/lit/ - Literature

>So everywhere that socialism or communism triumphs, we see the same phenomena: hypertrophy of the bureaucracy, destruction and/or assimilation of organizations outside the State, expansion and widespread delinquency of the underclass, decimation of the working class, decay and disappearance of manufacturing industries, persecution of upper classes and successful minorities, destruction of old cities and production of hideous totalitarian architecture, ubiquitous depression both economic and psychiatric. These effects are not pleasant to anyone, progressive or otherwise. But their production does not slacken.

>But why? What causes this pattern of repeated failure? Why, with its intellectual firepower, can progressivism not self-correct? After all, its public-policy experts are supposed to be scientists. They publish papers—with numbers. Surely this makes them scientists, and science is self-correcting, i.e., always right.

>hmm

>the socialist state divides power and spreads it as widely as possible—within itself, of course. Its decisions are not personal, but procedural. A procedure is a better procedure if it cuts more stakeholders into the loop—if it is a more open process. Here we see clearly what the State is doing: it is building a support base from its own employee roster, and it is purchasing support by exchanging it for power. The feeling of being in the decision loop produces a remarkable effect of emotional loyalty, no matter how trivial the actual authority may be.


source: https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2009/07/carlyle-in-20th-century-fascism-and/

>>12130418
>Its policies are always counterintuitive: it preaches leniency as the cure for crime, timidity as military genius, profligacy as the acme of economics, “special education” as the heart of pedagogy, indulgence as oversight, appeasement as diplomacy.
With "observations" this stupidly simplistic it's no wonder he's so popular with fedora-greasing pseuds.

>>12130445
stay mad leftie, blind by ideology as always


>The power flow of democracy is simply reversed. Rather than the sovereign People leading and directing their “public servants,” it is the servants who lead and the People who follow. The function of elections and elected officials in a progressive democracy is to educate the electorate, to speak from the “bully pulpit,” to help it become the progressive and enlightened People that it deserves to be. In classic astroturf style.

>>12130425
>https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2009/07/carlyle-in-20th-century-fascism-and/
I'm only partway through this at the moment, but I think it's not quite right to attribute American involvement in WW1/WW2 to democracy directly, given that in both cases people voted to stay out of the war, and the candidate in question immediately began to plot American entry into the war after promising to stay out. Our elite were all-in on entering the war, they were going to do it no matter what was voted for. Well, I guess in a way you can chalk having this kind of an elite up to having a Republic, but it's still a bit disingenuous.

>>12130541
i forgot to add that in chapter 1 he said he´s going to analyse democratic governments of the 20th century by Carlyle lenses, that´s why he said that

of course when reading moldbug you should take most of what he says with a grain of salt, he´s a reactionary after all

Excellent article.

>>12130545
I think he's not reactionary enough, if anything. Too much ex-Libertarian influence.

>>12130554
I have not read all of Moldbug's work, but in a way, a formalist/neocameralist state is a bit closer in property relations to Soviet Socialism or Socialism with Chinese characteristics than you might think. When we observe that all property is in fact property of the state granted and recognized by the state (corporate charters, property rights enforcement, granted monopolies, etc.), it becomes clear that the British liberal conception of private property due to Locke, as well as Marxist theories of social ownership, are disingenuous. Once we can recognize this we can discuss what kind of structure we would like to form with respect to property relations.

>Heedless polemic crusade against this-or-that ideaology with no attempt at formal consideration, scientific explanation, or discussion of minute details.
Hallmark of a psued who mistakenly believes they have something worthwhile to say. This is not impressive to someone who doesn't reason in terms of suppositions, and of course will only impress those that already have cognate suppositions.
Cringe.

>>12130686
>what is affirmative action
>what is antifa

go outside for once bucko

>>12130718
>Who is the Boogeyman
Heh. Look under your bed for once sport.

>>12130825

let´s see the definition of boogeyman

>an imaginary evil character of supernatural powers

key word is imaginary, the example i gave you were real, not something i pulled out from my imagination

>>12130545
>>12130554
Moldbug is only reactionary in that he desires a functioning polity rather than a nonfunctioning gulag. He plainly states that he is by nature a Libertarian, cosmopolitan, intellectual; that he is Jewish, lives in SF by choice, and has an Asian wife and racemixed child. All of which necessarily disqualify him from being any kind of reactionary except a "neoreactionary" of the Landian sort, a worshiper of capital and technique and decadence and antihumanism.

