Where's all the right-leaning creatives? -

[Autopsy]

Which church? Which intervals? Aside from some highly specific historical periods (Byzantium under Leo III, for example, or Stalinist Russia) I can't think of a point at which Christians were explicitly told to avoid portraying religious themes in art. There are definitely instances of new modes and styles developing due to certain sects' repressive tendencies (Amish quilts, Shaker furniture), but these are exceptional.

Up to the 4th century, only splinter sects (gnostics) regularly produced or disseminated identifiably "Christian" art, especially of Christ. Once Roman paganism got mixed in, icon use skyrocketed, triggering periodic iconoclasms in East and West, with the East actually undergoing a schism over it after two bouts of massive iconoclasm. The Reformation briefly triggered iconoclasms, particularly Calvinists, who brought their distaste for actively depicting Christ and biblical scenes to the US.
The art the iconoclasts popularized can today be mistaken as a "normal" feature of the church: ambiguous art, crosses, doves, orchards and pastures, repeating floral shapes (remarkably similar to the Islamic take on aniconic art), and symbols opaque to non-believers like the Ichthys or the Chi Rho. The older churches tend to accumulate these, with new or replacement stain glass often introducing direct depictions of Jesus or biblical scenes. While such art contributes to a religious experience, but they are not so compelling or aggressive as placing images of Christ on the cross front and center, or showing scenes of Jews' brief OT triumphs, or scenes of Revelations, all of which can be used to compel faith through sympathy, envy, and fear.
That's getting at what my original post was highlighting- you can make "religious art" that has value other than in the religious depiction, because it is not always mandatory for art to serve the purpose of evangelism. Leftist art has been defined in terms of its social power for a while now, so leftists don't really get that luxury unless they are a rare "apolitical," while conservatives and individualists make "apolitical" or even art that disagrees with their worldview much more frequently. The parallel I drew is between post-modern Leftism and American Protestantism, and as you say:

"Evangelical arts" are a product of Protestantism, specifically American Protestantism, which developed alongside and shares a great deal in common with the advertising industry.

This sufficiently explains why very little Protestant art is enduring or appreciated these days. It served a purpose, not emphasizing the goal of high art.
Vapid art like this and this will be forgotten within another century, Warhol might make it into some art history books- if he's lucky.

 

[Syaoran Li]

Up to the 4th century, only splinter sects (gnostics) regularly produced or disseminated identifiably "Christian" art, especially of Christ. Once Roman paganism got mixed in, icon use skyrocketed, triggering periodic iconoclasms in East and West, with the East actually undergoing a schism over it after two bouts of massive iconoclasm. The Reformation briefly triggered iconoclasms, particularly Calvinists, who brought their distaste for actively depicting Christ and biblical scenes to the US.
The art the iconoclasts popularized can today be mistaken as a "normal" feature of the church: ambiguous art, crosses, doves, orchards and pastures, repeating floral shapes (remarkably similar to the Islamic take on aniconic art), and symbols opaque to non-believers like the Ichthys or the Chi Rho. The older churches tend to accumulate these, with new or replacement stain glass often introducing direct depictions of Jesus or biblical scenes. While such art contributes to a religious experience, but they are not so compelling or aggressive as placing images of Christ on the cross front and center, or showing scenes of Jews' brief OT triumphs, or scenes of Revelations, all of which can be used to compel faith through sympathy, envy, and fear.
That's getting at what my original post was highlighting- you can make "religious art" that has value other than in the religious depiction, because it is not always mandatory for art to serve the purpose of evangelism. Leftist art has been defined in terms of its social power for a while now, so leftists don't really get that luxury unless they are a rare "apolitical," while conservatives and individualists make "apolitical" or even art that disagrees with their worldview much more frequently. The parallel I drew is between post-modern Leftism and American Protestantism, and as you say:

This sufficiently explains why very little Protestant art is enduring or appreciated these days. It served a purpose, not emphasizing the goal of high art.
Vapid art like this and this will be forgotten within another century, Warhol might make it into some art history books- if he's lucky.

Politics aside, Warhol definitely earned his place in the art history books, if nothing else because of his massive contributions to pop art and probably being the last modern artist who was still worth a damn.

