Why Art Is Rightist But Appears Leftist

I remember listening to a woke person mocking conservatives for their inability to create art. They did so to, among other things, assert the point that art and creativity were inherently leftist. I felt this was strange though, because I know creativity is a uniquely precious virtue because creation is a uniquely precious activity.

The Old Testament confirms this by asserting that God creates first. Creation's primacy alongside God’s other acts grants it general importance among human actions.

But the left is evil and regularly admits it by incorporating Satanic imagery into its marketing materials.

So creativity cannot be a leftist virtue because it is holy, and the left is demonic.

Yet the vast majority of all new media I see appears leftist. And the works I see produced by people on the right are few and often technically unimpressive. So, we can easily succumb to the belief that art is leftist and that the right cannot create — even though it must not be true.

But how did this state of affairs emerge?

Why is the rightist virtue shown most regularly by leftists?

I reflected on these questions for a while and realized the reason, which, in retrospect, should have been obvious from the outset.

To explain my reasoning, I will begin by addressing the function of art.

What the Point of Art Is

If you ask a normy, “What is the purpose of art?” they will usually answer something to the effect of, “Art is about self-expression.” But this is false. The normy answer is not right, and the normies who give it do not think it is. They respond this way because most humans are parrots trained to speak in cliches, and the question of art’s purpose is one on which they have been trained.

And when we understand that the purpose of art is not to express oneself and that this is merely an answer given by the brainwashed people, we can discard it and begin answering the question in earnest.

So, what is the point of art?

I contend that art serves four parties: the artists, the regime, the populace, and the custodians.

The Artists

By the artists, I mean the people who produce the work. For them, their art serves three purposes. One is to generate income, which allows them to live. The second is to acquire notoriety for their creations. The third is to resolve psychological trauma, for which art is a therapy.

The Regime

By the regime, I mean the state which contains a populace and which the artist inhabits. The regime gains two things from art: legitimacy and conveyance. Art legitimizes the regime by expressing its agents, means, and methods idyllic or by showing its opponents unflatteringly. Art is also useful for conveying the regime’s vision and securing the support of its people.

The Populace

By the populace, I mean the great morass of people under the regime and from which the artist attempts to distinguish himself. For them, art is an entertainment product and a tool for imposing form on their lives while answering moral and philosophical questions.

The Custodians

By custodians, I mean the people who maintain and transport art. These include museum curators, librarians, and assorted staff responsible for overseeing works as items. For them, art is an economic tool that justifies their continued employment.

The Two Factions that Matter

Of these four factions, only two are involved in creating a work: the artist and the regime. The regime may veto or finance the work, and the artist creates it. This is not to say that independent creators do not exist, but their influence is negligible within the great ocean of works produced by artists sponsored by regimes.

So, a negotiation occurs between the artist and the regime. The regime desires legitimacy and conveyance, and the artist desires notoriety and money. So, the regime pays the artist to produce works that support it. This compels the artist to defer to the value system that grants the regime its legitimacy and accept the validity of its structures and institutions.

In so doing, the artist must reject egalitarianism in favor of the regime-sponsored hierarchy. This is how art assumes its socially right-wing disposition. The conclusion is supported by the existence of the vast majority of pre-modern artworks because they support the regimes under which they were produced.

The Liberal Inversion of Art

However, art's relationship with the right bends around itself within liberal democracies. Such regimes derive their legitimacy from egalitarian claims. Yet, they must assume a hierarchical structure to function.

Moreover, physical laws, such as Price’s Law, prevent egalitarianism from existing.

Egalitarian values must suppress hierarchy and reward those who do so while punishing those who support hierarchies. This process of allotting rewards and punishments creates hierarchies, yet again undermining egalitarian aspirations and proving their hypocrisy.

So, egalitarians, who created hierarchies based on equality, are fundamentally dishonest in both principle and practice — and they cannot be otherwise.

And the art produced under leftist regimes mimics this. It remains rightist by supporting the regime’s power structure but must also tell the same lies.

Therefore, most leftist media is truly a dishonest form of right-wing media that sets itself against its more sincere foil. And I must say most, rather than all, because of the existence of independent creators who are also usually leftist.

The Problems Presented

From this, a few problems reveal themselves. They are:

• The existence of state-sponsored lies

• The anemia of sincere right-wing art

• And the dearth of more sincere left-wing creative works

Of these three, the first is the most widespread. But liberal regime-sponsored media is essentially hot gas that has filled a vacuum left over from the irrelevance of the other two. If sincere right-wing media were better, and if independent left-wing creatives could easily secure alternative funding, then the media used to support liberal regimes would dissipate because it cannot resist competent competitors.

So, two questions must be answered to dispel the illusion that art is left-wing.

They are:

1. How do we improve right-wing art?

2. And how do we secure better funding for independent left-wing artists?

Now, I will not answer these questions here. They are different topics for a different day. However, I will address two predictable objections to my solution.

The first objection is:

Why is improving right-wing art more important than securing more funding?

And the second is:

How can funding independent leftist artists dispel the notion that art is leftist?

Answering the Objections

The first objection is the easiest to answer.

We should not secure more funding for right-wing artists because the content they produce sucks. The quality issues arise because of the temperaments of the people who make it and not because of a lack of funding. If more money were poured into art on the right, it would only increase the volume of terrible media. Therefore, addressing the quality concerns before addressing financial ones is more pertinent.

Next, my answer to the second objection is more nuanced.

