making your own art, your own music, your own stories, your own... whatever! It doesn’t matter where or how you start, all that matters is that you just start making shit you like.


----------



## Dwight Frye (Jun 26, 2020)

Wasn't Heinlein, Parker and Stone libertarians not conservatives? 

You are right about there being a lack of conservatives in entertainment. Dean Koontz is still writing, as is Orson Scott Card. Kelsey Grammar is a republican, Clint Eastwood is a right leaning libertarian. Aside from the ones you mentioned, those are the only big names still in the business that I know of.


----------



## Meat Target (Jun 26, 2020)

Meat Target said:


> 1. Entertainment that provides some respite from the 24-hour air raid siren of news, instead of being a glorified sermon on current events.
> 
> 2. Minority/female/LGBT characters are fine, but making that their one and only characteristic does not a character make. It's worse than bad writing; it's not writing at all. it's checking a box and calling it a day.
> 
> ...


 I guess to summarize: I don't hate wokeism in entertainment necessarily because I disagree with it. I hate it because it's shit. 

Hell, this isn't necessarily right-wing. Stephen King, a massive liberal with incurable TDS, recently said basically the same thing and got devoured by the Twitterati.


----------



## Megaroad 2012 (Jun 26, 2020)

Reclaim?  Grow up.


----------



## Troonologist PhD (Jun 26, 2020)

gobbogobb said:


> Yes memes did not exist pre 8ch
> 
> View attachment 1408015
> Faked just like the moon landing right?


Yeah I admit they can churn out macros like a factory. This is not a compliment. Also, try and stay in the present, sweatie.


----------



## gobbogobb (Jun 26, 2020)

Wtf do you think your wojack edits are retard?


----------



## CIA Nigger (Jun 26, 2020)

737 MAX Stan Account said:


> Stop consuming and start creating. Time you waste being a mopey blackpill dispenser is time that could be spent making your own art, your own music, your own stories, your own... whatever! It doesn’t matter where or how you start, all that matters is that you just start making shit you like.


This could go for any group that whines about not enough content being made for them, not even just this group. Being a blackpilled doomer on the internet only gets you no future, creating media does.

One trend I've noticed among internet content creators is how many smaller ones gave up creating content in favor of whining online about Trump/the issue of the month all day every day. That's a one way ticket to obscurity, after all having a tweet go viral and gaining 5 followers for the 2k retweets gets you nowhere.


----------



## Boris Blank's glass eye (Jun 26, 2020)

CIA Nigger said:


> This could go for any group that whines about not enough content being made for them, not even just this group. Being a blackpilled doomer on the internet only gets you no future, creating media does.
> 
> One trend I've noticed among internet content creators is how many smaller ones gave up creating content in favor of whining online about Trump/the issue of the month all day every day. That's a one way ticket to obscurity, after all having a tweet go viral and gaining 5 followers for the 2k retweets gets you nowhere.


Well shit, it isn't even limited to TDS or the past four years. Remember Phil Fish? Or Anthony Burch? What about the developers of Ooblets?


----------



## SIGSEGV (Jun 26, 2020)

gobbogobb said:


> Wtf do you think your wojack edits are retard?


Politicized bastardizations of an apolitical meme.


----------



## 5t3n0g0ph3r (Jun 26, 2020)

Autumnal Equinox said:


> Wasn't Heinlein, Parker and Stone libertarians not conservatives?
> 
> You are right about there being a lack of conservatives in entertainment. Dean Koontz is still writing, as is Orson Scott Card. Kelsey Grammar is a republican, Clint Eastwood is a right leaning libertarian. Aside from the ones you mentioned, those are the only big names still in the business that I know of.



There are more conservatives in the film industry, but they want to remain anonymous for the sake of their careers.
There is a reason why the Friends of Abe exists.


----------



## gobbogobb (Jun 26, 2020)

CIA Nigger said:


> This could go for any group that whines about not enough content being made for them, not even just this group. Being a blackpilled doomer on the internet only gets you no future, creating media does.
> 
> One trend I've noticed among internet content creators is how many smaller ones gave up creating content in favor of whining online about Trump/the issue of the month all day every day. That's a one way ticket to obscurity, after all having a tweet go viral and gaining 5 followers for the 2k retweets gets you nowhere.


This is a good post and applies to left and right.  So many wasted opportunities at the microphone every day.


----------



## mindlessobserver (Jun 26, 2020)

The Right can produce culture any time it wants  too, the issue is the means of mass production and distribution are controlled firmly by the Left. Even worse, a specific faction of  the Left that constitutes a dogmatic, if non-theistic religion. Not only will they not allow any cultural production that deviates from their orthodoxy, they will actively seek to destroy anyone that even tries to produce it within or without their organizations. Then they will seek to destroy the persons extended family too. And if allowed, kill them. We are not to THAT point yet, but we are pretty close. They are already enforcing the concept of blood guilt, and once you start doing that finding bodies in the street is not too far off.

What is most distressing however is I don't see any way to remedy this situation short of outright warfare, which, among other objectives, would be to drag the hollywood producer class, line them up along with college professors of subjects ending in studies, and killing them. Along with their students and institutional hangers on. You simply cannot appeal to the reason of a dogmatic religion. Maybe to individual members, because individuals can be talked too. But the collective, institutionalized religion that has taken over cultural power? I honestly dont see a way short of violence.

This is not to say I support this outcome. Perhaps over the next 40 years we can figure out a way to turn the ship without resorting o extreme measures. At this juncture though I am just not seeing it.

*edit* since apparently people are a tad confused about what I meant, what I am saying is the conservative culture could produce works, but they wont be permitted to be shown. For example, a right wing take on the current riots would cast the police as the good guys and Antifa as riotous hooligans. This is a take that would never be accepted for a film or tv episode. More importantly however anyone who tried to make it anyway would have their lives, and their families lives destroyed. Because the left wing is more then happy to not only make no active effort to assist in creating counter narrative culture, they are also quick to use force to prevent anyone from doing it either, even if they wanted too.

So unless you are willing to use force back, there really is no allowance for dissenting cultural views in the mainstream outside talk radio and some obscure print publications.


