Scarmiglione
kiwifarms.net
If so well that's a simple issue and resolved within my post. Using art as a platform for petty grievances is something only faggots with weak visions will do. People inclined to lean 'right', even on petty issues, generally won't do that. There are petty crypto-rightists who really are just losers who hate queers and browns and the rest because of the shitness of their own lives and are to some greater or lesser extent driven by their weaknesses rather than their strengths, and if the worst of these had their way we'd have crypto-rightist netflixisms in all of our media, but we don't. This isn't happening. And the reason for that is that huge organisations like netflix and mass media in general if not dominated by strong vision at the top naturally become wretchocracies because concentrated power, if not tightly controlled and dominated, starts to leak. Then you get parasite accumulation. Leaking power structures are how leftism grows powerful. And someone inclined toward parasitism is going to be inclined towards the behaviour of parasitism and wretchedness in all things. They follow anything that seems to be dropping scraps of power. The entertainment industry is no longer ruled by titans, and the scraps of their empire can be fed upon for a time. It's a great place for these creatures. Look closely at how EVERY leftist political cause plays out and you'll find the same principles at work. Power without merit or work, inversion of value, celebration of the ugly, black lives matter, feminism, all varities of the libtard disease it's all the same shit. It makes perfect sense that only the shittest people who believe the shittest things are the ones reducing art to a soapbox.
Simple question. Simple answer. The rest of this is going to take longer, so again I'll use spoilers.
Yes, that's exactly how it works. The spirit of the right is not inherently humanist. Exercising your own power under the goal/condition of not infringing upon or even actively working towards bringing about the flourishing and empowerment of others/all is one way to exercise your power and will over the world. Total disrespect towards and instrumentalisation of others is another.
The easy reference point to your example is slavery. Would it not make sense to say that the pharaohs were leaders of the right because they didn't own libtards or preach nationalism and bodybuilding for all? If so what the hell were they? You can say the right-left paradigm only applies to the modern world, but the fact it survived beyond the french revolution is all we need to know it's tapping into something deeper than the shape the petty issues of our day are taking. It's about what's underneath our politics and what has always been underneath our politics. Eating the bugs and drinking the soy is gay as fuck, if you want to do that and even go further and play hall monitor from behind a screen to bully and shame stronger people than yourself about the inevitability of their defeat and their subjugation into the exact same state you're celebrating as a good thing you are unquestionably a creature of the left. Weakness is at the heart of your being and it's also your weapon. However, if you're the guy making everyone eat the bugs and soy while saving all of the wagyu beef for yourself, you are not the creature of the left. You are a new and terrifying kind of great man of the right. A new feudal lord declaring hunting illegal except for you and your friends because god (or the environment, the ghost of MLK or whatever else you please) likes it that way.
Humanist rightism exists, Thomas Carlyle being a perfect example. His disciple Curtis Yarvin largely preaches the same stuff today. The faith in the power and vision of humanity's greatest, but paired with the belief that respect and the opportunity to flourish to the greatest extent possible without comrpomising the same rights of anybody else being properly due to all. But this isn't the essence of right/power-realist thought. More like a weird happy mutation that gets fantastic things done but never lasts. Balancing free encouragement of self-fulfilment and civil responsibility is an extremely difficult thing that tends to result in either a gigantic war or 1968 eventually.
Don't tell me what i'll classify as what. Cromwell was a great man of history who was greatly admired by Thomas Carlyle. That should tell you all you need to know but i'll make it clearer. Cromwell's government was a monarchy. More power and responsibility were concentrated and exercised in his hands than most people who have ever had the gall to call themselves kings. The idea that there's a meaningful difference between a King and a Lord Protector is a joke, but i'd like to see you try to make this case anyway. Cromwell could quite easily be called the most far-right figure in the history of Britain. Working his way up from a lesser army command he came to exercise pharaoh-like control over Britain. The fate of all beneath him was decided between himself and God, parliament was allowed to continue to exist in some form under his rule, but not to limit his authority. The reason he was able to beat the old monarchy is because he was quite simply more monarchic than them. Cromwell is a case of a right wing rule in Britain being deposed by even further right wing rule.
Yes he hated the theater because it was gay and got in the way of his vision of how britain ought to be. Cromwell was a creative man of vision and power and Britain was his great work. I assure you a lot more creativity went into what he did to the Irish than anything that was happening on a stage that he put an end to. Charles II was a monarch, but he didn't dare reach nearly as far as Cromwell.
I live in a western country in which it was illegal to go outside for non-vital reasons last year. I live in one of the most overbearingly policed and regulated cities in the world. Nobody was consulted on this, it simply happened. Charles II and Cromwell couldn't have dreamed of having this much power over so many. The real state of my government is that at the highest level I am a subject of the new global pharaohs and at a closer level (national, regional, local) the whims of these pharaohs is left in the hands of the wretchocracy because they don't give a shit about the welfare of individuals on the ground and understand that these miserable incompetent fucks could never threaten them and will oppress the peons extra hard to compensate for their personal weakness. It's the same reason the Third Reich's concentration camp prisoners were watched by fellow prisoners.
I live under the worst aspects of Right and Left government, and art suffers for it. Absolutism and tyranny alongside incompetence, weakness and ugliness. And the level of creativity is here pretty much dead. My country produces almost nothing of cultural note or value. Virtually all internationally notable artists from this place found their success elsewhere. And as for monarchy vs democracy, who mentioned democracy? I didn't. I simply don't believe in it. Not in the sense I think it doesn't work, but in the sense I believe there are no real democracies. I don't live under one, and I don't believe anybody does.
Again, I would love further challenges and replies to make further refinements to my thinking. And thank you for the two so far. I'm greatly enjoying this thread.