Obviously none of you have read his entire output, he's very honest about everything - except the Jews. He for example completely neglects to mention the extraordinary over-representation and foundational influence of Jews in FDR's coup, and in laying the groundwork which led to it, which is the central event of his history and the center-point of his writing.

>>12130927
>Obviously none of you have read his entire output,

of course i did not, it´s pretty large his output, in the end of semester, i will try to finish his open letter to progressive, i´ve only read bits and pieces of his blog though

>He for example completely neglects to mention the extraordinary over-representation and foundational influence of Jews in FDR's coup

read anthony c sutton on fdr

>>12130686
This, this so much. To even be able to understand what he’s saying (since he never explains anything in concrete terms or offers real-world examples or expositions) you already have to have a bias. Ideological, sensationalist babble

>>12130927
>He for example completely neglects to mention the extraordinary over-representation and foundational influence of Jews in FDR's coup, and in laying the groundwork which led to it, which is the central event of his history and the center-point of his writing.

You're implying so much. Do you really mean Jews were exceptional in policy formation? I presume you've studied the ethnic makeup of all previous administrations? There was a legit coup plot but it wasn't by FDR:
http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/53-index.html

>>12130948
>anthony c sutton
That is the guy who was to kooky even for the conservative Hoover Institution. You're better off just going and looking into the primary sources he's citing:
http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-fdr-biblio.html

>>12130418
Moldbug ruined Carlyle's image, which is a shame because I think more people should read Carlyle.

>>12131511
>Moldbug ruined Carlyle's image

in which way? moldbulg said that carlyle was already a marginalized figure in the anglophone world, becuase unlike walt whitman, carlyle wasn´t fond of democracy (i´m not american that´s why am asking)

>>12131533
Carlyle was not commonly talked about or discussed, but he was not controversial and he can still be found quite easily in second hand bookshops etc. Now he's thought of as Moldbug's ancestor, despite them being very different writers with different ideas. I rarely see him mentioned without being attached to Moldbug and I'm convinced that most people who talk about him have only read moldbug, not Carlyle. For the record I'm not a fan of Moldbug at all.

Where do I start with Thomas Carlyle, Joseph de Maistre, and Carl Schmitt?

>>12130927
hipsterracist is that you?

Here's a deep redpill for you guys, in Urbit the foundational virtual machine is called Nock. Nock's 10 axioms represent the 10 spheres and paths of the Kaballah

>>12131697
with the enlightenment (1600 onwards)

>>12131035
>conservative Hoover Institution
literal communists, bucko - read Moldbug

>>12131035
The Business Plot didn't happen, but it sure should have! Now, begone, reddit scum!

The administration of Franklin Roosevelt was the first to introduce scores of Jews into the decision-making echelons of government.[36] It is true that Theodore Roosevelt made Oscar Straus secretary of commerce and labor, just as it is true that there were scattered appointments of Jews in the Wilson and Hoover eras, including such notable figures as Paul Warburg, Louis Brandeis, Benjamin Cardozo and Felix Frankfurter.[37] But the roster of New Dealers contained many more, if less distinguished, Jewish names: Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Benjamin Cohen, Sol Bloom, Emanuel Celler, Herbert Lehman, David Niles, Samuel Rosenman, Isador Lubin, Mordecai Ezekiel, Anna Rosenberg, Morris Ernst, Nathan Straus, Donald Richberg, Lawrence Steinhardt, and Robert Nathan. Bernard Baruch, in whose New York apartment Winston Churchill was an overnight guest when making state visits to America in World War II, seemed to overlap all administrations, having been an adviser to five American presidents.[38] Like Baruch, bankers Alexander Sachs and Sidney Weinberg attended important policy sessions of both Republican and Democratic administrations.

After World War II, David Lilienthal and Lewis Strauss served as chairmen of the Atomic Energy Commission and helped guide the United States into the nuclear age. In the 1950s, Senator Joseph McCarthy brought the public spotlight to bear on his two young Jewish assistants, David Schine and Roy Cohn.

[36] Jews were especially conspicuous in the Securities and Exchange Commission, National Labor Relations Board, Social Security Board, and the Departments of Labor and Justice. Reader’s Digest, Sept, 1946, pp. 2-3. Three Jewish governors during the Roosevelt era were Henry Horner of Illinois, Julius Meier of Oregon, and Herbert Lehman of New York. When Roosevelt died, one rabbi compared him to Moses. Barnet Litvinoff, A Peculiar People, Weybright and Talley, New York, 1969, p. 41.