----------



## gobbogobb (Jun 26, 2020)

mindlessobserver said:


> The Right can produce culture any time it wants  too, the issue is the means of mass production and distribution are controlled firmly by the Left. Even worse, a specific faction of  the Left that constitutes a dogmatic, if non-theistic religion. Not only will they not allow any cultural production that deviates from their orthodoxy, they will actively seek to destroy anyone that even tries to produce it within or without their organizations. Then they will seek to destroy the persons extended family too. And if allowed, kill them. We are not to THAT point yet, but we are pretty close. They are already enforcing the concept of blood guilt, and once you start doing that finding bodies in the street is not too far off.
> 
> What is most distressing however is I don't see any way to remedy this situation short of outright warfare, which, among other objectives, would be to drag the hollywood producer class, line them up along with college professors of subjects ending in studies, and killing them. Along with their students and institutional hangers on. You simply cannot appeal to the reason of a dogmatic religion. Maybe to individual members, because individuals can be talked too. But the collective, institutionalized religion that has taken over cultural power? I honestly dont see a way short of violence.
> 
> ...


So you’re saying the right should seize the means of production from their oppressors?


----------



## Syaoran Li (Jun 26, 2020)

5t3n0g0ph3r said:


> There are more conservatives in the film industry, but they want to remain anonymous for the sake of their careers.
> There is a reason why the Friends of Abe exists.



This is true, although most of the conservatives in the film industry tend to be more along the lines of libertarians than traditionalist faggots (barring a few obvious exceptions like Mel Gibson, Kirk Cameron, Kevin Sorbo, and Steve Baldwin) or White Nationalists (the only exceptions I can think of are Walt Disney and maybe Mel Gibson)

Most of your open conservatives and right-wingers tend to be either guys whose careers were already crashing and burning (Kevin Sorbo, Steven Baldwin), are fairly small-time outside of a few extremely iconic roles (Adam Baldwin, Corey Feldman, Randy Quaid), or they've made enough "Fuck You!" money and paid their dues in the business that they can more or less be openly right-wing without much fear of repercussions (Mel Gibson, Clint Eastwood, John Milius)

There's also the fact that some of the biggest Golden Age Hollywood icons were extremely right-wing such as John Wayne (staunch 1950's conservative), John Ford (ditto), and Walt Disney (literal crypto-fascist and eugenicist)

It's only very recently that they've tried to memory hole John Wayne, while Walt Disney has been more or less sanitized and everyone tries to deny he was ever far-right to begin with. Wikipedia even lists him as an "anti-fascist" despite his WWII cartoons being more or less required by the government as part of the war effort and pointing out his donation to B'nai B'rith in 1955, which I honestly suspect was Walt trying to more or less give hush money to silence anyone calling him out, 

I'd say the extensive effort to sanitize Walt Disney's image is partly because modern Disney is extremely woke even by Hollywood standards and because a lot of their power is in the brand and legacy Walt Disney founded, along with the warm squeaky-clean image he presented in public, which was nothing like how he was in private.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 26, 2020)

When the right manages to get terms as short as 13/52 banned, despite the ban itself admitting the truth of what that figure stands for, then you know that the right is winning culture war, even without the institutions.


----------



## TheProdigalStunna (Jun 26, 2020)

As someone who has flirted with "right-wing" beliefs in the past (and still has a few conservative impulses), and a fan of the arts, the reason there are no great right-wing artists or entertainers today is because:

1. "Right-wing" isn't a coherent ideology or a set of beliefs.  As a lot of other people pointed out, the four people you named have vastly different ideas.
2. What constitute right-wing thought today, especially in America, is not conducive to artistic value.

More on #2.  "Right-wing" today means defending Liberalism, and Neoliberalism in particular.  Economic Liberalism is largely based on accumulation and expansion, not the search for truth and beauty that is the basis the arts.  The thought of someone like Ben Shapiro or Dennis Prager is largely about assuring you that Economic Liberalism isn't as bad as you think it is, and those that attack it are the problem.  Great political art usually comes out of the desire that the paradigm we are living under needs to change, whether that change goes forward or backwards.  Certainly, there were great right-wing artists of the past (arguably T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, Dostoevsky, Balzac), but they weren't telling you how great capitalism is and how those that dislike it are the problem.  Rather, they were illiberal and looked either to the pre-modern past or a revolutionary future as an antidote to the present conditions.  No one wants to read a book or watch a movie telling you how great things are.  That's how you get shit like _Atlas Shrugged_.  As it currently stands, the Right has no coherent counter to liberalism, and even when it gets market-critical it tends to be so in a rather toothless way.  The Left will beat them to that every time.

MDE: World Peace was kino, though.


----------



## Unassuming Local Guy (Jun 26, 2020)

TheProdigalStunna said:


> What constitute right-wing thought today, especially in America, is not conducive to artistic value.


Only if your definition of "artistic value" is hyper-specific to the point where it excludes everything except talk shows and propaganda disguised as entertainment.  Tons of right wing people want to, and do, produce art.  They do it mostly apolitically, but they still do it.  The same holds for centrists, the apolitical, the highly religious.  Almost every microcosm of society values art, but they don't all agree what art "is".

The only real difference is that if you want to be part of the circle of coastal cronyism that abuses its power and connections to make it so the only thing you see comes from the circle itself, you have to be left wing.  The objective garbage pumped out by the entertainment industry is in no way art, but it's what you see because it's what you're allowed to see.

Not to mention if you slipped up and disagreed that communism is the bombunnism, you'd be kicked out of any art school in the country and blacklisted from the industry forever.  Why make a living doing something that can be taken away at any moment because you accidentally said what you believe?

Back to the question at hand, the answer is that since the modern, incorrect definition of "culture" explicitly excludes anyone who doesn't think orange man is bad, the right will never produce "culture".  It's like asking how we can solve world hunger without using food to do it.  Stop falling for the modern grift that is the entertainment industry and start appreciating things like master craftsmen, innovators, and philosophers.  You know, things that humanity considered "culture" for the period between the beginning of recorded history and the 1960s.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Jun 26, 2020)

Just my first thoughts in response to reading this.

1. "Culture" has never been in the hands of the "right". The so called "creatives" at all points of Western Civilization have all been what we would now label as left wing inclined. There have been ages where the established status quo, or the right, has been directing them but the image of the artist as a hedonistic sodomite who hates authority is far, far from novel. Perhaps there is some truth in that conservatism does not readily enable creativity, but it's not a new hurdle.

