I was wondering to myself recently why Leftists happen to be so insecure and anti-intellectual and then it came to me...

I was wondering to myself recently why Leftists happen to be so insecure and anti-intellectual and then it came to me that since the turn of the 20th century there hasn't been a single first-rate or original Leftist/liberal thinker.

Meanwhile Right-wing/reactionary thinkers have dominated nearly every single field of study from the 19th through mid-20th centuries-- philosophy (Schopenhauer, Nietzche, Heidegger), economics (Pareto, Veblen, Schumpeter), religious studies (Eliade, Jung, Schuon), literature (the modernists, Yeats, Joyce, Pound, Eliot, Pessoa, Nabokov), math, et cetera

I think the reason why the left-wing has become so antiquated and derivative is because they've simply ran out of fresh source material. What do you think /lit/?

Other urls found in this thread:

libcom.org/files/chomsky - iq building blocks new class system.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Anarchism_or_Lifestyle_Anarchism
independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-steve-bannon-alt-right-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-anti-capitalism-together-a8076501.html
youtube.com/watch?v=2Vv-BfVoq4g
independent.co.uk/news/science/right-wing-politicians-better-looking-left-conservative-labour-socialist-study-professor-jan-erik-l-a7657516.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I think you care way too much about the political stances of authors you read

WE

nah

>he cares about politics like liberals taught him

poor normie

You're right OP. It's no coincidence.

>implying Heidegger didn't inspire post-modernism writ-large

>implying post-modernism is bad

leftists are all bureaucrats at heart, don't be fooled by all the calculated 'transgression' and snark, these people are cops. shrinks. low level security operatives working for an all encompassing managerial society of control. They hide behind the banner of common sense rationality, 'basic human decency' and other empty signifiers while presiding over the liquidation and banalisation of being. Their role is fundamentally repressive, that of turning subjects into objects of management, oedipalizing them into the new postfordian power structures ie. 'women in tech', lockheed martin sponsored pride parades. the far right represents the logical conclusion, the completion and fulfillment of the radical critique of postmodernism, post-structuralism, etc. the radical critique that refuses to be recuperated.

Thanks for further proving his point

WAZ

All post-structuralists are left-wingers

I was implying it was "left-wing", not bad.
>ran out of fresh source material
is ironic when they are still mining Heidegger.

>Post-modernism is left wing
Hehe...nice try, kiddo

Wrong, all of the actually talented ones were more or less overt reactionaries, see

The most important one, Baudrillard wasn't. And who was Baudrillard inspired by? McLuhan, a Catholic conservative.

>The most important one, Baudrillard

>mfw right-wing ideologues still try and claim his as /theirguy/ cause he was joined the Nazi party
>mfw right leaning intellectuals never even touched his philosophical project
>mfw Heidegger will go down as the father of post-modern thought

>die cis white hetero male scum! Philosophy is a social construct, made by the white supremacist patriarchy.

Lefties are the same kind of people as those that dunked witches,or those that burned heretics, or the kind that persecuted Christians. They are ideological zealots, religious extremists, there is no flexibility in their beliefs for philosophy.

wow dude i've never thought of it like that

you're very smart

any jordan peterson lectures you'd recommend so i can reach your level of erudition

That's because you've never read any right-wing theory silly, tons of political theorists have talked about how Heideggers philosophy is intrinsically tied up with Nazism

Anyway for the OP the right-wing is also the only political group intellectually brave enough to actually deal with recent advances in science and genetics like human biodiversity.

Baudrillard was deemed to be a meandering charlatan even by other questuonable figures, such AS Lacan

A bit reaching to classify Nabokov as the same kind of right winger as Eliot or Pound, and not only because he despised the work of those two.