If independent leftist creators, whom I will call indies, could easily secure alternative funding, then the regime would wield less power over them, and the works they create would misalign with the regime’s interests, which are often narrower than the scope of the imaginations of highly creative people.

So, Indie artists reduce the regime’s power to advance its own interests by denying it talent and introducing competing propaganda. The works remain leftist, but they exist in a more varied form, and the power legitimized by leftist art would decline because of the creative differences and antisocial tendencies among leftists.

Because power is a zero-sum game, right-wing art would become more prominent because the views it legitimizes are more homogeneous. Thus, it is better at legitimizing power.

Thus, indies help the right by undermining the left.

Of course, I also anticipate a few other objections as corollaries to this one. I will address a few here:

• Objection 1: I previously said the left is evil. Yet, I am now saying that leftist creators should be able to secure funding more easily. Isn’t that diabolical?
  
  Answer: I said the left is evil. I was right. It is a political coalition of resentment, envy, Machiavellianism, and malice. The average leftist is a sociopath, most are mentally ill, their leaders are demonic, the egregore they create is the image of Satan, and the coalition they create is composed of factions which hate each other as much as they hate the right because they are orcs.
  
  However, many leftists are only present there because they possess creative talents that are underappreciated by the right and by capitalist economies as a whole. If money and relevance were more attainable, they would be far less resentful and leftist. Their grievances are legitimate and assuaged more easily than one might think.

• Objection 2-a: How can sincere leftist art exist if, as you previously stated, creativity cannot be a leftist virtue?
  
  Answer: Because leftists are confused.
  
  All created works are fundamentally right-wing because the creator must impose a value hierarchy as they choose what to include and what to discard in their work. If an egalitarian work is created, it will appear as an undifferentiated and colorless mass wherein no choices of for and against are made.
  
  So, leftists must affirm right-wing views a priori before they create what they deem a left-wing work. This framework is the framework within which they operate. They then fill this framework with choices they recognize as left-wing.
  
  But the common leftist does not understand this, and they would not admit it if they did. So, they adopt a rightist framework to create what they believe is leftist work and genuinely believe their work is left-wing. This genuine belief in the wrong idea is a form of sincerity and the foundation of all sincere leftist art.

• Objection 2-b: But if sincere leftist art is based on wrong ideas, why should we want more?
  
  Answer: In many cases, the worst is not so bad. And the best shines brightly - but needs someone to crack its darkened shell to be seen.
  
  Sincere leftist art exists within rightist frameworks and contains a desire for hierarchy that expresses itself in a malformed state. The particular desires are usually for justice and order. They are expressed poorly because the common leftist is either dishonest, narcissistic, mentally ill, or some combination of the three.
  
  However, if the perverting effects of the leftist’s character flaws can be deciphered, then the truth they encrypted appears. And the natural talent of the creative leftist is likely to reveal something more profound than what the rightist can produce.

• Objection 2-c: If the desire is to show that art is right-wing, then doesn’t the proposed solution produce the opposite effect? If Indies received better financing, the volume and variety of leftist art would increase. So, wouldn’t that reinforce the view that art is leftist?
  
  Answer: No. Because it plays poorly with the propaganda machine.
  
  Regimes exist. They use propaganda to reinforce themselves. They use a system of systems, which I call the propaganda machine, as their tool for doing so. Art is the object that passes through this machine to the populace that receives it. In order for art to be useful, it needs to be focused and amenable to the regime’s interests. If it lacks these qualities, then it is noise that disrupts the brainwashing process the machine is meant to facilitate.
  
  Indies are effective at producing this noise because the left is composed of many factions that hate one another. So concordance can only exist among them beneath a domineering power. Yet that central authority weakens when independent creators undermine it.
  
  So, although the volume and variety of leftist art would both rise if the Indies were more influential, their power would decline because of their disunity.
  
  (This is similar to how the orcs in Lord of the Rings disbanded after the fall of Sauron.)
  
  The influence of rightist media could fill that nascent power vacuum more easily than any independent contender because the right is more homogenous and competent than any leftist faction.

Where to Go from Here

Thus far, I have explained why art is rightist but appears leftist, presented solutions for this misleading appearance, and addressed objections to the solutions. Now, I will tie this back to the guild pill.

I posit that both questions—how right-wing art could improve and how indies could secure better funding—can be answered by creating media franchises with an open-source model. I assert that the tactics software developers use to develop code can be transposed into creating media franchises.

Similar attempts have already attained success in the form of franchises such as the Slenderman mythos, however these petered out because of a lack of direction, the limits of the franchise, and weak community building on behalf of the contributors.

However, I have an approach that remedies these problems through the guild system. The details are a different topic for a different time. Still, the guild system combines a trade union and an artist collective wherein independent artists build upon the same media franchise under the general guidance of the guild’s interests.

Such a system is valuable because it fixes the problem of lame right-wing art, addresses financing concerns for indies, and serves the greater societal function of replacing the media franchises that have become rainbow-colored corporate cash cows with something that consumers can more easily influence.

I have created Elenarda, the Space Guild, to be the first of these, and the model can be applied to many domains. Through its application, people can discover meaning in their lives and contribute to communities far healthier and less exploitative than those that currently exist while rebuilding the social capital that has disintegrated in Western societies.

Which is why you should take the guild pill. By creating these guilds, you can discover vivifying meaning, save your fellow man from exploitation, and plant the seeds from which plants will grow to replace the collapsing West.

This has been Gene of the Space Guild.

End transmission.