2. The right does have a culture, but it's one that no longer speaks to the masses. There was an age where Christianity for example did speak to the masses; the elite-restricted Imperial Pagan Cult was obsessed with the procedure, formality and correct practice (I'm not making any comparison here) whereas Christianity spoke to all levels of society in a new way never previously anticipated (and of course, violently when the sweet words failed).

The right still has a culture today, but it's not one that speaks to the masses. The majority of the western public still think politicians like Le Pen, Ted Cruz etc are insane and that the alt-right is an incel huddle of NEETS. They have no figures that speak to the feeling or sentiment of the age.

Just to pick out some figures typically labeled as "right"....Tommy Robinson for instance says what a lot of people are thinking, but lacks the education and rhetorical skills to sell his beliefs. Someone like Reese-Mogg has all of the education and rhetorical ability, but nobody will listen to him because he's totally unrelatable to anyone.

This goes for almost all western politicians actually. Japanese politicians like Shinzo Abe have always done well because they are in some ways an idol; they underplay their wealthy background and sell the image of the devoted student, then salaryman who made it big. The ubermench who is the model of a man whom the average person is, but also what they aspire to be.

We have nobody like this in Europe or the US. The closest today but no longer (more how she got into power) is probably, bizarrely, Angela Merkel. Daughter of a Lutheran minister and a teacher who climbed the ranks of Christian socialist unions espousing the then fairly common mild liberal and very German Christianity is a very intelligent and skilled scientist in her own right (she's an established expert in Chemistry and Quantum Physics) and who prior to her later career was spitting out fairly middle of the road and well-received centrist opinions.

The right needs to evolve. The left has become the new status quo, and the right needs to create something chaotic, something rebellious that speaks to the discontent in the soul of the average man as did the center left so long ago.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Jun 26, 2020)

I don't really have a reply for the thread in general, but I do find it kind of ironic that Hollywood pretty much stopped making mainstream unironic pro-war films around the time Obama started droning brown people and the Dems decided that perpetual war in the ME is actually pretty great


----------



## Secret Asshole (Jun 26, 2020)

What you're talking about is more artistic freedom and the right to create without constraints. I don't want to replace progressive propaganda with conservative propaganda. The answer to this: Profitability. Once the profitability of left wing media begins to crater, its up to creatives to capitalize on it. Of course, this relies on billion dollar companies being put in financial danger, so I couldn't tell you how long its going to take.


----------



## Johan Schmidt (Jun 26, 2020)

Fagatron said:


> Just to pick out some figures typically labeled as "right"....Tommy Robinson for instance says what a lot of people are thinking, but lacks the education and rhetorical skills to sell his beliefs. Someone like Reese-Mogg has all of the education and rhetorical ability, but nobody will listen to him because he's totally unrelatable to anyone.


Tommy's really not that 'right' wing honestly. I'd consider him a pretty centrist/politically inactive, and mainly focused on the Counter Jihad. 

A good right wing figure was Bowden (RIP) who was articulate, funny and a great speaker. The BNP rolled with his ideas for ages, and scored half a million votes in 2010, which was a meteoric shoot up. 

Mark Collet is sort of trying for that mix of 'relatable yet educated' thing that a good politician needs. But I really doubt he can pull it off.


----------



## The Nameless One (Jun 27, 2020)

Crabbo said:


> It would require the right to be proactive instead of reactive.
> The primary issue with politics is that while the left had historically been reactive, there is now a specific element of their culture focused on finding, and broadcasting things for their group to respond to.
> The right has no such element, and doesn't respond even while facing consistent abuse from aggressive elements.
> 
> ...


This is a good point. The right wing is (or seems to be) smaller than the left wing + left-leaning middle, and even among the right wing, a large percentage of those are of the vacuous, vaguely American-Exceptionalism types who can't really give a defense of the American system, they can just complain when it gets torn down. When a statue of an American historical figure (who also may have been a racist) gets torn down, their defense is, "Well, this statue's been up for such a long time, but maybe we could put up a plaque explaining that he had some good qualities and some bad qualities that are totally odious to today's standards and that I completely disavow, and if you want to tear the statue down, you have to do it LEGALLY" instead of working in a framework that allows them to defiantly reject the issue as a problem altogether: "We recognize all of the great figures who had a hand in building the history of this country, and none of you who want to tear down this man's statue are ever going to do anything nearly as significant as what he accomplished, no matter your opinion of his ideas or actions that are totally tangential to his contributions that we wish to recognize. Let's create additional statues so that future generations can see the progress of our country in its totality."



mindlessobserver said:


> The Right can produce culture any time it wants  too, the issue is the means of mass production and distribution are controlled firmly by the Left. Even worse, a specific faction of  the Left that constitutes a dogmatic, if non-theistic religion. Not only will they not allow any cultural production that deviates from their orthodoxy, they will actively seek to destroy anyone that even tries to produce it within or without their organizations. Then they will seek to destroy the persons extended family too. And if allowed, kill them. We are not to THAT point yet, but we are pretty close. They are already enforcing the concept of blood guilt, and once you start doing that finding bodies in the street is not too far off.


I think this is a big part of the problem. It's funny that, in Robin DiAngelo's "White Fragility" anti-racism textbook, she uses as evidence that our society is run by White Supremacy the fact that the "people who determine which books we read" are 100% white, but if you actually tried to publish a book that was arguably pro-white, it wouldn't go anywhere. Try to publish a fantasy novel that inspires the imagination of the European-descended people today, and it'd get thrown back by the publish for being "too white, too male, not enough disabled persons representation," whatever. Or, you can publish a mildly pro-Conservative work of nonfiction, but only if it's yet another boring take on "campus culture warriors" or complaining about how you got canceled, and it will sell 2,000 copies that never get read. 

This points to the idea that I've seen tossed around a lot, which is that we need "parallel institutions" to allow right-wing thought and creative expression to actually have a platform, or for students to go through college without having to make diversity pledges or give their personal pronouns. But you need capital for that and a concentrated number of people to get it going, and the people interested are spread all over, and there just isn't the capital to get it started. Progressivism has been entrenched in mass culture (where the capital is) for so long, and the corporate monopolists are either hard-left (socially, not economically) themselves, or they're centrist/apolitical but know which way the wind is blowing. Leftists will celebrate the CEO of Goldman Sachs making a boilerplate announcement about Diversity & Inclusion but will demand that some wagie get fired from his job for expressing a heterodox opinion publicly.