>right-wing ideologues still try and claim his as /theirguy/ cause he was joined the Nazi party
More like Löwith and Adorno
>right leaning intellectuals never even touched his philosophical project
Not even Strauss and the right wingers in the Kyoto School?
>Heidegger will go down as the father of post-modern thought
But their creation myth was set in year 1968, not '27

Baudrillard is the only one of that group of writers actually worth reading, a "charlatan" he most definitely is not, he was a Nietzschean through and through.

Nabokov was thoroughly conservative and anti-marxist though. Some other very important writers to add to OP's list would be Thomas Mann, Knut Hamsun, and Yasunari Kawabata.

You should read alejandro soldiernippen's, Goolie ark a pelico, it's crazy

daily reminder that liberals and leftists still believe in blank slate theory

no, no they don't.
why would you think that?

Because thats what they proclaim to believe both in the public sphere and within their own communities. ive never once seen a leftist adress human biodiversity whether politically or otherwise.

please understand the distinction between a "liberal" and a "leftist" and keep note of this in the future pls thanks

Firstly, nobody outside a few bloggers on the internet recognise "human biodiversity" as a real discipline.

If you're referring to psychology and anthropology, those academic disciplines are overwhelmingly left-of-centre and they conduct almost all the research on individual/group differences that alt-right people like to claim vindicates their worldview.

Here's a leftist addressing "hbd" and demolishing dumbass arguments for biological determinism:
>libcom.org/files/chomsky - iq building blocks new class system.pdf

Buddy he didn't just do a whoopsie when he joined that party, he didn't fall down a flight of stairs. Have you ever read any of his private correspondence or god forbid his black notebooks? Left-right dichotomy is trash but if you subscribe to it there is no way Heidegger is a leftie.

In my country the right has no saying in culture, in fact anything /lit/ related worth a read is from the left, which still talks about the dictatorship and uses its influence to get a peak of the repercutions of it in every generation. Anti-intellectualism is way more associated with right wingers in my experience.
Also you shouldn't associate liberals with leftists, they differ in a lot of points.

>In my country the right has no saying in culture

sweden or germany?

Memechet's Chile.

i thought chile is heavily influenced by catholicism

Everyone has devolved to the level of realpolitik.

Wtf i love hitler now

because weltpolitik led to nothing but shit historically

m8 realpolitik led to the two most destructive wars in human history

>I think the reason why the left-wing has become so antiquated and derivative is because they've simply ran out of fresh source material.
The Left has been plagued by the idea of Utopia. They lack all transcendent qualities and perspectives. In fact, they have been dismantling them as sources of 'oppression and power' wherever they could.

Their utopia is a gray brick in the middle of Siberian steppes, with no hills or elevation in sight.

The left has shifted its focus from the cultural sphere to the litigious sphere since the 1960's; The movement of left thought has become excessively praxis oriented. Zizek even comments on this. OP is entirely correct.

Eh, debatable. Hitlers ambitions were clearly more Weltpolitik than Realpolitik.

Heidegger wasn't a leftie, but his thought leads directly to Derrida and from there feminist epistemologies, radical skepticism, moral relativism.

Nice pic but Junger and Heidegger oppose each other in thought. Their correspondence displays a real arrogance on Heidegger's part. Both Carl Schmitt and Ernst Junger are anti-Heidegger.

I would go as far as to say they are both anti-Nietzsche, but for different reasons.

A nice Schmitt quote on Heidegger:
"Many cite Heraclitus' sentence "War is the father of all things. But few dare to think thereby of civil war."

Litigious? What do you mean by this?

Afaik, contemporary left-wing rhetoric is still focussed on post-structuralist critique of Western culture.

that's debatable, many authors have argued that the current left rhetoric is still extremely eurocentric, they just shifted from white man's burden to white man's guilt, but the structure itself is still centered around european men being the only true universal subjects, the only ones who can act and have true responsibility while the rest just react and are a product of externalities

I mean that the focus has been to create legislative changes; to codify the critique in law. That is the essence of "social justice" anyway. The left looks for strategic, legislative victories. Unfortunately this entails a lot of reactionary backlash, since, what is legislated does not necessarily communicate into the larger sphere of culture.