It helps that Warhol also had a lot of apolitical kitsch art as well as his hippie artwork and he either coined or is credited with a lot of phrases and expressions still in common use today like "fifteen minutes of fame"

 

[Stoneheart]

The greatest Musicians were all hard right... Zappa did blackface, Dee Dee was described as a Nazi by the other Ramones and Wagner, well we dont have to talk about the most based german ever...

 

[StarkRavingMad]

The left is better at art and humor.

Not in recent years ...

 

[mr.moon1488]

Either got banned into oblivion or just got tired of the bullshit.

 

[Ita Mori]

Lol, the left has actively removed them and made their beliefs heresy in artistic circles. The few that remain will never admit to it unless they're at the end of their careers. It's murder for your networking to come out as anything right of neo-liberal with those types, even if you were quite a lefty in your heyday youth but never a radical commie, like Johnny Rotten.

This isn't new either.
The left has a history of being at the centerfold of art and creativity and expressing their love for radicals.
Trotsky spent a fair amount of time with artists like Frida Khalo and Diego Rivera.

If a time comes where the right controls the field, you won't live to see it.
The best you'll get is Japan and their center-left-yet-anti-idpol-weliketiddies media, and damn if leftist westerners aren't trying their hardest to infiltrate and transform them.

Fucking fired:

Wizards Ends Their Relationship with Terese Nielsen

Nielsen, who had been one of Magic's most popular artists, has a history of following and supporting alt-right and conspiracy accounts.

www.hipstersofthecoast.com

Fascinating how there's never any plain old right-leaners or common conservatives.
It's always alt-right, hyper-hitler, Alex Jones-tier conspirators. Fascinating indeed.

 

[Dustlord]

I'm not one of those people that thinks Yukio Mishima was some creative genius, but some of his writing is pretty good. Its worth checking out.

 

[Seminal Ointments Lain]

I'd assume the ones who'd sneak through the filter or bypass it are westerns and christians. Anything in the vein of a Clive Cussler/Dad Book is what they'd create. Anyone who writes a lot of Ancient History can usually express bias without fear of being exposed.

Anyone who is "suspiciously quiet" about their views and does the bare minimum to dodge the all seeing eye, maybe.

EDIT

What are some good out or closeted right wing creatives?

John Milius
Wrote and directed Conan the Barbarian, wrote Apocalypse Now, Red Dawn, the Indianapolis speech from Jaws
Kevin Sorbo
Actor known for the Hercules TV Series, God Is Not Dead, numerous Christian softcore Pornos
Robert A. Heinlein
Wrote Starship Troopers, Stranger in a Stange Land
David Bowie
Bisexual Alien Popstar
Stonetoss & Ben Garrison
Political Cartoonists
Tom Myers
A Comedian

 

[Spunt]

Everyone wants to claim Bill Hicks or George Carlin as their own. I don't know if I'd call them right-wing in a conventional sense, certainly not in the time they were performing, but the Overton Window has moved enough to make their work right-of-centre, simply because they believed in free speech and the right to offend, which are exclusively right-wing ideas today. Add Steven Fry and John Cleese to that list too. Their values haven't changed, and they have left-wing fanbases, but if they were emerging today rather than 30-40 years ago, they wouldn't have careers. Can you imagine Monty Python getting on TV today? Five posh white guys? Get off my screen, we need black disabled lesbian "comedians" now, not funny people. The TV series was pretty much apolitical, whereas the one film they made with any political content, Life of Brian, was a searing attack on contemporary leftism that still rings 100% true today. If anyone put out that film today they would get crucified for "supporting imperialism" ("What have the Romans ever done for us?") and racism for having white dudes portray Arabs and Jews.

In music, the leading right-wing ideas are coming from the extreme metal scene. I'm not just talking about extreme right metal bands like the NSBM movement or Varg/Burzum, a huge number of black/doom/death/grind metal guys are right-wing, sometimes very openly so. Most of the best extreme metal right now is coming from Eastern Europe, a by and large very socially conservative place with strong loyalty to Catholic and Orthodox Christian ideas. And as I said much earlier, a lot of right-wing artists aren't producing political content, and not always because they're afraid to. Their view of the world is bigger than politics, and they by and large want to write about other things - emotions, history, psychology, nature, relationships etc. If a musician is producing apolitical content, chances are they're right-wing, because if they're left-wing they'll let you fucking know.