TheProdigalStunna said:


> As someone who has flirted with "right-wing" beliefs in the past (and still has a few conservative impulses), and a fan of the arts, the reason there are no great right-wing artists or entertainers today is because:
> 
> 1. "Right-wing" isn't a coherent ideology or a set of beliefs.  As a lot of other people pointed out, the four people you named have vastly different ideas.
> 2. What constitute right-wing thought today, especially in America, is not conducive to artistic value.
> ...


I agree with this. Spiritually right-wing art has nothing to do with the Republican Party, or Reaganomics, or Ben Shapiro in a suit talking about "facts and logic." A lot of mainstream Republicans would be scared of right-wing art because they are spiritually vacuous and aren't really intellectually or philosophically Conservative, they were just brought up to favor the right-leaning side of American politics during the 80s-2000s, during which time "conservative" meant "Low taxes, poverty is your own fault, count yourself lucky that you have the opportunity to work for a multinational conglomerate that displaced all of your local business." Real "right-wing art" would come out of the movement that I think has been growing over recent years but is mostly relegated today to esoteric artists/thinkers on Twitter with absolutely no reach beyond that. Part of the problem is that the crowd is so small and that they spend so much time tearing each other apart instead of seeing themselves as a cluster of thought and art that is opposed to a much larger opposing force.

Some examples of arguably right-wing contemporary art:
-Heavy metal (death metal, folk metal; art that is focused on the aggressive aspects of human psyche or on celebrating national heritage)
-Films like Interstellar, which is set in a dystopian managerial world where they deny past achievements like spaceflight and try to keep them myopically focused on immediate problems: a lot of left-wing thought today is captured by moralistically shaming people who dare to think about the long-term human achievements like space flight because it's been historically non-inclusive, or we need to give all that money as reparations to black people, or space colonization is icky because it reminds them of the Colonial Era, etc.


----------



## TitanWest (Jun 27, 2020)

TheProdigalStunna said:


> As someone who has flirted with "right-wing" beliefs in the past (and still has a few conservative impulses), and a fan of the arts, the reason there are no great right-wing artists or entertainers today is because:
> 
> 1. "Right-wing" isn't a coherent ideology or a set of beliefs.  As a lot of other people pointed out, the four people you named have vastly different ideas.
> 2. What constitute right-wing thought today, especially in America, is not conducive to artistic value.
> ...



I was thinking something along these lines. Conservatism can't produce art. Conservatives are just Liberals 20 years ago. They've conserved nothing. Why? Because they're always acting Reactionary towards The Left. The Leftists move the ball forward and conservatives scream "REEEE NO PUT IT BACK!". The Left then moves the ball even MORE forward and Conservatives just keep screaming a reacting to try in vain to push things back to the former status quo.

The Conservatives also try to argue with The Left from The Left's own frame which is why they always lose. The Left says: "Government programs can help Black people!" while Conservatives say: "No, the Free Market helps Black people!". They're unable to articulate a pro-white message less they be cancelled by their Jewish Conservative donors. This is why Conservative media is so cringe. It's just a bunch of White Boomers desperately trying to be loved by Black people.

Thirdly, Conservatives don't live in reality. They live inside of a bunch of fake and gay dialectics. Conservatism vs. Liberalism. Collectivism vs. Individualism. "Free" Market vs. Socialism. All of those words are just buzzwords that distract us from reality. The reality is that we need to have solidarity with our ethnos just like all other groups if we want to survive and prosper. All of the fake dialectics mentioned above won't take our people forward. They're just retarded memes keeping us stuck in false realities.

If the Right wants to create culture then it needs to drop Reactionary and Neoliberal tendencies and become Metamodern. We need to envision something new rather than being stuck in the past. We need to adopt the Third Position. People like Keith Woods are the only ones achieving this. If he had the funding that Charlie Kirk had we'd have a mass movement actively throwing back The Left by now. We'll get there eventually though. People are hungry for something new.



Spoiler: Keith Woods






			https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHzdVHt9y10
		










						Responding To Criticisms Of Third Position w. Cultured Thug
					

Subscribe to Continuum: https://gumroad.com/l/continuum Cultured Thug's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFVf_ACP5I8VF5VsmSDQ8tQ To support ...




					www.youtube.com
				












						Why Metamodernism is the Philosophy of the Alt-Right
					

Support me on Patreon here https://www.patreon.com/keithwoods Or buy me a coffee here https://ko-fi.com/keithwoods




					www.youtube.com


----------



## Jarolleon (Jun 29, 2020)

Pickelhaube said:


> Heinlein's works include the criticism of glorification of military and somewhat induced the concept of a strong female lead.
> 
> Gibson's movies' themes often include anti-authoritarianism and and the horrors of war.
> 
> ...


So "conservative" is "Caricature of a Bush Neocon drawn by a George Carlin superfan"?


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 29, 2020)

Unassuming Local Guy said:


> Only if your definition of "artistic value" is hyper-specific to the point where it excludes everything except talk shows and propaganda disguised as entertainment.  Tons of right wing people want to, and do, produce art.  They do it mostly apolitically, but they still do it.  The same holds for centrists, the apolitical, the highly religious.  Almost every microcosm of society values art, but they don't all agree what art "is".
> 
> The only real difference is that if you want to be part of the circle of coastal cronyism that abuses its power and connections to make it so the only thing you see comes from the circle itself, you have to be left wing.  The objective garbage pumped out by the entertainment industry is in no way art, but it's what you see because it's what you're allowed to see.
> 
> ...


But I want learned men like bill nye tell me what to do with my sex junk


----------



## Crabbo (Jun 29, 2020)

Jarolleon said:


> So "conservative" is "Caricature of a Bush Neocon drawn by a George Carlin superfan"?



The fact that such a caricature still exists does demonstrate that the right as a whole needs to evolve to keep up with current climate.

Granted if the right only define their selves in opposition to the left, then it wont go well.
The left has an amazing grasp on how to manipulate language, and has been honing that edge for several decades.
Simply calling themselves 'progressive' has positive connotaions, and this isnt to mention the hundreds of other words that sound nice, but cover more aggressive or manipulative thoughts.