[37] Warburg was partly responsible for devising the Federal Reserve System and was made the Federal Reserve Board’s vice-chairman.

[38] Baruch made most of his millions speculating in copper stocks. When America entered World War I, Wilson named him head of the War Industries Board.

>>12131035
The most notable Jew in American politics prior to the 20th century was Judah P. Benjamin, a traitor on two different accounts.

>>12131730
I meant books from these authors.

Moldbugness be my god.
Him and Land changed me more than any other thinker.

Moldbugs theoretical insights into progressives (and their caste system) became real meme in Twitter today when they revealed PROTECTED CLASSES, lel. Dude had amazing insight when he took things to their final conclusion and analysis.

Wish he still wrote.

>>12131887
>became real meme in Twitter today when they revealed PROTECTED CLASSES

where can i see that

>Wish he still wrote.

do you know why he stopped publishing in his blog?

>>12130927
Moldbug is not reactionary as that is taxonomically liberal. He is 2-3 abstractions or liberal developments behind.. think if Luther had been stopped from nailing garbage to door and alternative tineline went off here..

his libertarian influence is minimal.
he puts order, Security, law above freedom.
thats antilibertarian, antidemocratic, antireactionary..

thats why the NRx label

>>12131887
>became real meme in Twitter today when they revealed PROTECTED CLASSES

Moldbug didn't invent "protected class". I don't think he was even born yet when it was invented:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group

>>12131697
Moldbug has reading order for Carlyle in his blog, somewherem Probably in the Carlyle book/blogpost.

I read Schmitt in English and Just picked his most popular books in GR.

never read de maistre

>>12131905
it was his progressive satire come reality today, lol. i know and he knows he didn't invent it, ffs. he loans indian caste system.

>>12131901
twitter hate speech policy update from today, check @Outsideness twitter he referred to itm

idk why he stopped, to work on his server thing inguess

>>12131887
We won't quite be at protected classes until the Court declares hate speech laws to be Constitutional, but since America isn't going to do that we'll just keep having informal protected classes like we do now.

>Look, you're allowed to speak ill of an oppressed class, but we will destroy you if you do, you bigot, enjoy being barred from employment forever. It's a private company you Nazi.

I would unironically respect the government more if they were honest about declaring certain groups to be formal protected classes whom it was forbidden to offend, who would receive mandatory reparations and mandatory job placement by law.

>>12130686
>>12130971
This is the standard reaction by illiterate people. Most of what he says is admittedly not his and is easy to understand for anyone even moderately well read.
>>12131568
>he was not controversial
Literally don't post if you have no idea at all what you're talking about. He was the most controversial Victorian and his ideas make Modlbug look like Obama.

>>12132268
nigga, "protected classes" are anything but informal. Read the link in >>12131905. They are well-established law.

>>12130418
>First, that bad ideas would blossom and good ones wither and disappear. Progressivism has become a veritable religion of quack goverment. Its policies are always counterintuitive: it preaches leniency as the cure for crime, timidity as military genius, profligacy as the acme of economics, “special education” as the heart of pedagogy, indulgence as oversight, appeasement as diplomacy. As it goes from one disaster to the next, progressivism never considers the possibility that the obvious, rather than its opposite, could be the case. Occam’s Butterknife is the only tool in its kitchen.
Does he have a single fact to back that up? Progressivism saved capitalism in the Gilded Age.

This dude's writing gives no indication that he knows what he's talking about. Comes across as sophomore poli sci student tier.

>timidity as military genius
He's not talking about the United States is he?
>leniency as the cure for crime
Once again I'm not there's no way he could be dumb enough to be referencing the US with this one right
>profligacy of economics
Sure, but I'm not gonna waste my time reading this dude any further to see what he thinks is the problem (he's given little indication up to this point that he's paying any attention to what's going on)
>special ed the heart of pedagogy
Citation needed lmao. Dropped.

Reminder that all of you moldbug readers need to take a shower today

>>12133143
>He's not talking about the United States is he?
He is, although he later refined/qualified what he was talking about here.

>Once again I'm not there's no way he could be dumb enough to be referencing the US with this one right

When was the last time the United States hanged a thief?

More to the point, mass incarceration is mostly a reaction to the failure of the lenient punishment regimes of the 1960s-70s (think Dirty Harry) to curb crime. Still, that mass long-term incarceration was chosen rather than the lash and the gallows is, of course, the result of progressive thinking.

