/lit/ - Literature

>hurr just be great
gladiator tier philosophy

i downloaded his entire bibliography (pretty much), just have to read it now and get back to you

Pretty sure that's just fascism

>>15644722
>Carlyle, Toynbee, Spengler, Durant, the list goes on

>>15644763
>>Carlyle, Toynbee, the list goes on

>>15644730
Anon don't be stupid. Don't stop in the middle of the first lecture next time.

>>15644722
If anyone could post a comprehensive way into him that would be dope

>>15644824
if you know nothing about him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74V6lHh97yo

>>15644824
>>15644939
Lol anon don't watch this, Bowden though condenses much knowledge about Carlyle into a good lecture, he isn't a good introduction to Carlyle as he is himself a Nietzschean pagan who does not find himself in the end, too close to the ideas of Carlyle insofar as they do not come through Nietzsche. It gives a considerably halfward view of Carlyle.

Though I like Bowden, and he's a great speaker/lecturer/orator, I don't think it would be a good idea to start with Carlyle through Bowden. Just check some of the Carlyle wikipedia page section on his theory of great men, then his life, and lastly read his On Heroes, Hero Worship and the Heroic in History. It's quite short and is split into multiple systematised lectures in order. It gives the run down on much of what he believes, most famously and obviously his great-man theory. After that you should read Sartor Resartus, an indefinable classic, and then you are practically free to read what you want of Carlyle's.

>>15644722
Can someone thoroughly debunk and discredit Marx real quick?

>>15644971
which books of Carlyle have you read?

>since Marx has been thoroughly debunked and discredited

By whom?

>>15645081
By Burnham for starters.

>>15645081
His economic analysis is actually the worst. He can be forgiven for writing it in a time when economics wasn't formalized and there wasn't readily accessible education on it, but if you read the LToV and think anything except "This a very primitive view of industry" you are an utter brainlet.

>>15645106
i would bet money you can't accurately explain the LTV

>>15645113
I would bet money that Marx couldn't either

>>15645098
>Burnham
>mfw

>>15645106
I will never take the >muh economics! argument seriously since 95% of modern economics is just bourgeois bullshit that the bourgeois have scammed everyone into thinking is true.

Also go ahead and disprove the LTV if you think it's such a "primitive view," I'll wait

>>15645120
cope

>>15645055
All of them.

>>15645132
The Left can't meme.

I'm not trying to debate with you, but that reaction picture is cringe my man.

>>15645040
>>15645081
>>15645132
>>15645133
>teenage commies ruin yet another thread

>>15645143
>The Left can't meme is his only response
>>15645147
>more ad hominem shit flings is his only response

/pol/tards can't into basic logic it seems.
>>>/pol/ you mongrel chuds

>>15645132
>>Burnham
>>mfw
Very smol brain response. You can be marxist philosophically and agree with what Burnham says, even though it goes against prediction of Marx himself. Especially when it comes to the observation of the ineptness of the working class to leverage anything into power/social change and incredible potency of the managers to do so. Basically the only way a marxist can backpedal out of this problem is by saying that, well, technically even CEO's are employees, therefore they're working class, but that obviously creates more problems than it solves.

>>15645132
The principle and summative argument against the LTV is that "labor" does not result in value. "Labor" plus purpose plus knowledge results in value. Strictly speaking the problem with the LTV is not your average brainlet Marxist, and likely Marx himself, conceives of labor as physical labor, and rejects the concept of mental and emotional expenditures as labor, which is entirely arbitrary. There is not a good reason why, for example, the accumulation of industrial knowledge isn't counted as a form of labor. Or the willingness to risk ones own assets. So Marx's argument for the LTV comes down to "If you have 9 workers and 1 boss who produce a good, it doesn't make sense why they don't all get 10% of the final value of the good. And in fact the boss shouldn't get a share of the value at all" when the reality is that the boss's labor is more than the other workers combined in the form of accumulation of industrial knowledge, market knowledge, and willingness to expend personal money to support his industrial goals. This is why Marx has to come up with, frankly, retarded ideas like "All money over the cost of input goods and labor is 'surplus value' ", rather than recognizing that the knowledge of the value of a kind of good in and of itself is a kind of labor, and that much of this "surplus value" comes from the labor expended to accumulate the knowledge of the value of a good to the society in question, and how to produce it in such a way that it will be purchased by the public at large.