----------



## Johan Schmidt (Jun 29, 2020)

The 'right' has produced culture, and art. Othello, King Lear, Shakespeare, the works of the greeks. All of these and more play on and use the 'right wing'. It's modern leftism that cannot produce any real art or culture without falling into the rights playbook. 

Horror and gore is a perfect example of this. The structure of Lear shows why horror isn't something that leaves you disturbed, or traumatised. When a mans eyes were ripped out and crushed it wasn't just for the sake of the gore; or for the sake of suffering. It has the best impact when it is done without props (as was intended) in fact; because it's not the eyes being pulled out that was the point, it was the resolution of the mans story arc and his redemption that was the 'horror' his fall and the suffering that he underwent was what had the impact. People don't enjoy it because of the gore - if you want gore you can go down the local butchers and shove your hand in the blood and viscera there - but the gore underscored the spiritual and naturalistic journey that the character took. 

Leftists cannot and do not think it and create it that way; when they adapt Lear they always show the gore off as much as possible, with the red splattering and the viscera; but that never changes the nature of the story and why it was important. You can strip away the gore the viscera; but the themes will remain timeless because the themes are natural amongst people. Tradionalism, tribalism, honour, hierarchy and spirituality. These are things that the real right stand for; and these are the things that leftists have to dip into to create lasting culture, and a lasting impact. It's these things that they cannot strip out of great works without destroying them. So instead they hyper focus on the materialist aspects of the works when they adapt them and when they create them. 

As cringe as the below image is: 




The themes of that are instantly recognizable, and for many people instantly appealing. It's why the 'woman in a wheatfield' shit is also appealing despite being cringe. 

When the left makes 'art' they either 'deconstruct' the art of the right, or they use the themes of the right wrapped up in the skin of leftist veneer.


----------



## Kosher Dill (Jun 29, 2020)

Johan Schmidt said:


> The 'right' has produced culture, and art. Othello, King Lear, Shakespeare


Since when was Shakespeare "the right"? In his day, thespians were recognized as the immoral lowlifes that they were and are. In fact, 26 years after Shakespeare's death "the right" finally banned theater altogether in England due to its degeneracy.

Projecting modern notions of left and right back onto historical figures is inherently ridiculous, but I don't think there's any strong link between the creation of "the classics" and cultural conservatism, elitism, etc.


----------



## Johan Schmidt (Jun 29, 2020)

Kosher Dill said:


> Since when was Shakespeare "the right"? In his day, thespians were recognized as the immoral lowlifes that they were and are. In fact, 26 years after Shakespeare's death "the right" finally banned theater altogether in England due to its degeneracy.
> 
> Projecting modern notions of left and right back onto historical figures is inherently ridiculous, but I don't think there's any strong link between the creation of "the classics" and cultural conservatism, elitism, etc.


Because the themes of his work make him so. Sure back in his day actors were trash (and I still think they are but that's neither her nor there); but what his material was about on a fundamental level is right wing now. Projecting it back to the people is wrong, but the material is not. Rightist politics is at it's core a politics of the natural. Heritage, hierarchy and structure; with all that that entails. The great works of the past all play into those themes.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jul 1, 2020)

Johan Schmidt said:


> Because the themes of his work make him so. Sure back in his day actors were trash (and I still think they are but that's neither her nor there); but what his material was about on a fundamental level is right wing now. Projecting it back to the people is wrong, but the material is not. *Rightist politics is at it's core a politics of the natural*. Heritage, hierarchy and structure; with all that that entails. The great works of the past all play into those themes.


Then why has every significant "Rightist" group of the past century been thoroughly Modern?  Fascism, National Socialism, all shades of Communism but especially Stalinism and Maoism: all had roots in the heart of the Enlightenment.  The closest movement that I can think of that approached a true synthesis of modernist and traditional ideas was Falangism (and I suspect that many members of the alt-right would see them as "cucked", given that they acknowledged races as being distinct but followed civic nationalism and believed that race-mixing between Spaniards and other ethnicities produced a "Hispanic supercaste" with the positive traits of both parents' races).


----------



## Johan Schmidt (Jul 1, 2020)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Then why has every significant "Rightist" group of the past century been thoroughly Modern?  Fascism, National Socialism, all shades of Communism but especially Stalinism and Maoism: all had roots in the heart of the Enlightenment.  The closest movement that I can think of that approached a true synthesis of modernist and traditional ideas was Falangism (and I suspect that many members of the alt-right would see them as "cucked", given that they acknowledged races as being distinct but followed civic nationalism and believed that race-mixing between Spaniards and other ethnicities produced a "Hispanic supercaste" with the positive traits of both parents' races).


Communism and Stalinism and Maoism are not rightists. They actively deny the value of the natural hierarchy. National socialism doesn't; it actively went out of its way to try and instill a love of the national heritage pre national socialism, and glorification of the natural hierarchies. I haven't read much on Falangism so I honestly cannot comment on that.


----------



## Pointless Pedant (Jul 1, 2020)

What do people here consider to be "culture"? It's fairly undisputed that right wing memes are generally funnier than left wing ones. Is the internet a major part of culture? I would say so. Perhaps the creative efforts of the right are going more into memes rather than Hollywood films. If the right was really culturally dead then humour sites like this wouldn't exist.

What constitutes "left" and "right" is highly debatable anyway. Paddy Chayefsky was a liberal but he hated the USSR and Network spends much of its runtime attacking the mainstream media, black communists of the sort who made CHAZ, and Arabs. I can't imagine today's loony-left ever making a film where TV networks make a programme called "The Mao Zedong Hour" for ratings and communists go along with it.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jul 1, 2020)

Johan Schmidt said:


> Communism and Stalinism and Maoism are not rightists. They actively deny the value of the natural hierarchy. National socialism doesn't; it actively went out of its way to try and instill a love of the national heritage pre national socialism, and glorification of the natural hierarchies. I haven't read much on Falangism so I honestly cannot comment on that.


