Where's all the right-leaning creatives?

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
HodgePodgeRogerDodger said:
Typically the in roads into creative shit nowadays is gatekept by people who will blacklist you if you don't tow the line.
Click to expand...
This. Creative industries aren't like getting an office job where you submit a resume and get hired solely because you have a flashy degree, it's all about who you know.

I've noticed a connection in that, like programming, the more menial and information-focused aspects of professional creative endeavors tend to be staffed by people who are kind of autistic, and as such, a much higher rate of trannies. This includes jobs like sound engineering, video editing, etc. With one or two exceptions, literally every single person I've met who works in music production is either trans, or a progressive-flag waving unironic self-described Marxist.

 That type of bureaucratic rot is very hard to deal with. It's not the loud artists at the top pulling the strings (unless they're  really profitable, and good enough to work elsewhere), they just sang the right chorus to pass through the filter and get promoted. It's the rat's nest of passive-aggressive losers who will gossip, gatekeep, and sabotage. Not just out of petty spite, but because they view the idea of someone "bad" gaining popularity to be an existential threat. It is explicitly about controlling anything that can influence culture.

This presents two problems:

1. These cogs in the machine are absolutely necessary to the process. Either because of the cost of resources and equipment involved, and/or because editing, mastering, printing, etc is an entirely different skillset than raw content generation. If you piss off the wrong people and you don't have any sensible alternatives, then you essentially have to do what Null does, and create your own everything.

2. Most artists are introverts, even conservative ones. Many of the  really hard leftists that infest artistic circles will have an issue with you even if you're the most inoffensive drug-using socially-liberal lolbert ever. If you're not assertive (but also not a sperg), you'll get pushed out and ghosted.

It's essentially the same reason lots of industries (and the government) suck. Before I sound too blackpilled though, I will say this: The tranny/commie/unironically mad about Hogwarts Legacy weirdos are slowly wearing out their welcome with more milquetoast Dems and BernieBro types. Their shit doesn't sell, and liberal women can smell a sex pest a mile away. ESG, nepotism, and the current mainstream social climate is the only thing keeping them employed, and the latter won't matter once the money dries up.

So to answer OP's question: We exist, we're just dealing with the same bullshit everyone is.
 
Beige said:
It's essentially the same reason lots of industries (and the government) suck. Before I sound too blackpilled though, I will say this: The tranny/commie/unironically mad about Hogwarts Legacy weirdos are slowly wearing out their welcome with more milquetoast Dems and BernieBro types. Their shit doesn't sell, and liberal women can smell a sex pest a mile away. ESG, nepotism, and the current mainstream social climate is the only thing keeping them employed, and the latter won't matter once the money dries up.

So to answer OP's question: We exist, we're just dealing with the same bullshit everyone is.
Click to expand...
The bigger problem personally is A finances and B purpose. I want my art to mean something, I'm working on comics and I want them to mean something someday if they come out. If people talk about my work the way I talk about the stuff I like, that would be it, even if that audience is very niche. But most art and entertainment is commercialized to fuck, its made purely for money and the easiest safest laziest way out is the one which gets investment. Yes substack twitter and the like make publishing way way easier than it was but customer support is much worse than industry support cause customer support is optional and you get little to no money. Industry support is non existent unless youre left wing and cant do shit properly, even then they wont support your ideas, theyll support their ideas and make you do them. Which is why Im forced to do an IT job I hate, it sucks but such is life.
 
I don't buy into all this research about Leftists being artsy and free and Rightists being more logical and conscientious.

A more accurate way of looking at it is:

feminine/low IQ - dull normie conformist
feminine/high IQ - artsy conformist
masculine/low IQ - dull conservative/lolbert
masculine/high IQ - artistic, logical, rebellious national socialist Chad
 
Midwest Midwit said:
I don't buy into all this research about Leftists being artsy and free and Rightists being more logical and conscientious.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what it is though. Read up on the Big 5 or OCEAN model of personality traits. There are simply less creative right wing types because by definition conservativism requires less trait Openness.
It's a psychological distribution phenomenon, and has nothing to do with being cancelled or hiding from society. You might as well ask why more financial advisors don't have nose rings and colorful scarves. Stability is antithetical with volatility and willingness to push the boundary of chaos.

