/lit/ - Literature

Heres your reactionary right wing Chad bro

>>18572486
>forgotten by everybody except a jewish programmer writing a blog about techno libertarianism and race, who calls himself Mencius Moldbug.

>>16119447
>Read Moldbug
lol

>>15681606
>Ok. So it's just resentment.
>y-your just jealous
Of what? Your middling wealth or your absence of a chin?

>>15488670
>>15489057
>>15489147
>>15489159
4chan was literally socialist in its beggining and the only place where it devolved into not being leftist was the containment board /pol before spreading out everywhere else. I do not know what to tell you, if you genuinely remember 4chan to be right wing full of newfags like you in 2008 that's on you. /lit has and always will be full of marxists except in the summer when newfag midwits try to read baby's first right wing literature and get filtered out, like what is happening now.

These kind of idiotic statements can only made by a pseud
>people will engage with you on reddit
>it isn't based in reality so you have to cling onto your teary eyed ideals because otherwise you'd have to admit communism was trash
>we are not teary eyed romantics about 'muh utopia' and know the basic history of communism
>if I have to explain what an econmist is then you really need to go back

Go read marx

>>15271526
lol didn't he royally fuck that up and resign in shame lmao

To be fair, you have to have a very high social and emotional intelligence to relate to Mencius Moldbug crying. The feels are extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of patchwork most of the NAP 1% will go over a communist's head. There's also Moldbug's leather jacket, which is deftly woven into his filler wording - his irony draws heavily from postmarxist neocarlylism, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the social-intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of his clear-pill back patches, to realize that they're not just profound - they say something deep about leather. As a consequence people who dislike Moldbug Digipunk truly ARE idiots - of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the meaning in Moldbug's tear-pill meanderings, which in themselves are a cryptic reference to post-leather insignia and cyber-vegan initiation into the future. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those hyperaddlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Mencius Moldbug's genius unfolds itself from the activity patchwork. What fools... how I pity them. And yes by the way, I DO have a "Who is MOLDHOG MC's Enforcer?" tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's outside the dome - and even it has to demonstrate that it's within 25 urbit cash of my own (preferably lower) beforehand.

>religion is a memeplex built around a central delusion, the God meme—an entirely unsubstantiated proposition. Religion exists because this memeplex is adaptive. This explanation is both necessary and sufficient. It is also parsimonious, à la Occam’s razor. It may not be simple, but it’s a heck of a lot simpler than “God.”
>In Darwinian terms, Professor Dawkins’ main point is that the adaptive interests of religion—or of any other memeplex—are not necessarily the same as the adaptive interests of its host. As a celibate priest, for example, you are helping Christianity to be fruitful and multiply. It’s performing no such service for you.
>Biologists have a word for this: parasitism. Probably because he wants to be nice, Professor Dawkins tries not to use the p-word. But he’s clearly thinking it.
>The God delusion is a parasitic meme because, being alien to reason, it does not serve the interests of the host. Furthermore, some of the memeplexes—or “religions”—which include it include far more pernicious memes, such as suicide bombing, which are lethal both to the host and anyone within its blast radius.

https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/09/how-dawkins-got-pwned-part-1/

>religion is a memeplex built around a central delusion, the God meme—an entirely unsubstantiated proposition. Religion exists because this memeplex is adaptive. This explanation is both necessary and sufficient. It is also parsimonious, à la Occam’s razor. It may not be simple, but it’s a heck of a lot simpler than “God.”
>In Darwinian terms, Professor Dawkins’ main point is that the adaptive interests of religion—or of any other memeplex—are not necessarily the same as the adaptive interests of its host. As a celibate priest, for example, you are helping Christianity to be fruitful and multiply. It’s performing no such service for you.
>Biologists have a word for this: parasitism. Probably because he wants to be nice, Professor Dawkins tries not to use the p-word. But he’s clearly thinking it.
>The God delusion is a parasitic meme because, being alien to reason, it does not serve the interests of the host. Furthermore, some of the memeplexes—or “religions”—which include it include far more pernicious memes, such as suicide bombing, which are lethal both to the host and anyone within its blast radius.
I mean, is he wrong?

>>13519443
Indeed

What does /lit/ think of this man's body of work?

I originally started reading him because I was hoping for some anti enlightenment values, arguments for monarchy and aristocracy. But instead he just seems to be an edgy libertarian.

Also he goes off on rants relating everything to catholics. I understand he is writing a blog and not a research paper but does he have to have so much filler?

Has anyone here read a lot of moldbug?
I tried to read him but he goes off on too many tangents about comparing whatever he's talking about to catholics.

Also I was expecting some hard hitting anti democratic anti enlightenment stuff but he just seems like an edgy libertarian

;_;