1. You defined Rightist thought as focused on "heritage, hierarchy, and structure".  The Chinese and Russians were, indeed, not big fans of their cultural heritage, but they were _extremely_ hierarchical and structured. There are other reasons why I would categorize them as rightists as opposed to leftists (Trotsky was a Leftist, for example, because he believed that states themselves were invalid, unlike Stalin) but quibbling over that is pointless; my point is that the ideologies most "reactionary" thinkers uphold as "traditional" are actually based entirely in Modernity. So moving on to the group you fully yield as being Rightist:
2. The Nazi Party was not "traditional" by any sense of the word: in fact, they trampled all over the traditional values of the Germanic peoples, beginning with the idea of the people of Germany being one united kind: the Aryan race.  The concept of a pan-Germanic identity, instead of the residents of individual kingdoms identifying themselves as members of those regions, was born out of the Prussian desire to become a great power in Europe- a goal they sought to accomplish by uniting the German-speaking states of the Confederation (which at the time was a loose political and trade alliance) into a single entity.  Seeking to create a stronger bond than the loose alliance of the Confederation or the HRE without the resentment of a client state, von Bismark emphasized the "common history" of the Germanic peoples on the stage of Europe, elevating pagan myths and using universal suffrage and the formenting of resentment against the Catholic church (the _traditional_ faith of Germany at the time) to forge the German state out of a couple dozen small states.  Nazi concepts of racial categories were not _traditional_ in the slightest, neither in how they carved up ethnicities, nor in their idea that the most "inferior" races should be eliminated.  Traditional Germanic ideas of ethnicity showed little concern for skin tone and a lot more concern for religious sects and wars, and there was no belief that other ethnicities should be destroyed: conquered and converted, yes- but not genocided.
Nazi policies such as _Lebenborn_ also flew in the face of the "natural hierarchy" of the family you so laud: women being paid to have sex out of wedlock with "Aryan" men and having their children taken and raised by other families, the kidnapping of "racially-pure" children from other countries to be raised in group homes, and mandatory abortions for the disfigured all fly in the face of _traditional_ views of the family, the State's role in the family, and the sanctity of life.  Even the Nazi concept of low-brow and avant-garde "degenerate art" as an inherent moral hazard requiring total annihilation traces back to the Jewish critic Max Nordau's work _Degeneration_: a modernist philosophical tract.
The Nazis draped themselves in the colors of tradition and reaction, but had no _real_ interest in the traditions of Germany, as they were in direct conflict with Nazi goals.  Instead, their ideas were rooted firmly in Modernist thought, Hegelian triadic dialectic conflict, and Futurist social theory.
3. The Falangists sought to take the traditional Spanish monarchy and Catholic concepts and render them viable in the modern era through synthesis with their reaction (Enlightenment thought), to varying degrees of success.  They were national syndicalists and civic nationalists who imposed Catholicism as the state religion but didn't care about racial purity or "The Jewish Question".


----------



## Johan Schmidt (Jul 1, 2020)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> 1. You defined Rightist thought as focused on "heritage, hierarchy, and structure".  The Chinese and Russians were, indeed, not big fans of their cultural heritage, but they were _extremely_ hierarchical and structured. There are other reasons why I would categorize them as rightists as opposed to leftists (Trotsky was a Leftist, for example, because he believed that states themselves were invalid, unlike Stalin) but quibbling over that is pointless; my point is that the ideologies most "reactionary" thinkers uphold as "traditional" are actually based entirely in Modernity. So moving on to the group you fully yield as being Rightist:
> 2. The Nazi Party was not "traditional" by any sense of the word: in fact, they trampled all over the traditional values of the Germanic peoples, beginning with the idea of the people of Germany being one united kind: the Aryan race.  The concept of a pan-Germanic identity, instead of the residents of individual kingdoms identifying themselves as members of those regions, was born out of the Prussian desire to become a great power in Europe- a goal they sought to accomplish by uniting the German-speaking states of the Confederation (which at the time was a loose political and trade alliance) into a single entity.  Seeking to create a stronger bond than the loose alliance of the Confederation or the HRE without the resentment of a client state, von Bismark emphasized the "common history" of the Germanic peoples on the stage of Europe, elevating pagan myths and using universal suffrage and the formenting of resentment against the Catholic church (the _traditional_ faith of Germany at the time) to forge the German state out of a couple dozen small states.  Nazi concepts of racial categories were not _traditional_ in the slightest, neither in how they carved up ethnicities, nor in their idea that the most "inferior" races should be eliminated.  Traditional Germanic ideas of ethnicity showed little concern for skin tone and a lot more concern for religious sects and wars, and there was no belief that other ethnicities should be destroyed: conquered and converted, yes- but not genocided.
> Nazi policies such as _Lebenborn_ also flew in the face of the "natural hierarchy" of the family you so laud: women being paid to have sex out of wedlock with "Aryan" men and having their children taken and raised by other families, the kidnapping of "racially-pure" children from other countries to be raised in group homes, and mandatory abortions for the disfigured all fly in the face of _traditional_ views of the family, the State's role in the family, and the sanctity of life.  Even the Nazi concept of low-brow and avant-garde "degenerate art" as an inherent moral hazard requiring total annihilation traces back to the Jewish critic Max Nordau's work _Degeneration_: a modernist philosophical tract.
> The Nazis draped themselves in the colors of tradition and reaction, but had no _real_ interest in the traditions of Germany, as they were in direct conflict with Nazi goals.  Instead, their ideas were rooted firmly in Modernist thought, Hegelian triadic dialectic conflict, and Futurist social theory.
> 3. The Falangists sought to take the traditional Spanish monarchy and Catholic concepts and render them viable in the modern era through synthesis with their reaction (Enlightenment thought), to varying degrees of success.  They were national syndicalists and civic nationalists who imposed Catholicism as the state religion but didn't care about racial purity or "The Jewish Question".


Fair enough. I suppose I was projecting my views on right wing nationalism as an English nationalist through to the past rather than considering right wing nationalists from around the world which was biasing the way I view the classics. Any book recommendations on Falangism? Seems interesting.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jul 1, 2020)

Johan Schmidt said:


> Fair enough. I suppose I was projecting my views on right wing nationalism as an English nationalist through to the past rather than considering right wing nationalists from around the world which was biasing the way I view the classics. Any book recommendations on Falangism? Seems interesting.