I never understood Marx to begin with. Why focus on capital at all when you should be focusing on selection pressures? Capital is a level above selection pressures, which is really what you should be focusing on

>>15645191
I never understood why people even start talking about things like mental work or risk management etc when the more apt example is that of copying industrially produced goods in your garage. It will take awful lot more labour than making it on assembly line(because of hand-fitting alone) and yet it won't result in a product that's more valuable, both from the perspective of "what can you sell it for" and "what's the idealistic value of it, functionally, aesthetically etc.".

>>15645154
>>The Left can't meme is his only response
Yes you retard, that was my only point. I wasn't the other guy you were arguing with about the dismal science, I was merely sustaining the view that the left can't meme by the evident post of yours, you are an outsider to this place obviously though I don't reject your presence, you'll have to develop a better humour from what you're posting now.

>>15645228
Believe me, practical examples are good enough for me when it comes to disproving this nonsense, but hardcore marxists are deeply invested in the theory and the best way to attack the theory is showing how it's internally inconsistent. I.e., that it arbitrarily chooses some kinds of labor as valuable at not others, and therefore that the reasoning does not lead to the conclusions Marx pushes wrt LTV.

>>15645228
>what is SNLT
time for you to read a book i think

>>15645239
The left can't meme is kind of overstated. All mainstream cultural production pays homage to the leftist projects of the day; diversity, female lib, reparations, affirmative action, higher taxes, decolonization of culture and society, fighting white supremacy, abortion, gay marriage, trans people, anti-religion and so on

>a thread about Carlyle and it already has 29 replies, interesting!
>oh wait, never mind

>>15645185
Burnham is a conservative spook who wrote pro bourgeois propaganda during the height of the Cold War. Next.

>>15645191
>the reality is that the boss's labor is more than the other workers combined in the form of accumulation of industrial knowledge, market knowledge, and willingness to expend personal money to support his industrial goals

If you seriously think that people move up the corporate chain through competence and accumulation of knowledge, I have a bridge to sell you. Also this: >>15645251 , I seriously doubt you've even read Marx in depth since you clearly don't understand his arguments, and you're arguing against a strawman that you probably made up from watching YouTube videos. Read more.

>>15644722
great man theory is bullshit

t Tolstoy

>>15645274
>Burnham is a conservative spook who wrote pro bourgeois propaganda during the height of the Cold War. Next.
The Managerial Revolution was published in 1941 and the core ideas of it can be seen in the earlier polemic Burnham released as he abandoned Trotskists. Hardly "height of the Cold War".

>>15645147
If you don't want to talk about Marx don't mention him the op genius.

>>15645274
>"Ha, explain why the LTV is wrong! I bet you can't"
>Okay, there's fundamental problems in the LTV that cause it to make false conclusions, and they're these things: ...
>"N-no, you're wrong because (vague ramblings about evil businessmen and nothing about the points). You clearly don't know Marx!"
Marxists are such sore losers. Seethe more, I'm so close...

>>15645304
As usual all the right offers is bluster and posturing, what a proud academic tradition.

>>15645154
>/pol/tards can't into basic logic it seems.
You don't seem to have much hindsight to think the great geniuses of world history were merely mistaken in their every thought. I would also like to say that Marx was an immoral degenerate throughout his life addicted to spending money, and formulated his entire philosophy littlely around logic, and predominantly around his emotions and aesthetics, from a hate of what he cannot control(addiction to money) to the radically bitter atheism which can be found in his private poems and plays, wherein they lay the reasoning for his apparently unthought presupposed atheism and materialism, but of course, we now know it wasn't just presupposed, he had a visceral hatred for God and creation, the creative energies in general obviously relating to the story's of Lucifer who could only fulfil such creative yearnings of the prideful by a destructive manner and degeneration. The "rational-moral principle" as Carlyle put it.