>>12130852
antifa are literal boogeymen. they have never been relevant. most "antifa" twitter accounts were mysteriously hosted in russia and used to trigger people like you online
you've been brainwashed by /pol/ into fighting some ideological jihad against things that don't exist in remotely the way you imagine them. fuck off back to your containment site.

>>12133186
>it’s progressive not to hang thieves
What a fucking retard

>>12133033
Reread
>>12130686
and write a proper rebuttal or don't bother replying at all.

>>12133282
Cope

>>12133196
>all the antifa riots you've seen with civilians being attacked and property being vandalized weren't real, don't believe your lying eyes
Is this the "gas-lighting" I've heard so much about?

Neoreaction is amazing. Lots of good insights into the leftist's mindset. The best idea is the leftist as a "sociopathic status maximizer". I see this over and over, everywhere I've interacted with leftists online and irl. Even in these types of threads. Look at posts like these: >>12130445 >>12130686 Leftists can't go two seconds without throwing some sort of oneupsmanship status games into the mix, which when you look at honestly, are devoid of actual content apart from monkey hierarchy games where they try to put you under their boot. Everyone is always stupider, immoral, or plebeian than they are, without any sort of sustained argument or reasoning. It's honestly fucking hilarious, and you can't un-see it once you start noticing it. The normie right wing have their own status games (e.g. worshiping the military), nevertheless they tend to also be open about their place in widespread society (they don't give a fuck if you call them out for being fox watching nascar loving rubes). But leftists, lmao, they really take the cake for being obnoxious as fuck with status games. It's one of the more powerful social technology they have on their side. Assign high status to journalists, academics, intellectuals, activists, and leftists in general, then anyone who disagrees is automatically low status. It's never just that you are wrong, not true, or have bad arguments, it's that you are a low status rube for even suggesting that they might be wrong. Instead of attracting good people to high positions within these movements and institutions, it attracts the exact people you might suspect thrive in such conditions: sociopathic status climbers. So the small percentage of honest good leftists always wonder why their movements get taken over by liars, rapists, and gulaging psychos.

>>12133403
>Thinks these are bad things
Criiinge

>>12133423
More suppositions, I see. Using bad arguments to cope with your team being called out for making this same kind of vapid argument. If it helps shelter your ego, replace everything said about it with A's and B's. Better yet since you are so fond of suppositions, why don't you suppose those criticisms I made to be about me, or whoever or whatever you do not like. Is formality just over your head? This is a weird way to cope with being on the losing side of a formal "status game" about good arguments where the only status that matters is true and false.
>>12133282
Fix your shit to a respectable form and then I can decide wether or not I agree with it.
>>12133033
Cringe

>>12133198
At one point hanging thieves was common. Now it's not. Who decided to make the change?

>>12133548
You haven't actually made any sort of counterargument in your original post. You keep pointing out about suppositions, but none of your claims are actually supported in any manner, so you are projecting your own inadequacies on others.

The greentext in your original post doesn't contain any sort of supporting reasons. It's a statement, not an argument. It basically says, "x with no attempt at y" where x contains an undefended pre-supposition (you've pre-supposed in x that it is a "heedless polemic" without argument, and done so using loaded language), and y gives no normative support (why exactly it should contain scientific explanation) or doesn't point out where exactly all these problems lie (given you've universally quantified over all of this polemic, it's up to you to show how he does this for ALL of his writing. Protip: you won't be able to).

The non-greentext in your post doesn't even provide an argument. It's even worse than your greentext. First statement is a claim without support about the evidence needed for someone that is a pseud, and how the greentext is allegedly connected to this (without argument, again. You are saying, "x with no attempt at y" is evidence of z. There is no development of an inference there, just an assertion). Since you have no real argumentative norms while pretending to have them, I'll throw them out the window for a second and say your second statement is kind of hilarious that you talk about truth and science, yet your norms are centered around who is a pseud and who is impressive or not. You'd think that if you were as smart as you think you are, then you would have some self-awareness. Cringe, indeed.

tl;dr You are larping as an academic. You're actually incapable of arguing, so you resort to these little status games that mimic people you desperately want to be, without any of the intellectual chops. If you were capable of doing so, you'd actually have had brought something to the table with your posts, instead of being a status striver.