>while the rest just react and are a product of externalities

You are right, thinking of it.
SJW rhetoric, for example, empasizes the oppression of African-Americans by state and police (for example), but totally downplays the traits of the African-Americans themselves, treating them as subjects and ignoring how they themselves are also responsible for, lets say, excessive crime rates.

Michel Clouscard would say the left has abandoned dialectical thought. He was the first dude to call Deleuze & Guattari the ideologists of late capital.

Exactly. I don't know many niggers, but I don't believe they like their change from mistreated slave to pampered pet.

but how is this strive for legislative change a new priority? the french revolution already was about that.

Veblen was a leftist. Nabokov was a liberal like his old man, but for the most part remained apolitical. Nietzsche, Jung, and Joyce were on a higher planes.

To be honest I haven't read this book yet but considering he wrote 245 paged about Jünger's work in addition to their friendship I think he can't have been completely clueless to the nature of his thoughts. Not like to be or not be Nietzschean is what makes or breaks a rightie anyway.

I think they have abandoned thought for action; in the wake of Paris 68, lifestylism became the de jour expression of leftism; it does boil down to capitalism with a human face, posting that you bought a pair of tom's shoes on a Bernie facebook group; in fact the techniques of Situationism have been ably recuperated by ad agencies, which ultimately were the source of lifestylism to begin with. Poststructural academic left conceded en total the design for living offered by Bernays, Le Courbousier, et al.

There is an obvious difference between the People's Terror and crowdfunded lobbying PACs.

The right is going through a similar phase of abandoning self-criticism and will ultimately dissipate in the same way as the left. Globalism is an ideology unto itself and it is winning by a fucking long shot. I listened to an NPR story about the Koch brothers furthering their monopolistic agenda and of course it was only ironically critical. The Kochs also fund NPR.

fascinating. are there some books on this topic?

Heidegger really liked Junger's The Worker but he thought Junger didn't go far enough and is a crypto-Platonist (which he is). Their correspondence is Junger trying to learn about this famous philosopher and Heidegger politely condescending to him. Heidegger really didn't respect any contemporary philosophers save Derrida.

> Not like to be or not be Nietzschean is what makes or breaks a rightie anyway.

No, but I'd argue Schmitt and Junger perceived a big problem in Heidegger which would help to weaken Germany and European culture. Like Junger says, after the death of gods in come the titans.

this man knows

i am not sure about that, many of the big institutions of globalism like the EU seem to have completely lost their soul and be moving just by the momentum they accumulated, plenty of asian countries are also starting to see the western globalized countries as a joke

Not him but if you can read french, Michel Clouscard. Neo-Fascism and the Ideology of Desire is his 1973 piece that is anti May 68 and anti D&G.

Interesting fact: Henri Lefevbre and Sartre reviewed Clouscard's master's dissertation. The former loved it, the latter hated it.

but we can and will continue like this infinitely

I suggest watching the movie "Grin without a cat" by Chris Marker, i think that is where i got the ideas from. Also a little of zizek, i forget where but he says the left should think more and act less.

>if you can read french

no, sadly. wish i did, i could properly read baudrillard, beckett, godard then.

what about the term "lifestyle-ism"? did you come up wit hit by yourself?

i believe its a very apt term for the belief of western middle classes that they could make revolution by slightly tweaking their lifestyle.

So will Eastasia and Eurasia.

And not a bomb will be dropped.

i am not sure how you'll maintain the progression of globalism without the constant wars if you don't have the cannon fodder to burn in them and the population no longer buys the "spread democracy" and similar memes that they did when we still believed in progress

i guess this issue can be sidetracked if we get war bots soon enough, i guess all the obama's politically correct drone wars was a first taste of this

There will always be critics of the prevailing ideology but I would say the EU is gaining power in the region brexit notwithstanding; refugee reassignment is something i am against, as i feel it is a method of extending western hegemony into the fringes of the developing world (create a warzone, evacuate non-combatants, install a proxy state) interestingly the Dalai Lama shares this opinion. It is also a mistake to forget China in this, they are not colonizing Africa, but buying it in a buyer's market. In essence, left or right, we are within globalism like a fish inside a tank.