Most "right wing artists" in a sense aren't even particularly right wing (even someone like Stonetoss that produces content for a far right wing audience). I would fit into the category of right wing artist because I produce a lot of content that is typically associated with the right leaning culture war. The truth is that I'm right wing, yes. I'm also left wing, centrist, capitalist, communist, trad, and liberal (said in Null's lispy tharcastic voice). If you are an artist there is almost NO CHANCE that you are not attracted to a multitude of ideas at the level of interest, now you can be an artist that is attracted to a multitude of THINGS or PEOPLE, but those are pretty much the only three categories that people sort themselves into and there is doubtless some level of cross contamination.
I am accused often of being AI or stealing art or being multiple people because like my thoughts and personality, my art varies wildly because I am obsessed with breadth of thought and visuals. I hate censorship, which in the current political climate is a reaction to the left wing primarily. 30 years ago I would have likely rebelled against the right for the same crime against humanity. Artists explore and bring back the valuable resources, like mental hunter/gatherers.

Being censored is horrible to me because I'm not making art to shock, I literally have thoughts that constantly explore everything and being told I'm not allowed to express myself and by extension think is something that I would come to blows over. You need to explore EVERY idea, even the dark and horrible ones, like a skin walker that allows themselves to be possessed by the spirit of ideas. They had a positions in society for people like this in the past. All actors, musicians, and artists have an element of that in their personality. I was asked why I don't have a larger following many times, and the truth is that I have trouble forming a cohesive personality which makes it difficult to cultivate a fanbase that expects a consistent product.
There are less right wing artists by number, and the ones that do exist often aren't particularly open enough to discover and experiment enough to find pleasing visuals. They are usually interested in art that is more object-oriented rather than idea oriented (things like industrial design and architecture). Did you know that blindness to beauty is a real thing? Not a rare thing either, many low-openness people straight up are not stimulated by beautiful paintings and can't differentiate much in preference between something like a hotel art and a truly interesting painting.

The Daily Wire, famous right-wing new outlet, created a right wing book called "Johnny the Walrus". The Daily Wire makes money, a LOT of money. This means that they could shell out for a very skilled children's book illustrator. That would then mean that the only thing required of them is vetting a good artist and approving the art style.
HERE is a page from Johnny the Walrus. Look at that. They saw that and thought "yeah this is fine, looks like a kids book". I want you to notice the SIGN on the wall of their house in this one. This is what the houses of people who think like that look like. Beige boxes. It doesn't bother them though, and seems appropriate because they have a genetically muted sense of the import that a lot of people find in aesthetics.

I've seen a people online and in real life who think like that react to art, they do this thing where instead of taking a piece in and enjoying it, they analyze it from this bizarrely objective perspective like a person trying to figure something out rather than enjoy it. They will see it and (sometimes out loud) start listing the objects in the painting as if that will provide some sort of clue as to how they should feel. It simply is a different mental state and inherent worldview. I'm not bashing on the conservatives either, because like I mentioned earlier...you don't necessarily WANT your financial advisor to have nose rings and blue hair.
 
Last edited:
@Dupree

The Daily Wire is the epitome of milquetoast acceptable conservatism. It's audience is made up of midwits, boomers and men who are too busy with life to watch the next video after Jordan sticks it to those damn leftists. Venture a little further into right wing waters though and there are way more creative types... and let's face it, more intelligent types. There was this one particular dude from Austria who was most competent with a paintbrush.

Furthermore, almost every creative genius before WWII was a vile Nazi by todays standards. And Western cultural output, almost exclusively left wing since WWII, has been absolute pish for the last 50 years.

What we think of as left wingers and right wingers in modern times are better understood as conformists and non-conformists, even if some of those non-conformists don't have the time or brain power to make it beyond Ben Shapiro.
 
@Dupree
That's exactly what it is though. Read up on the Big 5 or OCEAN model of personality traits. There are simply less creative right wing types because by definition conservativism requires less trait Openness.
Click to expand...
You're very wrong in your view of this and I'll explain why. Please excuse my tone:

"Conservatism" is not synonymous with "right wing" (if you want to be an idiot direction-brain). Neither "Fox News and Daily Wire" conservatives nor "MSNBC and whatever else" liberals/progressives are particularly "open". Maybe the "left" has an edge in that specific context, but it's irrelevant to the broader right (most of which is excluded from the conversation). It makes sense, as @Midwest Midwit was saying, that most "open" people—if they lack discernment—would be more "open" to following wherever the winds of the time blow.