>>12133643
>tl;dr You are larping as an academic. You're actually incapable of arguing, so you resort to these little status games that mimic people you desperately want to be, without any of the intellectual chops. If you were capable of doing so, you'd actually have had brought something to the table with your posts, instead of being a status striver.
To think I was actually about to go into detail. Originally I thought doing such a thing would be pedantic for my purpose; disparaging something I found in bad taste. I was simply stating what I thought about the matter, and I assure you that those thoughts did not come from nowhere, nor were they borne out of "status striving". Yea, I think I am right. Look at you high-and-mighty hypocrite, you are so far above these supposed "status games", you don't realize you are playing them(what they are I can't say for certain because of your BAD arguments), when really these supposed status games have little to do with status, in my case atleast, but the belief in the moral and logical goodness of ones convictions. If you think good and bad are the objects of these status games, then you are just as guilty.
I don't have any want or need to teach you about good reasoning. Let alone shift through a pile to show you what bad reasoning looks like. You're on your own.

>>12133643
I didn't know how to add this to my other post, but your status-fixation is odd and you come off as pathetically insecure. It's like you just NEED me to be role playing as an acedemic to win a status game. Otherwise your ego would be compromised and you would lose status in that egotistical game you like to think is beneath you.
just a thought.

>>12133770
Moldbugs reasoning is pretty fucking solid, predicted Trump's economic platform and its immediate and medium term effects while laying out the why. Better than any economist outside of US Treasury.

>>12133423
Note that typical democratic institutions, which are first implemented by leftists in the first place, attract sociopaths who seek power over the State to gain wealth/status, guaranteeing a singularity of sociopathic status maximization. The problems of democracy honestly have very little to do with voting or "the mob" and everything to do with non-secure power and a lack of authority (as opposed to control).

>>12133818
I'll suppose that is true.(though I doubt it ofc, not enough to read moldbug, but doubt has no bearing on a supposition anyway)
I wasnt saying that moldbug, or anyone guilty of bad reasoning, is a bad reasoner. There is bad reasoning and good reasoning everyone partakes in both. No reason can ever grasp certainty, good or bad as it may be, not for certain. Reasoning reaches false conclusions more frequently than any other kind of cognition.
I'm starting to trip too hard to keep this up
My point was regurgitated-pragmatism baby¥

>>12133770
>To think I was actually about to go into detail.
You wouldn't be able to. Like I said, if you were capable of doing it, you would have done it by now. Someone that had actually internalized some sort of intellectual virtues (e.g. a commitment to good argument) would have done that. You say you have these virtues, but you're all talk and no action. None of your posts in this thread show any sort of skill at argument evaluation or a commitment to backing up what you say. You haven't even bothered to take on my argumentative criticisms on board, and instead had an amygdala hijack over someone puncturing your inflated sense of self. You ask others to have argumentative standards, yet don't even bother to uphold those standards yourself where none of your claims are justified. You're not just a hypocrite, but a vicious person (in its original sense of holding vices). So yeah, I'm going with status striving as the explanatory mechanism underlying your hypocritical behavior, and I feel vindicated by the fact that it predicted more of the same in your response. You could have falsified my claims by not behaving that way, but people with no self-awareness tend not to be reflective.

>>12133806
I don't feel insecure at all. In fact, I know you aren't my peer in any way or form. Otherwise you would have responded to my post by actually justifying your original claims and be able to hold your own in dialectic. The fact you haven't shows you aren't on my level (or anyone's level here, actually). Anyway, I'll be done with this thread, as you aren't even living by the argumentative norms you've deemed important in framing the conversation. It's clear you are violating them over and over, while pretending to be living by them. You're a larper pretending to be something you're not.

>>12133886
Hehhehhe.You'll see. Tommorow. you'll see. You'll all see

>>12133423
Is this pasta?

>>12133033
>He was the most controversial Victorian
no
>and his ideas make Modlbug look like Obama.
no
I've no idea why people want to make Carlyle into an 2edgy4u rebel.

>>12133947
Explain yourself or fuck off, idiot.

>>12133963
>Explain yourself or fuck off, idiot.
He was not the most controversial victorian, nor was he especially controversial despite his one essay on negros.

Moldbug is far more radical especially considering the era he writes in.

I don't understand why there is a tendency among Moldbug fans to make Carlyle into a controversial and rebellious figure.

>>12133976
>He was not the most controversial victorian
He clearly was. He was probably the most controversial thinker of that era. He was the only one to excite so many bitter enemies and so many sedulous devotees.
>Moldbug is far more radical
Carlyle's dream was absolute dictatorship by the Great Man. At the time he said he would compromise with a German style constitution. He wanted more capital punishment and thought that
>I don't understand why there is a tendency among Moldbug fans to make Carlyle into a controversial and rebellious figure.
Because you do not understand Carlyle.