Here, have some Native American An-Cap Nu-Metal.

 

[Mr. ShadowCreek]

I tend to think they're are more than we think they're; but they're scared to come out at risk of ruining their careers. Even being conservatize in Hollywood 10, 15, or 20 years ago could hurt you. You don't tend to see conservative people there get big roles. When was the last time Tim Allen got a big role in a movie that wasn't Toy Story. Or Melissa Joan Hart. They usually get smaller riles if any at all. For anyone who does have right leaning views I think they're either lying and saying they're liberal or they are silent about politics. They might just say they're apolitical.

 

[Dustlord]

Here, have some Native American An-Cap Nu-Metal.

This band is a goldmine, even if unintentionally.

Spoiler: Lyrics

"Indians are not chinamen, some books contain lies
If man had evolved from apes, there would be no more apes
It has been said and written over and over again that the first north
Americans followed migrations of animals on a land bridge from asia into the north America due to
Exposed land which occured during the low sea levels of the last ice age
It has been said that there is no historic record of these early pioneers the
Last of which crossed supposedly at 10,000 years ago, even though great
Civilizations, with great structures already existed in north and South America

If man had evolved from apes, there would be no more apes
Oh, the truth feels good
All this is quoted as fact with absolutely no consideration to the common
Sense notion that as an ice age recedes it does so from the warmest parts of
The earth around the equator, to the north and to the south towards poles
This grear land bridge theory subliminally suggest that the people who were
Native to this land were not native at all but mere descendants of immigrants
If man had evolved from apes, there would be no more apes
Oh, the truth feels good"

 

[Fast Inverse Square Root]

Either got banned into oblivion or just got tired of the bullshit.
View attachment 2171923

this is epic

 

[Chris_Stuckmann]

I suspect part of its a hold-over from the Bush era. During the 2000s, the left really branded itself as the side of hip skater-bros who smoke weed and don't judge anybody, while the right was going full retard in the Middle East while spouting its moral majority bullshit. Obviously, that branding doesn't exactly hold up these days. But we're not going to see representation of the late 2010's in mainstream media for a while. Hollywood is always a decade or two behind on culture due to the age of its directors and executives. Hence why you get movies about what high school was like in the eighties well into the early 2000s.
Maybe in the 2030s we'll get MCU movies where Captain America has a KiwiFarms account.

 

[Jet Fuel Johnny]

You keep your mouth shut, cash your paycheck.

You don't have Twitter, you don't run a blog, you don't have FB.

You do your creative shit, cash your check, hang with your family. You avoid fame, you avoid interviews. You don't talk to anyone.

Being right wing and being found out in the majority of creative fields is an instant death sentence unless you've got fuck you money and are as popular as fuck.

 

[Scarmiglione]

The spirit of the right dominates art, always has and always will. Impossible to be any other way. Meanwhile the left dominate 'creative' fields and industries and the output of 'content'.

This will be a long post and i don't like clogging forums so i'm going to put a lot of words behind some spoiler tags.

Spoiler: word wall

Spoiler: General Idea

The creation of art and genuinely pushing the limits of creativity and human achievement is an inherently right-wing endeavor. Selecting for achievement and excellence naturally creates hierarchies, exclusivity, people rise on their merits or fall to the wayside because they just aren't as vital, interesting, and radiant as their peers.

Right and left wing artistic endeavors mirror the fundamentals of their politics. Right wing art selects for the emergence of natural kings, men with vision and the will and ability to make that vision happen. Left wing art rides on agreements made between the wretched to secure what limited power they can and split it unsatisfyingly between themselves, always unsatisfied and jostling for as much as possible while trying to avoid coming off as a king who would put himself above his peers. You can go about the creation of art like an ancien regime king, or like a tribe of kung bushmen. You can celebrate excellence and let it sit at the top, or you can shoot it down and keep everyone nice and level and stuck roasting mongogo for thousands of years while your less deluded and wretched competition fly past you until you're reduced to barely a footnote in their history.