Obviously, the first text is the _Twenty-Seven Points_, the Falange's official mission statement and foundational document, as well as _The Conquest of the State_, a 23-issue paper written by one of the founders of JONS, one of the two bodies that came to form the Falange.  In terms of understanding the thought process that led to the Falange, the works of Pedro Laín Entralgo, Ernesto Giménez Caballero, Ramiro Ledesma Ramos, and more distantly Nimio de Anquín and Gabriele D'Annunzio.


----------



## Pointless Pedant (Jul 1, 2020)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> 1. You defined Rightist thought as focused on "heritage, hierarchy, and structure".  The Chinese and Russians were, indeed, not big fans of their cultural heritage, but they were _extremely_ hierarchical and structured. There are other reasons why I would categorize them as rightists as opposed to leftists (Trotsky was a Leftist, for example, because he believed that states themselves were invalid, unlike Stalin) but quibbling over that is pointless; my point is that the ideologies most "reactionary" thinkers uphold as "traditional" are actually based entirely in Modernity. So moving on to the group you fully yield as being Rightist:
> 2. The Nazi Party was not "traditional" by any sense of the word: in fact, they trampled all over the traditional values of the Germanic peoples, beginning with the idea of the people of Germany being one united kind: the Aryan race.  The concept of a pan-Germanic identity, instead of the residents of individual kingdoms identifying themselves as members of those regions, was born out of the Prussian desire to become a great power in Europe- a goal they sought to accomplish by uniting the German-speaking states of the Confederation (which at the time was a loose political and trade alliance) into a single entity.  Seeking to create a stronger bond than the loose alliance of the Confederation or the HRE without the resentment of a client state, von Bismark emphasized the "common history" of the Germanic peoples on the stage of Europe, elevating pagan myths and using universal suffrage and the formenting of resentment against the Catholic church (the _traditional_ faith of Germany at the time) to forge the German state out of a couple dozen small states.  Nazi concepts of racial categories were not _traditional_ in the slightest, neither in how they carved up ethnicities, nor in their idea that the most "inferior" races should be eliminated.  Traditional Germanic ideas of ethnicity showed little concern for skin tone and a lot more concern for religious sects and wars, and there was no belief that other ethnicities should be destroyed: conquered and converted, yes- but not genocided.
> Nazi policies such as _Lebenborn_ also flew in the face of the "natural hierarchy" of the family you so laud: women being paid to have sex out of wedlock with "Aryan" men and having their children taken and raised by other families, the kidnapping of "racially-pure" children from other countries to be raised in group homes, and mandatory abortions for the disfigured all fly in the face of _traditional_ views of the family, the State's role in the family, and the sanctity of life.  Even the Nazi concept of low-brow and avant-garde "degenerate art" as an inherent moral hazard requiring total annihilation traces back to the Jewish critic Max Nordau's work _Degeneration_: a modernist philosophical tract.
> The Nazis draped themselves in the colors of tradition and reaction, but had no _real_ interest in the traditions of Germany, as they were in direct conflict with Nazi goals.  Instead, their ideas were rooted firmly in Modernist thought, Hegelian triadic dialectic conflict, and Futurist social theory.
> 3. The Falangists sought to take the traditional Spanish monarchy and Catholic concepts and render them viable in the modern era through synthesis with their reaction (Enlightenment thought), to varying degrees of success.  They were national syndicalists and civic nationalists who imposed Catholicism as the state religion but didn't care about racial purity or "The Jewish Question".



We obviously have completely different views of what distinguishes right from left in politics. I see the primary distinction in being private individual as opposed to communal ownership of property and the means of production, with this difference putting monarchists, fascists, and classical liberals on the right and any kind of socialists or communists on the left, at least in terms of their rhetoric. The USSR generally rejected the concept of private property, so it was leftist, whereas present day Russia is based on a market with private property, though much of this is still controlled by the state in some way, so it is rightist.

Hitler and Franco didn't really seize power based on nebulous concepts of "tradition" as much as their respect for the private property of major industrialists and landowners. Both mustered support from property owners terrified of communist revolution and protected their property with state authority, though the state intervened heavily in the economies of both countries. In fact, I would go as far to say that the effect of "Hegelian triadic dialectic conflict" on early 20th century geopolitics was very limited indeed, since practically no one would have known what on Earth that was, and the terror of the angry mob coming to lynch the landlord was far more powerful.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jul 1, 2020)

Pointless Pedant said:


> We obviously have completely different views of what distinguishes right from left in politics. I see the primary distinction in being private individual as opposed to communal ownership of property and the means of production, with this difference putting monarchists, fascists, and classical liberals on the right and any kind of socialists or communists on the left, at least in terms of their rhetoric. The USSR generally rejected the concept of private property, so it was leftist, whereas present day Russia is based on a market with private property, though much of this is still controlled by the state in some way, so it is rightist.
> 
> Hitler and Franco didn't really seize power based on nebulous concepts of "tradition" as much as their respect for the private property of major industrialists and landowners. Both mustered support from property owners terrified of communist revolution and protected their property with state authority, though the state intervened heavily in the economies of both countries. In fact, I would go as far to say that the effect of "Hegelian triadic dialectic conflict" on early 20th century geopolitics was very limited indeed, since practically no one would have known what on Earth that was, and the terror of the angry mob coming to lynch the landlord was far more powerful.


The Hegelian triadic dialectic was _why_ that angry mob was coming to lynch the landlord.  Marx's dialectic materialism is the basis of his economic and social theories, and are simply Hegelian dialectics applied to material conditions instead of abstract concepts.


----------



## Pointless Pedant (Jul 1, 2020)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> The Hegelian triadic dialectic was _why_ that angry mob was coming to lynch the landlord.  Marx's dialectic materialism is the basis of his economic and social theories, and are simply Hegelian dialectics applied to material conditions instead of abstract concepts.



No, the fact their countries' economies were in the dumps was the main reason. Those mobs didn't know anything about Marx.


----------



## Idiotron (Jul 1, 2020)

> How many Righties can you think of that have written an influential book or directed a hit movie in the last 50 years?



Clint Eastwood did both things several times.

Speaking of Eastwood, his characters were cool as fuck.
People wanted to be cool like them.
That's what the Right needs if they want to get a foothold in pop culture - cool characters.
The Left is making a bunch of unlikable assholes lately or they're turning the likable ones from the past into punchlines.
This is a good time for the Right to create cool characters that will personify conservative values.

