/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13877469]

There has never been a genius right-winger. There is no greater expression of pseudry and midwittery than a "smart" (non genius) person who is a right-winger. The only instance in which a person is both a right-winger and genuinely smart is when they are a genius who has wacky right-wing ideas. Never a committed genuine standard right-winger. Examples are gentile and Schopenhauer.
This is opposed to leftists who can at once be smart and committed leftists with more or less standard non-wacky political views (insofar as leftists ideas can be non-wacky)

[Anonymous No.13877487]

What does this have to do with literature?

>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.13877558]

Sure you can be.
Look at the koch brothers.
They convinced everyone in america that the solution to capitalism is more capitalism.
Not saying theyre being honest though.

[Anonymous No.13877570]

Just because you took a humanities course and came out a leftist doesnt mean you know shit about shit.

[Anonymous No.13877571]

>>13877469
Carlyle was pretty obviously a genius

[Anonymous No.13877573]

>>13877469
Left wing and right wing are no longer meaningful terms, anon.

[Anonymous No.13877577]

>>13877469
Plenty of modernists were Fascists, and the link between dictatorship, a strong state, and a genius artist goes back at least to Virgil, and possibly Homer.

[Anonymous No.13877581]

>mfw

[Anonymous No.13877603]

It is the opposite, frequently. Of course there are some exceptions, like Beethoven or Machado.

[Anonymous No.13877623]

OP is actually right, usually if they have right wing views its like a dumb side problem that you just have to live with, its never the focus of why they're called a genius

[Anonymous No.13877738]

>>13877623
>dude if you're smart you have to think egalitarianism is a good thing
My explanation for this is that big brainhood has never been the sole province of elite castes or classes. All of our egalitarian intellectuals would have been dirt farmers domianted by military and religious figures for most of history, so insofar as these people want to be emancipated from their mudhuts they have to oppose the ancien regime and modern recrudescent elements of the ancien regime such as appeals to superiority of blood, the religious, and political authoritarianism. This is why the idea of a reactionary intellectual is somewhat oxymoronic: the reactionary intellectual must necessarily want to abolish the political conditions that allowed him to get out of his mudhut and be an intellectual.
What does lit think of this take?

[Anonymous No.13877818]

>>13877738
>My explanation for this is that big brainhood has never been the sole province of elite castes or classes.
Wrong. See: IQ studies. It's pure genetics.
>All of our egalitarian intellectuals would have been dirt farmers domianted by military and religious figures for most of history
Wrong. Most of the intellectuals, including "egalitarian" intellectuals were born to high and middle classes. They would've been part of the dominant society because of their genes. Studies show that social mobility is a myth and people who are rich today come from long rich families going down to the middle ages. Wage cucks are the descendants of peasants.
>What does lit think of this take?
Abismal.

[Anonymous No.13877821]

Oh?

[Anonymous No.13877897]

>>13877818
>Abismal.
Beautiful way for your post to end.

[Anonymous No.13877916]

>>13877821
Langan is left wing and an actual retard who happens to be good at puzzle game.

[Anonymous No.13877938]

>>13877897
In my case it was only my finger slipping and pressing 'i' by accident. In your case it's your whole brain slipping into retarded egalitarian logic, and ignoring reality.

[Anonymous No.13877952]

How can one man be so based?

[Anonymous No.13877959]

>>13877916
Langan hate niggers, dude. He's an ethno nationalist. Not left wing at all.

[Anonymous No.13877971]

>>13877469
Whis is the smartest of all men?

[Anonymous No.13877975]

>>13877959
marx didnt like niggers either but it would be patently retarded to not call him left wing

[Anonymous No.13877980]

>>13877959
Leftists can be ethno-nationalists. North Korea's explicitly-racialist juche system would be one example of that. "Leftism" didn't become associated with what could broadly be called "race bullshit" until (ironically enough) capitalist and neoliberal pressure converted it into a market-friendlier set of ideologies which would work to ensure the free flow of labour trans-nationally (hence, mass-migration).

[Anonymous No.13878043]

>>13877818
im the guy youre responding to here: what is your explanation for why the intellectual classes turned away from monarchism and aristocratism and towards egalitarianism?
im a right-winger by the way, my explanation is decidedly materialist because I don't understand what I see as a moral prejudice for egalitarianism that is so common amongst intellectuals. im trying to give an explanation wherein their egalitarian prejudices serve as a function of self-interest, because this makes sense to me

[Anonymous No.13878044]

>>13877959
Doesn't matter. He advocates for scientific control of the state. Doesn't get more left wing than that. You don't think Stalin would have put any significant nig populations in the USSR down, had there been any?

[Anonymous No.13878143]

>>13877469
What a retarded, incoherent OP. No wonder you praise leftist ideologues because they're equally as retarded.

[Anonymous No.13878144]

>>13877469
Cioran. Ortega y Gasset.

[Anonymous No.13878715]

>>13877571
Wacky at the time
>>13877581
Wacky
>>13877821
Wacky king of the pseuds. Perhaps indeed smart but has never produced anything smart yet and holds wacky paranoid conspiratorial right wing views
>>13878144
Both obviously wacky. OP is correct