I don't follow degenerates anon. This is expressed and shown in his political and personal philosophy, and not just consequentially, but also implicitly in many cases. Marxist beliefs are literally the most unfounded and ridiculous always, tradition and conservatism have a strong rooting in human nature, it is first-thought, Marxism is only popular by a sense of "well I guess I'll do this now" and all its intellectual efforts have only been by the original-degeneracy which are Marx's presuppositions, or the presuppositions of those who have continued what they see Marx as stemming the reaction against the West and tradition; Hence the term Cultural Marxism even if it may be used as a political charging word. And to finish the sentence: All of Cultural Marxism's intellectual efforts have been by the presuppositions of itself, rather than formulating reason to begin with. It has never once thought to turn inward to answer them, to reason them at all, this would take a Platonic sense of beauty, the poetic, because of this any sense of the mystical is dead-straight in them, and any such mysticality of marxism would be an anomaly for the pseudo-worldview, because it is that and lacking in any sense of spiritual authenticity, and the magnitude in which that covers. No truthfulness to itself as I have said, which would again take a Platonic-reasoning, and a certain kind of purity in honesty for oneself. There is no self to a Marxist, there is neither honesty or purity to him, no animal or animation, he is a dead-being living only because of his degradated state, it is all just dead-matter. And when it becomes not this, as I have said, it would be an anomaly, because then it would no longer be what it is. You are always bound to be the tools of jews wherever you go.

>>15645319
You've dismissed 1941 argument as "made at the height of the cold war". That's hardly any better.

>>15645262
>The left can't meme is kind of overstated.
I don't get how what follows from these words proves that it is overstated. Explain.

>>15645331
Memes is culture. The "right" certainly doesn't own mainstream culture. All the mainstream memes that are popular right now are essentially left-wing ones. BLM is one huge left-wing meme

>>15645319
>Marxist continues to seethe and mock because he has no response
OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOOD YEEEES I'M GONNA COOOOOOOOOOOOOOM AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH I'M COOOOOOOOOMMMMIIIIIIIIIINNNG

>>15645342
I don't know how you don't feel embarased about behaving like this.
>>15645326
The boss is only making adjustments to the devision of labour preformed by the workers and is not producing real value.

>>15645341
That wasn't my point, most seem to know that normies can't meme, but it is the explicitly marxist memes that are horrible, like trying to be about labour principle or the likes.

>>15645368
>Boss is """"only"""" making adjustments to the division of labor
>not producing real value
How is the knowledge of who would work best in each position not a form of real value?

>>15645388
Because real value is the material products produced by the labour.

>>15645369
I'm just saying that seeing memes as nothing but "funny pictures on the internet" is too narrow. It's true that the right largely dominates this area but there are other venues for memes, like in television, movies and music. These places are largely dominated by left-wing memes in the sense that being a proponent of trans rights for example is seen as the enlightened position

>>15645395
Well yeah but no one supposes that division of labor is valuable because it increases the value of individual goods. It increases the efficiency of production, which means that more goods of the same value can be produced in the same span of time. This is another area where the LTV falls apart. It conceives only of a single discrete manufacturing example, rather than manufacturing as a continuous process. This fails because no matter the skill of the workers involved, the value of the same good is never going to increase if their skill goes into producing it more quickly. But in manufacturing most improvements have to do with the quantity of labor produced. So yes a manager does not increase the value of a single good, in a vacuum (owners do by having the knowledge of what goods should be produced and in what way). The value he increases is the factory's, by making the equivalent of an hour's production time higher because he organizes it to more efficiently produce goods of the same value.

This should really be obvious. Your analysis would suppose that a farm with a single apple tree and a farm with 10,000 apple trees have the same value because they both produce apples.

>>15645438
>quantity of labor produced
This should be quantity of goods produced

>>15645438
The division of labour is improtant I did not argue that but it is not the most important thing or the source of the product which comes from the raw materials plus, the machinery and labour.
>the value of the same good is never going to increase if their skill goes into producing it more quickly
This is true as a result of the wage labour system where by workers are payed for their hours worked and not they're true value produced.
>Your analysis would suppose that a farm with a single apple tree and a farm with 10,000 apple trees have the same value because they both produce apples
This is an absurd mischaracterization or misunderstanding. My analysis is not regarding the value of properties as investements but the products of labour.
Obviously more apples are worth more than fewer apples.

>>15644722
Carlyle filtered me in a 100-level English course 12 years ago and I'm afraid to try again.