There are no good arguments against auteur theory in art and the ongoing success and influence of the will and vision of individual auteurs in the face of entire international industries capable of producing endless streams of 'content' vindicate everything that Thomas Carlyle and Curtis Yarvin ever wrote about good government/management. Everything that actually works has something resembling a king at its head. This is the reason we get so many damn remakes and do-overs and forgettable atrocities that allegedly cost 150 million dollars to produce. Individuals have ideas. Left-brained perverts are frightened by the idea of standing up and proposing something new, and are also too spiritually neutered to have anything to say. Beyond this they also HATE the idea that anybody else could stand up with a great idea in their presence, their primitive brains hate greatness. Like tribal bushmen they will whittle down any striving in their presence, and even get violent if they have to.

Men taking the initiative and creating monuments to their own curiosity and force of personality create works that last centuries, and then committee managed institutions and organisations full of leftoid parasites who crawl in through the cracks and eventually work their way to the top and achieve a degree of power find themselves in a position of some limited and conditional but still considerable power and means, but they don't have the will to match. The only way to go from here is cribbing from the work of men whose creative process was antithetical to everything these creatures are and calling a bunch of meetings and elevating certain peons, granting them a limited share of your own limited power, and then a few years later we get Star Wars 8: The Last Jedi. These people are the reason there's an industry of psychologists that are able to charge a large fee to help you deal with your 'imposter syndrome'.

Spoiler: Examples

Not all of these auteurs, these great creative forces, seem to hold socially/politically rightward convictions, but the greater majority of them clearly do, and the rest i think more just don't give a shit than oppose these ideas. Some of the less sharp ones might just be able to square the contradictions by not thinking too hard about them. Let's run through some examples. HP Lovecraft. 100 years after these stories were written and largely overlooked every libtard artfag poser loves the idea of spooky tentacles, fishmen and space-madness, but none of them can create anything of equal force to the man himself. Lovecraft possessed an aristocrat's measure of his own worth and iron hard convictions about the state of the world and our place in it. This foundation of self-confidence and idiosyncratic depth of feeling toward the world were the wells he drew upon to create his works. It's this bold personal force that makes them impressive and beautiful. Compare that to the later works of bushman-brained resentment-fuelled mulattos and women trying to plunder his grave for inspiration to recreate the power he was able to exert over the world just with a typewriter and some friends running cheap pulp publications. Even with the power of visual media, CGI farms, 100000x the financial resources and all the rest they can't come close to competing with him.

Lovecraft understood human excellence deeper than most, it made him a great artist and it also painted his politics. Some of his attitudes are largely overblown by spiteful bugmen trying to paint him as a bad-thinker, and so drag him closer to their level in the minds of the idiotic dark masses, but he was more or less a realist who correctly perceived a decline in american society.

I could go on all day but i'll only give two more examples before opening the floor to replies. Tolkien was a sort of hardcore roman catholic and High Tory reactionary. He created arguably the single most influential work in the history of popular culture/consciousness of all time just in a spirit of playful self-indulgence. Middle Earth was a linguistic exercise that was just too damn interesting and enjoyable to stop. The ideals that produced his work also informed his greater worldview and politics. Wholesomeness, the value of the work of the man not the industry, human scale, conviviality, men left on their own to do what they want in a spirit of general peace and cooperation. He was a kind of ascended form of the 'let me grill' conservative, he understood the grill must be defended and cultivated every generation.

Last of all an obvious one, Vincent Gallo. Probably the most interesting renaissance man in American art today, visual artist, filmmaker, musician, actor, writer, model, etc. The man is an artistic powerhouse and a clear and shining example of a natural king. Also an outspoken friend of the Republicans and enemy of all things left. He runs his art like a king. Everything flows from his personal brilliance and he knows it. And he knows what works not spawned from personal brilliance look like. His thoughts on filmmaking and politics are largely interchangeable. Cannes sucks because people make lame fag films for easy acclaim. America sucks because people pander to the fags and losers for easy mass acclaim.

Spoiler: Some of Gallo's recent fashion-work

How did i do? Please reply if you have thoughts of any kind. This line of thinking is still in a draft stage.

 

[Kosher Dill]

How did i do?