Bookchin
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Anarchism_or_Lifestyle_Anarchism

Lifestylism is something of a pejorative among the gutter punk anarchists i hung around as a teen. I think the term is pretty old though perhaps coming from Prodhoun even but i am unsure.

>but we can and will continue like this infinitely
That's impossible. We aren't infinitely here. Some generation will change things.

Damn i wish this were in translation :/

Global capitalism is the enemy. The homogenising force that subverts everything else to it. The le helicopter meme kids who are closet lolbertarians take criticisms of capitalism as a personal threat to their pocket money. Its ok because these future boat shoe wearing finance students don't count for shit. As they say "its a big club and you're not in it". As a lifelong rightist the Trump presidency is pretty clear proof that "the house always wins" and unless you attack the system exists only to perpetuate itself you'll never gain any ground. The alienation, degredation and social rot that rightists hate comes from capitalism. The environmental catastrophe and wild inequality the left hates comes from capitalism. Zizek recently wrote an article saying that the altright and Bernie socialists should align to take out neoliberalism. Maybe a pipe dream but nobody is getting anywhere until we make positive moves against this system

>Junger didn't go far enough and is a crypto-Platonist (which he is)
Explain

>but I would say the EU is gaining power in the region brexit notwithstanding
that's very debatable, 20 years ago everybody wanted to jump on board, on current year
>According to a poll conducted in April 2017, 29% of Czechs were in favour of introducing the euro while 70% were opposed and 1% undecided.

and plenty of stuff like that, germany is hardly seen as a leader anymore and while france with macron seems eager to pick up the responsibility we'll see up to what point he's successful in doing it

>Zizek recently wrote an article saying that the altright and Bernie socialists should align to take out neoliberalism
link?

>The alienation, degredation and social rot

not universally acknowledged. a lot of people like their lives as they are now.

independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-steve-bannon-alt-right-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-anti-capitalism-together-a8076501.html

Thats why I specified the right. And yes I know this is the case thats why I work in advertising. Pigs like filth, humans don't. If you like filth well you might just be a pig

>not universally acknowledged. a lot of people like their lives as they are now.
most of those people are not reproducing and we are importing people from more traditional societies to replace them, so they don't matter in the long term unless they are successful in creating an education system strong enough to secure their influence towards the future when they lack the families to do it in any other way

I hope so. When i was very young i remember a time when radical anarchists and timothy mcveigh right wing types could agree that the WTO and the ATF police state needed to be taken down; solidarity does not always mean fraternity, but i think it would be like parents who don't love each other staying together for the kids. Once we are rid of globalization and its inherent anti-humanity then we can begin to go our seperate ways.

youtube.com/watch?v=2Vv-BfVoq4g

this music video is, perhaps, the holy grail of what people like. and its absolutely not filthy, its the opposite - sickingly inoffensive.

youtube.com/watch?v=2Vv-BfVoq4g

Globalization is unpopular everywhere but public opinion has almost no effect on the trajectory of its policies.

>far rightests
>Sup Forums
lol, Sup Forums is just contrarian degenerate filth, they'll say anything to cover their own degeneracy

its fairly unknown what causes decline in birth rates.

we don't need to know the reason, just that it's happening and in what kind of societies it happens the most