Marx is literally proven more right every day

>>15645228
they usually end up like this because they're college educated and from a white collar background so they have no practically relationship with actual physical production. value to them is deduced from receiving a paycheck for pushing papers around on a desk

>>15645412
>These places are largely dominated by left-wing memes in the sense that being a proponent of trans rights for example is seen as the enlightened position
Lol, anon the media is not in touch with the masses, who have always been a conservative block. As I said it is human nature. But they also aren't memes, that is the media, and they also aren't funny. The left just as a people don't seem to be able to see what's funny, do you think watching men dress as women and supporting it and getting fired if you don't is funny, or do you think making a joke about Butch calling himself "Pam" is funny? Obviously the absurdity of the action is revealed and as we both agree it is obvious memes are not just "funny with no truth", rather it is funny because they have truth in them though the expression of the truth is predominantly not the purpose of the meme, the purpose is still to laugh. Like one does at tranny's being funny. And so I think it's the left who are more constrained and uncomedic, they're generally less self-aware and most would probably agree with this, they're also just not as "tough", they don't encourage that mindset or strength as an ideal wherein one would find it funny laughing at their own beliefs or ideas or themselves, like the right DOES, like for example it regularly makes fun of someone like Hitler or Wagner even though they would be their idols. The left is just fundamentally in a bad place right now irrespective of the past, and this is shown in multiple areas of life, specifically for this in the comedic.

>>15644722
Carlyle is shit.

>>15645533
Lmao, he's a brilliant writer at the very least in his prose; fun fact, no other writer influenced Dickens as much stylistically as Carlyle. I even remember a /lit/ thread about an anon witnessing a female professor/or maybe teacher use Carlyle as an example of bad writing... sicked everyone that did ... But nonetheless he is one of my favourite writers on a personal as well as historic level. I remember having a bit of trouble also while reading him for the first time, it was his Hero worship essay, but by the end of the first lecture you've sort of imbued the pattern of his writing into your brain and you can read it easily like you're a Victorian. And once you are able to read in in such a way, his extremely rhetorical character becomes more obvious but also his great value does also. Just read Hero worship first and then Sartor Resartus.

>>15645533
>>15645632
>Nevertheless, you will say, there must be a difference between true Poetry and true Speech not poetical: what is the difference? On this point many things have been written, especially by late German Critics, some of which are not very intelligible at first. They say, for example, that the Poet has an infinitude in him; communicates an Unendlichkeit, a certain character of "infinitude," to whatsoever he delineates. This, though not very precise, yet on so vague a matter is worth remembering: if well meditated, some meaning will gradually be found in it. For my own part, I find considerable meaning in the old vulgar distinction of Poetry being metrical, having music in it, being a Song. Truly, if pressed to give a definition, one might say this as soon as anything else: If your delineation be authentically musical, musical not in word only, but in heart and substance, in all the thoughts and utterances of it, in the whole conception of it, then it will be poetical; if not, not.—Musical: how much lies in that! A musical thought is one spoken by a mind that has penetrated into the inmost heart of the thing; detected the inmost mystery of it, namely the melody that lies hidden in it; the inward harmony of coherence which is its soul, whereby it exists, and has a right to be, here in this world. All inmost things, we may say, are melodious; naturally utter themselves in Song. The meaning of Song goes deep. Who is there that, in logical words, can express the effect music has on us? A kind of inarticulate unfathomable speech, which leads us to the edge of the Infinite, and lets us for moments gaze into that!
>Nay all speech, even the commonest speech, has something of song in it: not a parish in the world but has its parish-accent;—the rhythm or tune to which the people there sing what they have to say! Accent is a kind of chanting; all men have accent of their own,—though they only notice that of others. Observe too how all passionate language does of itself become musical,—with a finer music than the mere accent; the speech of a man even in zealous anger becomes a chant, a song. All deep things are Song. It seems somehow the very central essence of us, Song; as if all the rest were but wrappages and hulls! The primal element of us; of us, and of all things. The Greeks fabled of Sphere-Harmonies: it was the feeling they had of the inner structure of Nature; that the soul of all her voices and utterances was perfect music. Poetry, therefore, we will call musical Thought. The Poet is he who thinks in that manner. At bottom, it turns still on power of intellect; it is a man's sincerity and depth of vision that makes him a Poet. See deep enough, and you see musically; the heart of Nature being everywhere music, if you can only reach it.

>>15645621
Lmao Nietzsche considered Carlyle interesting on a very personal level, as well as being greatly influenced by him himself. Do you think Nietzsche popped out of no where?