The entire "right/left" dichotomy comes from the French Revolution. It describes relative progress towards the revolutionary ethos. What you're really saying is that all creatives (meaning people who aren't hylic automatons) naturally tend towards the revolutionary ethos, because everything else is "living in the past", "closed mindedness", and "aesthetic insensitivity".

That's totally stupid. I'm not saying that to insult you, but to jog you out of this implicit mindset. You think it's just the past vs. the Revolution? That shows the real lack of creativity. There are plenty of "right wing" views of the future that aren't uncreative retreads of the past, and many more reasons to be "right wing" than just being a stick in the mud who never questions anything and exists to do math problems for artists.

Do you think that Bach was low in Openness? Dostoevsky? Scott Cawthon (not putting all of these on the same level)? How about Tolkien, who practically invented the fantasy genre? The fact is that right-leaning artists, even if they were fewer in number, rise to the top under meritocratic conditions because they speak to the human soul more effectively than left-wingers like Asimov and George R.R. Martin. Nobody talks about Foundation and nobody will be talking about Game of Thrones.

As @Midwest Midwit is alluding to (although he's over-estimating how many of these people are National Socialists), people farther to the "right" than the Daily Wire do make art. Being open to new ideas and having aesthetic sensitivity doesn't mean you're automatically going to wind up with gay earrings, pronouns, and a Xitter where you whine all day about nothing. You've just never seen them, because you're on Xitter and the biggest chud artist you could think of was Stonetoss. That's what I'm led to believe, at least—feel free to correct me.

Art is communication on the level beyond linguistics, not narcissistic "self-expression"—Tolkien wasn't even going to publish his stuff until C.S. Lewis encouraged him to, if I remember correctly; it was all stuff he was writing in his friend group if I understand. When they can't produce art for the public, they make it for each other. Right-wing art is made in the form of literature, memes, and games made by and for each other in the few warm pockets where it can still exist. If you're not seeing it, than you might just not be a part of that conversation.

You seem to think that you're very inspired and creative compared to what I have to assume are "retvrn to tradition" castle posters on Xitter. I'm not sure what you make but I hope it's good.

Has it occurred to you that a tremendous number of the people who constitute the far-right these days grew up in progressive households? That they had to be open to radically different ideas than those that were acceptable around them to even come to the conclusions they did and not censor themselves internally, let alone express them externally? The idea that you think the Daily Wire is a good example of the "lack of openness" on the right—as though every half-serious person on the right doesn't already understand them to be controlled opposition for idiots and boomers—seems to show that you're not all that familiar with the right.

What kinds of children's books and art do you think the audiences of CNN, MSNBC, or the Daily Show would put out? That's the equivalent demographic.

t's a psychological distribution phenomenon, and has nothing to do with being cancelled or hiding from society
Click to expand...
"Nothing to do"? Not just "less to do", but "nothing to do"? You have to be smarter than that. All this says is that you've never seen the kinds of artists who get censored, which implies that you've never left the open-air prison that is regime-aligned culture and its "platforms". If that's true, then I hope that you can find those places and see what you're missing.

Also, how the hell is Stonetoss not far-right, but the Daily Wire is?
 
Last edited:
@California Newt

Allow me to clarify my position. I'm not saying that everyone is or ought to be a National Socialist. Rather, I find the "far-right" to be a much more intellectually open and more sincere discussion space. It is, after all, the only place where people think and operate outside of western liberalism. As you explained to @Dupree, you have to be high in trait openness to find your way there.
 
Dupree said:
That's exactly what it is though. Read up on the Big 5 or OCEAN model of personality traits. There are simply less creative right wing types because by definition conservativism requires less trait Openness.
Click to expand...
Is that why Haidt found that it's very difficult for the supposedly "open" left-wing people to understand how people not in their political camp think?

Ridiculous on its face.
 