>literally correlation = causation the post

>Once we are rid of globalization and its inherent anti-humanity then we can begin to go our seperate ways.
The environmental crisis should be top priority. Literally everything else can be done but the damage the consumer society does to the physical world is unfixable. We may already be at the point of no return.
Modern liberal-progressive morality is all about lowering the bar. Its about esteem. Reminds me of Ted Kaczynski saying the left comes from feelings of inferiority. So the left wants to remove all standards, hierarchies and objective measures by which they could be judged. You may have noticed that "being judgey" is something 30> year old women use often. These people are on some level aware of their shortcomings and so they have removed any metric by which they could be revealed. Again it is all about esteem. I think it was Dove which ran a series of ads all about "ur beautiful gurl xoxox" and that is the essence of capitalism. Or rather of advertising in a consumer society. Pandering to a demographic. And telling people that they are perfect makes them feel good. Those feel good feelings are associated with your brand. Not everything is necessarily filthy, but grotesque? Absolutely. Treating people like children is the best way not just to reach them but to understand them. Capitalism and infantilisation go hand in hand

I know where you're cribbing this notion from and it's not a good look.

what? if something happens it will have consequences regardless of why it happened, this has nothing to do with causation or correlation

>The environmental crisis should be top priority. Literally everything else can be done but the damage the consumer society does to the physical world is unfixable. We may already be at the point of no return.
the problem is the solution, we won't destroy the world, just our capacity to survive in it.

now, whether we can do something to avoid the mass death that this would involve is another question

>the environtmental crisis should be top priority

I agree but i think it is easy to fall into the same old trap of letigiousness here, protesting pipelines etc. Those actions often draw attention away from the actors who are instrumental in destroyibg the world. In fact i think a partial extinction of the human species is part of global policy. Maybe i am crazy

>the damage the consumer society does to the physical world is unfixable.
This is largely because the consumer society brings forth the idea of physical world unto the world.
Once you're talking about eternal particles, no priorities with different setups really exist. Mere opinions; patterns of the same themselves, completely changeable.

>So the left wants to remove all standards, hierarchies and objective measures by which they could be judged.
why are the USAs most beautiful, glamorous, acknowledged pop stars all left-wing, then? same goes for the successful west coast area. whereas the south, with its historical inferiority complex, is right-wing.

i also genuinely believe that condemning people for flaws they were born with is pointless.

>why are the USAs most beautiful, glamorous, acknowledged pop stars all left-wing, then?
Guess who their (((producers))) are.

>why are the USAs most beautiful, glamorous, acknowledged pop stars all left-wing, then?
because they are duping the fools, that's the best way to get money from retards nowadays

among normies right wing people are better looking
independent.co.uk/news/science/right-wing-politicians-better-looking-left-conservative-labour-socialist-study-professor-jan-erik-l-a7657516.html

Only the most radical environmentalists (Pentti Linkola for instance) are living sustainable lives. Telling a growing number of people that living like upper middle class americans is the only way to live is not just shitting up the world but depleting every resource on earth. There will be a critical malthusian moment. Can't sustain infinite exponential wants with limited resources. But by that time what will earth be? Down 65% of species, a salinated ocean, desertfication and 15 billion people who are going to get even hungrier? Solving this is going to be very brutal and we dont have much time.
>why are the USAs most beautiful, glamorous, acknowledged pop stars all left-wing, then?
I don't understand your point. You think any of those people would be vocally in favour of hierarchy? Would Katy Perry say that "not everyone is beautiful?" or would Anne Hathaway say "equality is undesirable?" These people may live a contradiction but it is one that the neoliberal system can pave over easily. Moreover the system allows for this sort of cognitive dissonance.

Interesting. Just for clarification it wasn't my intention to say Heidegger and Jünger were one and the same and this made the former right-wing because the latter is accepted to be that. It was simply a cute picture. Also interesting though that despite these differences and the big problem you say Jünger perceived in Heidegger Jünger suggested a joint right conservative venture in 1949 and Heidegger rejected because the political climate didn't allow for them to be associated.

>Leftists happen to be so insecure and anti-intellectual and then it came to me that since the turn of the 20th century there hasn't been a single first-rate or original Leftist/liberal thinker.
>Right-wing/reactionary thinkers have dominated nearly every single field of study from the 19th through mid-20th centuries