>>12133987
>He clearly was. He was probably the most controversial thinker of that era. He was the only one to excite so many bitter enemies and so many sedulous devotees.
This is complete bullshit. His only truly controversial work was the negro question, and even that was not that controversial. He suffered no real sanctions in a time where political or social wrongthing could literally get you killed. He remained popular even among his enemies for being a fantastic writer.

>Carlyle's dream was absolute dictatorship by the Great Man. At the time he said he would compromise with a German style constitution. He wanted more capital punishment and thought that
None of which is particularly radical for the victorian era, and it's in fact tamer than many or most reactionaries nowadays (mostly because they are stuck in a signalling spiral)

>Because you do not understand Carlyle.

no u

>>12134063
>His only truly controversial work was the negro question, and even that was not that controversial.
From a modern race-obsessed perspective, which is all you're capable of.
>He suffered no real sanctions in a time where political or social wrongthing could literally get you killed.
You don't understand Victorian england.
>None of which is particularly radical for the victorian era
Dictatorship wasn't radical in Victorian england? Ok tardboi

>>12134069
>From a modern race-obsessed perspective, which is all you're capable of.
no from a post-emancipation England perspective
>You don't understand Victorian england.
Not an argument. If you don't believe politics was repressed in the UK in the 19th century, then look into Irish republicans or the land movement for example.
>Dictatorship wasn't radical in Victorian england? Ok tardboi
Radical but not any more radical than most bog-standard radicals which exist in every time period. It's not any more radical than the communists, Anarchists, Jacobites, or other movements of the time. Certainly not more radical than Moldbug is today

>>12134111
Your argument that Carlyle wasn’t contriversial is that he never participated in/encouraged violent rebellion? Ok buddy

>>12134111
>anarchists
Obscure and not taken very seriously
>Jacobites
Dictatorship is more controversial than this, you’re kidding yourself if you think otherwise

>>12131917
>it was his progressive satire come reality today, lol. i know and he knows he didn't invent it, ffs. he loans indian caste system.
it was fun seeing fucking Thomas Piketty using quasi-Moldbuggian terminology on this paper:
>Brahmin Left vs Merchant Right:
Rising Inequality & the Changing Structure of Political Conflict (Evidence from France, Britain and the US, 1948-2017)
>http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Piketty2018.pdf

>>12132268
>I would unironically respect the government more if they were honest about declaring certain groups to be formal protected classes whom it was forbidden to offend, who would receive mandatory reparations and mandatory job placement by law.
like Zizek often memes it was forbidden to criticize Stalin, but it was even more forbidden to publicly announce that you can't criticize Stalin

>>12134349
>quasi-Moldbuggian terminology
It's older than moldbug

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Brahmin

>>12134289
>Your argument that Carlyle wasn’t contriversial
I meant moldbug was not controversial before Moldbug plugged him, meaning like 10 years ago. Everything I said about the Victorian was against you saying that he was "the most controversial victorian"
>is that he never participated in/encouraged violent rebellion?
So he was the most controversial except for actually controversial thought?, also most Irish nationalists in his time were parliamentarians.

>>12134292
>Obscure and not taken very seriously
likewise dictatorship
>Dictatorship is more controversial than this
irrelevant philisophical autists are more controversial than traitors who rebelled in living memory including a possible french invasion?

> First Moldbug thread in ages.
> It's bickering about if Carlyle was controversial in his time.
> Even when Moldbug made the conscious point that he was not but is now.

>>12133904
>Hehhehhe.You'll see. Tommorow. you'll see. You'll all see
Some of you guys are ok, don't clean your rooms tomorrow.

think i'm voting cringe on this one sonny boy

>>12133559
When people decided the punishment should fit the crime and stealing a fucking bag of apples shouldn't be punishable by death, jesus christ your fucking stupid

>>12134809
>he was not controversial before moldbug
Lol bullshit, look at what Borges, Lawrence, Weininger, Nietzsche, etc had to say...if his name lost any stigma at all it’s because he was buried under the decades of university pseuds who could no longer understand him, but still put out the occasional squeak at his “fascism”
>likewise dictatorship
He was not calling for dictatorship, dummy. That would be in the very long run or under extreme circumstances. He was a reactionary of a much more controversialsort than your high tory building castles in the sky...That he had Ruskin and Froude kissing his ass suggests more clout than an edgelord anarchist perusing continental papers...
Likewise some of the most dangerous and controversial doctrines among the Fabian Society derive from his books.

>within living memory
Slavery was “within living memory” a few decades ago, when bob dylan was at his peak.