Idk i'm here.
Speaking more seriously, there are right wing learing "creative/fandom spaces", the only issue us that they tend to be libertine, degenerate cesspools that only the terminally desensitized can stomach. Also they're full of trannies.
I think that for several years now the problem hasn't been that the majority of "creative" spaces are left learing, is that the right learing spaces are full of offputing libertarians
 
Anything male-dominated will tend to be right-leaning, which when it comes to the pure arts, only Heavy Metal comes to mind. And even there, as soon as you start letting women in, the gays, troons, anarchists and other undesirables soon follow and try to dictate the rest of them how to think and behave. If you shift your focus slightly to the crafts, especially anything technical there are plenty of male-dominated and therefore right-leaning spaces. Fags and women don't like to get their hands dirty, so a lot of those hobbies are relatively safe from the infestation. Table-top and electronic gaming suffered from a lack of self-policing. 20 years ago being a geek was something meant to be shameful and plenty of guys were just fine being left alone in their hobby. Now...I think what happened is that gaming companies decided that the male market is cornered and won't go anywhere regardless of how much girly bullshit they try to inject. What do girls like? Tolerance and diversity! Which BTW is broadly true, women nursing a child need those things, because they can't take proper care of themselves. But of course the people running this campaign have it completely backward and now we're supposed to be tolerating perverted mental people.

But I digress. Peterson and others have established scientifically that the 5 base character traits of which creativity is one are statistically significanly distributed by sex, age and political preferences. Conclusion: the arts will always be full of whiny fags and that's that.
 
Last edited:
If you want to make right wing art just make art that is honest and it will appear right wing by its nature. Look a A quiet place, it was just a movie about a family trying to save themselves from monsters while living in the country and it's INSANE that the movie wasn't made with a BLAZE or DW logo on it(yes I know DW is controlled op and Blaze is weak sauce but you know what I mean). It's seems a bit over the top to say that any art that is pro-family is implicitly right wing, then you remember that the left is Feminist/ anti-natalist therfore Anti-family and Anti-children. Add to the fact that the family in the film is explicitly Catholic and white, along with the fact the monsters attack you for speaking(making noise) and it's couldn't be any more right wing if it tried. The director had to LITERALLY APOLOGIZE to the left for accidentally having explicitly pro life themes in the movie. It's not perfect as a film, but it could only get the story it got with a right wing world-view. I literally can't imagine what a lefty interpretation of the film would be.

A quiet place part 2 didn't impress me but I'm willing to give it and aqp Day one a chance.
 
Ignatius von Cistern said:
Anything male-dominated will tend to be right-leaning, which when it comes to the pure arts, only Heavy Metal comes to mind. And even there, as soon as you start letting women in, the gays, troons, anarchists and other undesirables soon follow and try to dictate the rest of them how to think and behave. If you shift your focus slightly to the crafts, especially anything technical there are plenty of male-dominated and therefore right-leaning spaces. Fags and women don't like to get their hands dirty, so a lot of those hobbies are relatively safe from the infestation. Table-top and electronic gaming suffered from a lack of self-policing. 20 years ago being a geek was something meant to be shameful and plenty of guys were just fine being left alone in their hobby. Now...I think what happened is that gaming companies decided that the male market is cornered and won't go anywhere regardless of how much girly bullshit they try to inject. What do girls like? Tolerance and diversity! Which BTW is broadly true, women nursing a child need those things, because they can't take proper care of themselves. But of course the people running this campaign have it completely backward and now we're supposed to be tolerating perverted mental people.

But I digress. Peterson and others have established scientifically that the 5 base character traits of which creativity is one are statistically significanly distributed by sex, age and political preferences. Conclusion: the arts will always be full of whiny fags and that's that.
Click to expand...

I think at a certain point, geeks just kept letting them in because they didn't spot the predatory nature of a lot of these people due to autism.

I'd love it if companies just went back to. . .say. . . the 2000s in terms of media's level of political correctness. You still had room for some edge or subtle stuff. Companies weren't literally insulting you for not wanting to play Assassin's Creed Japan as a gay nigger. You didn't need to spend oodles of money on DLC to make a game feel good. Etc.
 
Notre-Dame_de_Paris,_4_October_2017.jpg
 
The right-wing creatives aggregate in right-wing creative communities. Consider Vox Day. No one does because they consider him an "extremist". If you're a principled right-winger, you end up like Vox Day. The issue is that "the right wing" is largely unprincipled cargo-cultists. "The right wing" is comprised of man-children who want culture to go back to how it was when they were teenagers. The issue is that most people simply lack the self-reflective and self-analytic properties to hold a truly principled political position, and when they do, to the normies, it comes off as "extreme" or "schizo".

But, yeah. Vox Day's a great example of a successful "right-wing creative" whose work reflects what he wants to see in the world. He saw the writing on the wall and made his own echo chamber, SocialGalactic, where his community can thrive without any external interference. That's what a right-wing creator community ought to look like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom