How can the Right reclaim/produce culture?

[gobbogobb]

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.

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

 

[Syaoran Li]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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."

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

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.

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

 

[Lemmingwise]

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.

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

 

[Crabbo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.