Here's an idea:
Make a modern Western set in a small town during a time when there are riots, chaos and destruction.
Cops are defunded and/or on strike so crime is everywhere (already relatable to most Americans).
Mysterious guy shows up (cool car, cool look, cool Eastwood-esque demeanor) and cleans up the town.
Make sure it's a hard R with good cinematography and action choreography).
Not a billion Dollar idea but it will make money if the budget is reasonable (around $20 million).
Make 20-30 movies like that over the next 5 years and now, you have a huge chunk of movie goers paying attention.
That's how you do it.


----------



## Liber Pater (Jul 1, 2020)

I do not believe that the culture war can be won without broader social reorganization. The right produces plenty of original and valuable cultural products already, but in the context of a society where we hold no meaningful control over education, the financial system, media, etc, it does not matter. 
Maybe these obstacles could be overcome by a people with a positive collective identity and an appreciation for transcendant values/goals that go beyond an atomized conception of the individual. Such people would not easily be subverted or intimidated into submission. However, even on the right, this group is small.


----------



## Someone Awful (Jul 6, 2020)

It's time to accept that the right has lost the culture war in the West and with it, its political relevance. The left controls academia, the media, and entertainment, three of the most important breeding grounds of culture in modern society. Once Trump leave office, be it 2021 or 2025, we will never see a Republican president again. We are under a Marxist revolution and the far left are winning. They will take control of the government and will do whatever they can to ensure a Trump never challenges them again. There won't be a rightist counterculture because the leftists will spot any sign of resistance and crush it.

Stop thinking of this as a "right vs. left" issue. We whine about how the right bridge to cultural relevance is fixing to fall any day, but that in itself does not take into account that most people are apolitical. They would rather not spend hours per day on depressing, miserable news where they are told they are horrible human beings for not supporting the Nigger Lives Don't Matter riots. They might not care about the left but they sure as hell aren't going to care about the right when all they heard is about how the right are literal woman-hating white supremacist Nazis who spam shitty Pepe The Frog memes. The zeitgeist has been solidified and there won't be internal resistance killing it anytime soon. A rightist counterculture is a lost cause and whining about it is an exercise in futility.

We need an apolitical counterculture. We need a counterculture that isn't defined by political divide, that taps into what most people want to see but are too afraid to honestly express. The concept of a zeitgeist - not just a leftist zeitgeist - has to be destroyed and never given an opportunity to restore itself. We have to decentralize, depoliticized, and localize culture. The political party system has never been useful and we have to dismantle it. Make it that people have to run to represent themselves - not a party - as the best candidate to obtain a political position. Governments must operate like towns, not like a world order.

We live in a world where most people are powerless to do anything other than vote and hope for lesser than two evils outcome. It's time to stop managing our decline. It's time to start supporting *localism*.


----------



## Terrorist (Jul 6, 2020)

It _could_, hypothetically, but _will_ it? Not likely. Unfortunately one of the drawbacks of reactionary ideology is just that: it's reactive, instead of proactive. Complain about the left all you want but they're winning the culture war because they have a vision for the future and a plan to implement it.

Meanwhile, the traditionalist right can't articulate what it wants: 1950s white picket fences? Neo-Confederacy? Petti Linkola? Pan-Aryan Imperium? Ancapistan? Catholic Integralism (in prot America, which, fucking lol at that)? Anybody can point to these things as better than liberal modernity with little effort involved, but it's way harder to plan an alternative to modernity, which is why none of them do it.

IMO the alt-right has 2 options it could try (not saying they'll work) if it wants to build a platform from which it can reclaim and produce culture:
1. Take advantage of Freedom of Association while it still exists to build an Amish/SSPX/Orania-style planned community, which would get the NP2 treatment at best and Randy Weaver'd at worst.
2. Take advantage of hard economic times and build community organizations that fill a material void for disenfranchised whites the govt and liberal capitalism aren't providing to the needed capacity: food banks, free medical care, drug rehab clinics, vocational training, etc. Virgin alt-right (only alienates white people further from what their all grandparents thought was common sense) vs Chad Scientology (gets millionaire celebs to believe Xenu cured their coke problem).

Of course, both of these solutions require work IRL beyond podcasting and hoping Daddy Trump will clean up your mess, so neither are pursued. A major reason for this, I think, is that most alt-right "leaders" were just shitposters who got really popular instead of serious organizers who were elevated due to achievements IRL. Your entire movement can't be a series of decreasingly competent Julius Streichers (the lowest IQ Nazi by a lot btw).


----------



## Cryonic Haunted Bullets (Jul 6, 2020)

Terrorist said:


> 2. Take advantage of hard economic times and build community organizations that fill a material void for disenfranchised whites the govt and liberal capitalism aren't providing to the needed capacity: food banks, free medical care, drug rehab clinics, vocational training, etc. Virgin alt-right (only alienates white people further from what their all grandparents thought was common sense) vs Chad Scientology (gets millionaire celebs to believe Xenu cured their coke problem).


Niggers beat you to it:


----------



## Terrorist (Jul 6, 2020)

Cryonic Haunted Bullets said:


> Niggers beat you to it:



That's exactly where that shower-thought came from.

The NOI had (and still has) K-12 schools, real estate/business holdings, and a few universities to their name. They also helped the black men who joined them become productive citizens, to a point where even George Lincoln Rockwell had to be impressed. You don't have to like the NOI to realize they were much more serious than the current alt-right, or really any American WN movement.


----------



## AlephOne2Many (Jul 7, 2020)

The "left versus right" in culture isn't the same as it was over a decade ago nor is it the specific goal of today. Today, it's all about momentary fame without the quintessential substance to back it up. This includes discriminating against political alignment for the benefit of making Fairweather Friends. 

It's called the placebo effect, and, somehow it's become stronger than even fentanyl. You can blame the internet when human nature at its raw is to blame. People have utterly fucked their creative freedoms and mental health sideways for social media credentials.

But who benefits from this? Corporations.

Clout sells faster than quality products, so throw in politics without nuance even if it does kill the product, it's an acceptable loss.

Edit since I'm back on Desktop:

We've seen it happen with popular IP's from major producers and when the end-stage is reached, what typically happens? A chain of heavy controversies are all that's left to show on the front end. It allows companies to sustain traffic and get massive returns from the fallout before it becomes background clout.


----------