First off, I don't think anyone talking about "the right" in this thread meant monarchism.
Second, I don't think the distinction between auteur artistes and art-by-committee breaks down very strongly along ideological lines. I mean, how can you talk about the soulless middle managers behind "The Last Jedi" without mentioning the auteur George Lucas, who was no right-winger either?

 

[RabidWombat]

Considering that their big contributions are Pureflix and blatant propaganda films like Hillary's America and Heaven is For Real, there's a very good and market based reason...

 

[biscuitscilia]

I think art is one of those things that is supposed to transcend boundaries, including political beliefs. Nowadays, that's becoming more contentious and being in the wrong political spectrum can get you in a world of hurt. But typically speaking, I don't believe it's because right-wingers can't art but that the actual creation of art doesn't necessarily need to be right-leaning or left-leaning to be good. I grew with a lot of media made by people who would be incredibly displeased about my political afflation like I would with theirs but that doesn't necessarily mean I look down on their pervious endeavors with art. I don't think there's necessarily an imbalance (though nowadays there's probably more of a witch hunt element behind the scenes that we're not aware of) but that art with right-leaning message or artists who are right-leaning, have exist and do exist, it's just harder to be vocal about it.
Akira Kurosawa, especially his earlier films, is sometimes considered right-leaning. And Shakespeare is now thought to have been a proto-conservative whose works, like Macbeth, were made to romanticize the English monarchy and the then social status quo.

 

[Scarmiglione]

First off, I don't think anyone talking about "the right" in this thread meant monarchism.
Second, I don't think the distinction between auteur artistes and art-by-committee breaks down very strongly along ideological lines. I mean, how can you talk about the soulless middle managers behind "The Last Jedi" without mentioning the auteur George Lucas, who was no right-winger either?

Monarchy is the head of the right pole of politics. It's the logical conclusion to being opposed to the spirit of weakling libtard faggotry. The ultimate expression of the politics of the strong, as opposed to the politics of the weak.

This is going to be an even longer post so use the spoilers to stay sane.

Spoiler: Part 1: Why right wing influence in art doesn't look like left wing influence in their 'art'

If you mean why aren't more movies being made where people explicitly air grievances against the left and take the opportunity to get on a big right-wing soapbox, the reason is that using what's meant to be art as a platform for directly airing petty grievances and grasping for power is a pathetic thing to do that will only seem like a good idea in the mind of a degenerate faggot who lacks their own vision, and degenerate faggots with no vision naturally go for leftist politics. Great film has always been full of powerfully reactionary/right-wing sentiments, because it takes a great will making a lot of painful and strenuous contact with reality to get a movie made, and reality has a right wing bias. People are attracting to what they see truth and goodness and vitality in, and these things are all ultimately tied up in ideas that could be called right-leaning. These things aren't often stated explicitly but they're plain to be seen by anybody with half a brain. The entire action genre is ludicrously right wing by design, and its enduring popularity can't be ignored.

You can't create anything worth a goddamn unless you embrace the principles of the right, the principles of the left only serve to co-opt and corrupt what was built by the strong. And their presence is a sure sign the good days are over and it's all going to be shit from here. This is what Gamergate was about, though nobody could really understand it at the time. Weak, stupid, disgusting degenerates invading an artform and using the tactics of the weak to become powerful but still not strong or potent, hijacking ideas and institutions that were built by the strong and vital for the sake of creation and expression, turning them into soapboxes and sinecures for the sake of palliating the overwhelming shitness of their disgusting existence.

A trans people of colour anarchist commune has never built a goddamn thing that amounts to more than a pile of shit, but they seem to have a lot of influence in the world despite this. How is this? They don't build, but they invade. They're cultural pests. They'll take advantage of the size of successful projects to slip into a crack where their uselessness doesn't show enough to get them cast out and carry on until they hit a position of influence, then once they reach the shoulder of a right wing giant, they capitalise on this opportunity by turning something unique true and beloved into an opportunity to vent their neurosis and cheerlead for their disgusting degenerate faggot "friends" and "causes" (but of course these creatures know no true friendship or creed, only power and convenience, a trait they're fond of projecting onto the right).