Smh people really be thinking Goethe or Holderlin or Schopenhauer or Spinoza or Carlyle or Wagner's ideas didn't exist before Nietzsche.

>>15645490
>My analysis is not regarding the value of properties as investments but the products of labor.
Yes. I am saying that your analysis is fundamentally flawed because it focuses only on a single product, and not on the production of products as a whole, while making statements about the production of a single product based on factors that only affect production of products as a whole. I am not making that example because I'm talking about investments. I am making that example because a farm that produces more apples produces more real value in the form of physical products.

Let me break it down for you with a different example since I'm clearly talking over your head. Let's say you have two orchards, each has 40 trees, each tree has 40 apples (1600 potential apples). Each farm employs 5 farmhands to pick the apples. This means each farmhand has to pick 320 apples to completely deplete the orchard.
Orchard A has no organization. The workers pick the apples by hand and wander around until they see a tree with apples on it. This takes them roughly 12 hours, so each worker is picking about 25-30 apples per hour.
Orchard B hires an experienced farmhand to oversee the operation. He recommends that they use picking claws, install ladders where possible, and assign workers to certain trees. As a result, Orchard B takes only 4 hours to pick all the apples. They've tripled their rate of production.
In your analysis, because physical labor is the only component that generates value, Orchard A and Orchard B are producing the same value. This happens because you analyze individual cases and apply phenomena that change the holistic aspects of production, not the individual ones. The experienced farmhand in this example has essentially expended 8 hours of labor, because his knowledge of organization has reduced the time needed to produce the same quantity of apples by that much. But because it's not physical labor, LVT says it is stolen from the workers, who are not paid for their "true value". The "true value" of workers in Orchard A is equivalent to 2.4 hours of labor. In Orchard B it's equivalent to 0.8 hours of labor. This is the labor that is required to replace the output of the worker if they were unable to work. The "true value" of the boss in Orchard B is 8 hours, because this is the labor that is required to replace the boss if they were unable to work.

>>15645653
Nietzsche criticized Carlyle on multiple occasions. He thought he misunderstood great men and called him an idealist.

>In great men, the specific qualities of life—injustice, falsehood, exploitation—are at their greatest. But in so far as they have had an overwhelming effect, their essence has been most misunderstood and interpreted as goodness. Type: Carlyle as interpreter.

968, Will to Power

>>15645688
>Nietzsche criticized Carlyle on multiple occasions.
Obviously, that's why I said on a personal level.

Carlyle believed in the "rational-moral principle", so in that way you are right there is a definite difference. But undoubtedly more influence.

>>15645686
No one is arguing that fewer apples are worth more or that we should have disorganized farms. You can continue to have that argument without me as you have been this whole time.
In your example Orchard B the value is still generated by the farm workers who are preforming the labour and not the man who devised the devision of labour. In both Orchard A and Orchard B physical labour remains the sole producer of the product as the boss is not participating in production by devising a new form of labour.
If I were to teach a man how to fire a gun properly and he shoots someone responsibility for the shooting is not then transfered to me for devising the method.

>>15645752
Actually if you teach a man how to shoot a gun, provide him with the gun and bullets and instructions the "responsibility for the shooting" is in fact "then transfered to me for devising the method." You're an idiot anon. And not just because of this. You're clearly a stupid person who fancies themself clever which is always revolting to see.

>>15644763
why does he wear the rope

>>15645752
>No one is arguing that fewer apples are worth more
Correct, by saying that bosses do not produce value you are saying that fewer apples has the same value as more apples, because all that matters is the physical labor that goes into producing the apples
All of your arguments essentially come down to the same point that you completely ignored earlier, which is that the fundamental problem of the LTV is that it arbitrarily decides that only physical labor is "labor". This is not the equivalent of teaching someone to shoot a gun and then being held responsible for their shooting someone. It is the equivalent of telling someone to shoot someone else and being held responsible. Bosses do not operate by "teaching" workers how to work. They set production quotas and practices, oversee them, give orders, and create plans. They are directly responsible for the operations of the factory because even the kinds of physical labor performed in the factory are a result of their decisions

You don't really seem to get that
>the value is still generated by the farm workers who are preforming the labour and not the man who devised the devision of labour
Is not really a refutation so much as it just you saying "Nope". The point which you don't seem to get that is that labor being "the sole producer of the product" is irrelevant. Yes, the apples would not be picked if no one wanted to pick them. The point is not that bosses can pick apples by telepathy. The point is that the gap between the production of an organized and a disorganized farm is the presence of the boss, and that therefore the boss is responsible for this increase in productivity, and this by definition makes him a participant in the production. There is no argument otherwise. You can't somehow say both "Yes, the efficiency and functionality of this method is solely due to the presence of this individual" and also claim that they have no participation in the production. It's absolutely laughable. It's like saying "Yes, my mother had sex, was impregnated, carried me to term, gave birth to me, fed me, raised me to maturity, but this is not evidence that she's ever had any participation in my life whatsoever".

