/lit/ - Literature

>>16595228
Offshoot of Calvinism.

The logical conclusion of Protestantism, really.

How are you going to adjust to the coming neo-monarchist world, /lit/? Will your literary education help you become an elite or will you remain a serf?

Ideologues both left and right really hate Yarvin, huh?

The right hates him because he's a sneaky Jew who wants to gatekeep their precious Natsoc.
The left hates him because he's a corporate shill who wants to keep the proletariat down or something.

I want to see a debate between Taleb and Moldbug

>The Cathedral is information: truth, philosophy, ethics, narrative, art and intelligence.

>Its inner circle, the Brain and the Voice, includes all professors, journalists, serious artists, published authors, etc. Its outer ring, the Conversation, is the whole upper social class. Its funding division, the Foundation, is the whole upper economic class. Its teaching division, the School, gets to indoctrinate almost everyone for over a decade. And its doctrine, the Dream, defines good and evil for all decent people.

>The importance of the Cathedral is defined by its monopoly on legitimacy. A school which is not the School is not educating. A voice which is not the Voice is not informing. A brain which is not the Brain is not thinking. There is nothing legitimate about miseducation, disinformation or unreason.

>Prestigious information passes from Brain to Voice, and Voice to Conversation. This process is subtle enough, and its product is of high enough quality, for the Conversation to believe it is actually making up its own mind—from filtered inputs. The Conversation—all of legitimate public opinion—always admires the System. It thinks of this as a completely voluntary and spontaneous critical assessment.

>And the Conversation, which is the discourse of the upper social class, is always the discourse of fashion. For the nobility (rich or broke), fashionable ideas are de rigueur. Against the middle social class (rich, doing okay or broke), they are political attacks. Épater la bourgeoisie is the official sport of every nobility. It is the role of the weak to accept these attacks, internalize them, and use them to loyally flagellate themselves.

>The arrows of fashion rain down constantly from every direction. The kulaks cannot resist them for long and will surrender to the nobility’s latest definition of cool; not soon enough to be cool themselves; soon enough for this victory over themselves to be expected and taken for granted, and some new demand for further coolness launched.

>And hell will freeze helium before the kulaks convince the nobles of anything at all. Even the truth will have a rough time if the kulaks somehow get hold of it first.

>This may seem like a brutal process—but frankly, isn’t the nobility usually right? Aren’t nobles just cooler, better people? They certainly have higher IQs. The best of them are in the Cathedral. The rest at least hold Cathedral ranks. Surrender, chuds.

*blocks your path*

>>16353996
This. How dare you pretend to BTFO Moldbug-sama in a mere 15 minute take?

He's so ignorant.

He is based.

He makes /pol/ seethe because his family is part Jewish.

He makes brainlets seethe because all they can get out of his 2020 takes is bog standard nihilism.

>2020
>he's still clinging on to liberal democracy

What will his upcoming book me about? Will it become a bestseller? I'm wondering how far he's strayed from his UR literature back in '07.

>>16237053
Think about it.

Right-wingers are ostracized by society and driven out of the mainstream, and into the dark corners of our communities. This naturally bleeds into escapism and results in things like obesity. It's pretty sad and pitiable. if only the left wasn't so horrifically intolerable of people not upholding their faith.

Actual solution: just create a literature general and discuss literature there.

It's very clear not many people here give a fuck about literature and would rather discuss philosophy and ideology, so get the fuck over it and adapt. You don't see the fantasy & sci-fi lovers raising a spergfit on the board about how their pastime isn't respected and widely admired on here.

digits and Moldbug's musings result in democracy being toppled

On Nazism:
>It should be obvious that, although I am not a white nationalist, I am not exactly allergic to the stuff.
>Cannot we marvel at what the Third Reich achieved, with the knowledge that it was run by a maniac? In the hands of a non-maniac, what might it have done? In the hands of an Augustus, for instance? But Germany in 1933 was a democracy. And that democracy elected not Augustus. It elected — Wait. Who did it elect? Gee. I've forgotten already. I hate these migraines. An Austrian, I think. A sergeant? A private first-class? Someone like that. A man of the people, that's for sure. History is so confusing.

On Racism:
>In fact the word "racism" is applied in almost exactly the same way, by almost exactly the same authorities, as "atheism" in 1811. It is an omnibus epithet for a tremendous variety of ideas and opinions which responsible authorities find dangerous or displeasing.

On Freedom:
>I am free when my rights are defined and secured against all comers, regardless of official pretensions. Freedom implies law; law implies order; order implies peace; peace implies victory. As a libertarian, the greatest danger threat to my property is not Uncle Sam, but thieves and brigands. If Uncle Sam wakes up from his present sclerotic slumber and shows the brigands a strong hand, my liberty has been increased.

On Progressivism:
>Most progressives are socially normal human beings, who in any political environment, would just be choosing the largest, best-appointed bandwagon for their personal conveyance. In Nazi Germany they would be Nazis, in Russia they would be Bolsheviks, in the kingdom of Louis XIV they would be all for Louis XIV. This is one of the many reasons there is no need to guillotine them.
>It is not at all surprising that progressives hate corporations and the profit system. It is a natural consequence of the antipathy to order, the anarchism, the lust for entropic destruction, which is the foundation of their creed.

On Dictators:
>If Americans want to change their government, they’re going to have to get over their dictator phobia.

On Terrorism:
>Anders Behring Breivik made war on communist Norway, just as Max Manus made war on fascist Norway, just as Osama bin Laden made war on imperial America, just as Nelson Mandela made war on apartheid South Africa. Terrorism is the normal mode of warfare in our delightful post-WWII utopia. That is, it is the most common way to use force to achieve political objectives. Condemning terrorism, as such, is in every case retarded.

On Blacks:
>For the last 50 years, one of the central purposes of American political life has been advancing the African-American community. And over the last four decades, what has happened to the African-American community? I'll tell you one thing — in every major city in America, there's a burnt-out feral ghetto which, 50-years ago, was a thriving black business district. On the other hand, there's a street in that ghetto named for Dr. King.

You know this fake BAP-Kantbot feud is just kayfabe orchestrated by their mutual friend.

>As a political faction, Right just means “not left.”There are many Rights and only one Left.The modern Left evolved from one 18th-century Anglo-American tradition (English Radicalism), which over the last two centuries captured almost every intellectual and political institution in the world.Any post-1945 perspective outside this movement (Updike’s, for instance) is not the product of any significant intellectual quality-control process, because the modern Right has no significant intellectual institutions (by the standards of the modern Left).

>Worse, as a political movement, the democratic Right exists only to the extent that it can recruit voters.Its doctrine is not a red pill, because it was never designed to be a red pill.It was designed to persuade as many bipeds as possible to pull the right lever.Ideas prosper in the modern Right if, and only if, they increase this number rather than decreasing it.Thus the blend of reality, leftism and nonsense—each of which has its own way of attracting voters.

>Our reconstructions all seem right-wing because “right” just means “heresy.”Where the truth is orthodox, there is no need to reconstruct.But we cannot reverse the process: just as not all orthodoxies are false, not all heresies are true.

Damn, never thought about it like that.

How does it feel to know that the only modern Gramscian worth a damn is a right-winger?