Spoiler: Part 2: Star Wars and George Lucas

Star Wars: The Last Jedi is the quintessential piece of leftist art. It's such a perfectly catastrophic abortion on every level. The project was totally devoid of the touch of a great man capable of asserting his will over the production process, as would have been necessary to make something that big work. Instead the weak and undesirable co-opted the once great empire of disney, which is now managed by women and other undesirables incapable of succeeding under their own power as Disney did, and they used their mountains of dirty money they did virtually nothing to personally generate or earn to buy the name of another great work by another great man, Star Wars, created by George Lucas, and turn it into a soapbox from which they could celebrate wretchedness, meaninglessness and mediocrity. No plans, no great visions, those are toxic relics of the past, the future of Star Wars is a free form ball toss back forth between a colourful cast of upjumped middlemen, coffee-fetchers and button-pushers, all laughing at the idea they should take the old master seriously, tossing out his greater vision while cargo-culting a few superficial surface elements which they might have actually convinced themselves are all it takes to make a masterpiece. The results of course were probably worse than anybody's most pessimistic predictions. Even I was surprised by the legendary failure of Star Wars 8.

Now saying that George Lucas was not a man of the right strikes me as something one could only believe if completely ignorant of how politics works. Post-Lucas Star Wars was the quintessentially left work of art, but Lucas Star Wars was the quintessentially Right work. George Lucas wasn't born wealthy, or into any place trendy or happening, wasn't even Jewish, despite this he would go on to rally more force and technical power behind a single artistic vision than had ever before been accomplished in human history. His life story isn't one of lust for power or status or respect, it's one of curiosity, exploration, play and simple self satisfaction.

Before film truly caught his interest he wanted to be a racecar driver. The dream of a pure and free spirit. A pursuit favoured by aristocrats in Europe. And he was making it happen too until a road accident almost killed him. After that art school and moving images captured his imagination. From there he naturally gravitated towards all of the great and radiant minds among his peers and teachers and with them drove onward pursuing the discharge and fulfillment of his curiosity and and strengths with the boundless energy and will of a child at play. Always driving forward and upward from success to success into bigger and more ambitious works for the sheer hell of it. He was seemingly born with an earthly empire inside his head, and his life story is that of the great game he played to make it real.

Star Wars was easily the highest grossing film of all time, and that was just the start for Lucas. Sequels weren't even the end. Toys weren't the end. Becoming a millionaire wasn't the end. A company with his own name on it, carving out a niche in the american film industry where the kinds of movies he found interesting could be made and where technical limits were being pushed to new peaks constantly enabling the realisation of bigger and stranger visions, he still wasn't done. The prequels had to be done. The great work had to be brought to a new height, made grander by an order of magnitude. His influence on the state of film wasn't large enough. He had to do it again but bigger.

It's really hard to overstate how big an undertaking the prequels were. The power of Lucas was largely devoted to behind the scenes stuff. The vision itself was incredible, but having a vision is hardly enough to make you an artist, let alone a great one. Expanding Star Wars from three beloved films to a six-film saga spanning the personal story at the heart of the collapse and rebirth of harmony and order in an exotic faraway world demanded more visionary power than the world of film had seen before. It simply couldn't be done with the tools and resources that existed. Now it's normal and practically prints money, but back then the idea of digitally composing entire characters and scenes without the results looking awful was a big damn ask. And then there's shooting digitally. Lucas changed the shape of the medium so thoroughly that if you worked as a projector operator in a cinema at the time of the film's release you might be able to literally say "George Lucas replaced me with a droid!", which I've actually heard in one account of the history of Star Wars. Lucas decided old school film wasn't enough, so he set to work blazing the trail and made digital cinematography a thing. George Lucas had a vision that was impossible and he made it possible. That's his entire life story. The man was born in 1944. Think about that. How much of the evolution of film since then was alongside him and at which point did it start mostly happening through him?

George Lucas used his films to explore an epic Wagnerian struggle between the desire to compose and orchestrate your own great work spawned from your own passions, and our drive to submit to our role within the great work written on our hearts which is the entire world around us. He explores this in his work, but looking at how the man has lived it's clear where he chose to stand on the matter. Lucas is a Sith. Not just a Sith. He's the Sith. He's the Emperor of popular culture. He might not have committed any massacres to realize his plans (as far as i know), but lashing lesser wills to his own vision and using men as instruments to make his dreams reality was the name of his game. While his personal life and family responsibilities fell to the wayside he built infrastructure, he built an army, he stamped the products of his imagination onto the minds of the entire human race and just kept on rising further and further beyond what should have been within the means of the son of a man who owned a stationary store.