>people still desperately trying to defend the LTV
doesn't matter how long you spend working on a shit cake. the cake is still made of shit

>>15645852
Anon, Im a third party to this debate and have yet to really read marx or the writers who tried to refute him. But, you’re speaking some sense here and I’d like to know what you read that brought you to this conclusion so I can read it too. Any reccommendations? I saw Burnham mentioned above and I’ll check it out, but is there any other writers to look at?

>great man theory
cringe

>>15646314
The refutation part is all me, as far as reading actual philosophy with any kind of purpose I'm still beginning with the Greeks. But I have read The Communist Manifesto and heard enough about LTV to put together a decent picture of it. Maybe I'm too much of a midwit to understand it, but my impression talking to Marxists about Marx is that his theories have glaring holes in them that his followers fill with, depending on where you fall on the debate, jealous rumor-mongering or observations of business-owners' behavior, rather than actually resolving the problems. I don't really "buy" refutation works. My thought is that if you need to read philosopher B to understand why philosopher A is wrong, you haven't really engaged with either of the texts.

So I guess my answer is if you want to know why Marxism is a failed philosophy, just read Marx and talk to Marxists about it.

>>15645632
>>15645642
I want to try again. The book was Past and Present and I couldn't comprehend what I was reading. I still have the book. I had no problem with Emerson's essays or the federalist papers (the latter of which are VERY clearly written). Just couldn't grasp Carlyle.

>>15646241
Who are the first two, and don't you think Carlyle is a bit out of the league of Evola?

>>15646790
Yeah don't read Past and Present first, definitely start with Hero Worship which takes little ingenuity on the readers part(except for the same old great prose of his), while Sartor Resartus will take some knowledge on Carlyle's own life, his various influences, and what exactly he was trying to do with the philosophy of clothes.

>>15645304
non-bluster, how is what you said not included in the "socially necessary" part of socially necessary labor time? Marx wasn't braindead you know

>>15645388
>who would work best in each position
you really know nothing about the reality of mass production

>>15645593
you have to be 18 to post here, why is that so hard to understand?

>>15645852
>the efficiency and functionality of this method is solely due to the presence of this individual
It's not the method is intangible, all those things are due to the preformance of the method.

>>15644763
>Froude, De Maistre, De Jouvenel, Schmitt, Michels, the list goes on

>>15645081
>>15645132
>Geoffrey Hodgson - Conceptualising Captialism
Basically proved that the liberal premises inherited by Marx ended up invalidating lots of what he said
>Gilles Deleuze - Difference and Repetition
Killed dialectics
>Jean Baudrillard
Overrode Marx's understanding of value with Sign value by amending structural linguistics
>De Jouvenel, C.A. Bond
Systematically proved that Marx's understanding of Power was fundamentally incomplete - which is kind of inevitable seeing as dialectics is bullshit.
Both Marxists and Liberals have made the mistake of identifying subsidiaries with the centre as a cohesive ruling class.
Rather, a much better model of apprehending the political isn't dualistic but rather tripartite.
>Literally all of scholasticism, classical metaphysics and virtue ethics
Destroyed materialism before it got started.
Marx's ethics are pretty terrible.
To bridge the gap between this position and the Marxist one go check out Alasdair MacIntyre's After Virtue
He's a Thomistic Marxist who's syncretism you might find interesting if you aren't the plebbitor /thread has accused you of being

>>15647129
No they are both fantastic, but reside in very different spheres.
Carlyle is a literary genius, Evola a fantastic scholar of mysticism - especially his Buddhism.
Not out of each other's league per se but in completely different categories, yet they are united in their shared righteous antagonism towards modernity.

>>15648952
Your comming along well anon, you almost said something with meaning in that big bowl of word soup with names.