And like a good and benevolent emperor those who served him well were often promoted on merit and given opportunities to exercise their will over great works of their own, sub-works within Lucas's masterpiece. Thanks to his decision to work videogames into his creative media empire the star wars brand is printed that much more strongly onto the lives of millions through brilliant video games which, though not directly the work of Lucas, simply would not exist without him. Their acclaim and success raised and empowered Lucas and his great work, but also those who Lucas raised and empowered by giving them the opportunity to make them in the first place. Lucas is the emperor, and his officers, lieutennants and troopers all did well under him. He was an emperor, but a benevolent one. The greatest source of resentment and opposition to Lucas was never those he directly dealt with. It was perverted goblins who were confused by the scale of his vision, but let's not talk about them.

What I'm trying to get across here is that Lucas is the greatest self-made man alive and that Star Wars is one of the greatest insult to the powers of perversion (also known as leftism) that has ever existed. Lucas is only not a right winger if you believe that politics is about making a whole bunch of stupid pointless noise about the petty power issues of the day. Lucas doesn't give a shit because he's George Lucas. Would you say that Louis XIV wasn't a right winger because he didn't have an outspoken opinion on the sectarian issues of Islam that were taking place during his own time? Of course you wouldn't because that was none of his business. He was too busy being the absolute ruler of France. Lucas might throw stacks of money at this or that popular cause, but it's not his domain. When it came to what was his business he ran it like Louis XIV, and it worked beautifully.

This was fine. But eventually he had completed his great work, and rather tragically, was still alive. With several dozen lifetimes worth of vitality well spent he started to get very tired, and the resentment fuelled yapping dogs outside his door were still rather loud, so he gave it to the highest bidder. Let them choke on what comes next. And naturally once you kick out the radiant sun-king of Star Wars you get immediately get leftist anti-absolutist management styles and the naturally following degenerate results.

Thanks for the reply. These ideas are a work in progress and i like having a reason to try to hammer it all into a coherent shape. And to the guy above talking about Shakespeare, the right wing themes are probably most evident in Coriolanus if you're looking for examples. And it goes beyond "current government good". It's really a more perennial kind of ultra right-wing polemic invoking some of the ideas i'm trying to get across here. Seriously. Read it, or at least a summary of it. If you were to try to put it on a modern left-right spectrum you might find it appropriate to place Shakespeare somewhere to the right of Ayn Rand and Thomas Carlyle.

This thread is all in some spirit of fun i hope, so please reply if you have thoughts on what's going on in this post. I'd love an occasion to refine this further.

 

[Kosher Dill]

Lucas is only not a right winger if you believe that politics is about making a whole bunch of stupid pointless noise about the petty power issues of the day.

Look, that's exactly what this thread is about.
If you want to define "the right" as absolutism and "the left" as anarchy or bureaucratic hell, fine. But in your framework you could have an energetic, driven, organized authority figure who uses his monarchic might to tell you to eat the bugs, drink the soy, suck the feminine penis, consoom the product, etc, and he'd be considered right-wing. I don't think that's a particularly useful way of looking at things though.

If you want to go back to merry old England, look at culture under the Commonwealth versus the restored monarchy.
Cromwell's government was a republic, so you would classify him as a "leftist" compared to the monarchs before and after him. But culturally, he and the ruling class were devout Puritans. They even banned the theatre altogether.
Charles II was a monarch who even went so far as abolishing Parliament, so he would surely sit right at the apex of the right for you. But he was personally a degenerate libertine, and British culture during his reign followed suit. (See Jeremy Collier's "Immorality of the Stage", written shortly after Charles' death, for a cultural conservative's take on Restoration drama)

Now today, if you live in a Western country, you have a government much further to the "left" on the monarchism axis than Cromwell or Charles ever were, but the level of creativity is somewhere in between stifling Puritanism and the Restoration free-for-all.

Point is, monarchy vs. democracy is completely separate from cultural left vs. right issues, and it doesn't make sense to mix them together, or even call them by the same terminology.