/lit/ - Literature

Because he's literally a genius. The greatest thinker of our time, and Synthetic Total Liberalism is the only hope for the New Right.

Haha, listening to the Hermitix podcast right now and I thought the same thing.

>>15730320
>bro just wait for society to collapse and then create a privately owned state that is going to be rulled by a CEO elected by rich capitalist
>genius

>>15730291
Worse than that, he's a midwit with a delusion of grandeour

I have the exact same problem, though not as egregious. It's a curse.

>>15730291
1. He's read quite a few books.
2. His IQ is above 130.
3. He can talk about taboo topics.

If you can find others like this then by all means let us know.

>>15730656
This except without the o

>>15730704
Hoppe is a hundred times more coherent and is capable of coming up with ideas that are at least somewhat original. Moldbug is a trust fund baby who steals the ideas of better men.

>>15730704
Literally any other eceleb.

>>15730704
4. he's also gay if that matters

>>15730291
he's just not a good speaker give him a break

>>15730720
Incredibly based.

>>15730291
He really does have an annoying way of speaking.

>>15730704
Eric Striker is literally the most astute man alive.

>>15730720
AnCap and Libertaianism are attractive to intelligent people who value freedom, just as Communism is attractive to intelligent people who value justice.
AnCap and Libertarianism is however self-defeating and could never establish a state through democracy, or organize a revolt and even if it did it would collapse due to the inherently weak state.

Both Communism and AnCap is assuming humans are relatively intelligent and mostly want the best for others. Since this is false neither ideology will succeed in any meaningful sense.

Only through applying game theory to the system and it's leaders will we be able to come up with a feasible system.

>>15731106
>Since this is false neither ideology will succeed in any meaningful sense.
Except Hoppian Libertarianism intentionally filters out the nugget heads through forcible removal. I am not a Libertarian, but if you're going to criticise Hoppe, at least do it properly.

>>15730704
>He's read
opinion discarted

>>15730291
Because he’s Le Moldbug! XD

>>15731056
who are these incels?

>>15730291
This dude looks like a colossal faggot. Is he wearing that leather jacket unironically?

>>15730291
Urbit is fairly awesome but his only political idea worth anything is that 'everyone's a pill dealer' (including himself).

>Noam Chomsky sells the 'america bad/justice pill', he sells the 'obscure history/democracy never accomplishes anything pill', taleb sells the 'risk pill', Deleuze sells the 'deterritorialization pill', Land sells the 'acceleration pill', Hegel sells the 'Thesis-antithesis-synthesis pill', Anna Khachiyan sells the 'antiwoke artho pill'.

Sometimes pills will take you on a sweet trip, other times they'll make you sick, sometimes they won't do a single thing, maybe once in a while they'll make you healthier. Nonetheless, they're all pill dealers.

>>15731145
I haven't actually read him yet, I just spouted some general anti-libertarianism and anti-communism ideas. I used to be a libertarian until I saw the futility of the ideology, I still value freedom above most things though.

I just ordered Hoppe's book 'A Theory of Socialism & Captialism' so hopefully I'll become more educated after that.

With that said unless a only a small part of society is eggheads, as you put it, expulsion weakens the nation's manpower pool and creates enemies abroad, as with Trotsky for the Soviet Union. Stalin had good reasons for killing him in the end.

>>15730704
>IQ

>>15731226
Yes, the best single measure we have of g.
If you're not satisfied you can also do a WAIS-IV test and see that your IQ is almost certainly within 1 SD of your combined WAIS score.

>>15730656
is there anyone who isn't a midwit by /lit/ standards?

>>15731250
Dostoevsky and Herman Melville maybe?

>>15731236
>IQ

>>15731056
kek is that friedman?

>>15731278
I must admin, I was skeptical at first, but you've convinced me IQ is meaningless.

>>15731278
>NO YOU CAN'T JUST BELIEVE IN IQ RESEARCHERINO, IT MAKES BROWNERINO PEOPLERINO LOOK BADERINO SO IT ISN'T REALIRINO

He's shining.

>>15731236
>g
>WAIS-IV
>IQ
>SD
Nice presupposition of a normal distribution ya got there, kid. Be a shame if it was skewed.

>>15731508
It does not matter if the differences are larger on one side of the mean or the other.
If the differences are larger on the left side then smaller differences there equal a larger difference on the scale than on the other side.
This is irrelevant.

What are you even trying to imply?

>>15730656
worse than that, he's a literal spook whose parents worked for amerimutt intelligence

>>15731531
IQ is gematria for insecure white people

>>15731568
All these meaningless non-arguments from you retard leftists.
It's so tiresome.

>>15731056
this image is truly powered up, the posture of each is so unbearable

>>15731568
show how

He really does talk in a way that's almost unbearable.
Dude should take up public speaking lessons cause no one is going to be impressed by someone who can't finish a sentence without saying uhm 30 times

>>15731568
but asian and jews have a higher iq than whites
only white and black supremacists reject the concept of iq because it hurts their feelings

>>15731620
That's no longer true.
Since it's now undeniable that IQ is largely inheritable and that there are differences in IQ between different populations the left nowadays need to deny the validity of IQ.

>>15731309
this sucks, meme abused

>>15731056
>having a go at ancaps when Moldbug looks like this
Who do you think you're kidding

>>15730320
This is what teenagers actually believe

>>15731531
Comparing SDs between distributions of unequal kurtosis is a methodological error.
IQ is an asymmetric measure whose predictive information is contained in the left tail leading to faulty conclusions about the right. It barely beats random selection because of this. It is literally only good at illustrating how dumb niggers are, and, even then, there is nothing unique or exceptional about IQ in this feat; almost any cognitive task can demonstrate the same.

>>15731668
then why is the average IQ of physicist profs like 140 instead of a random distribution of >100 scores

>>15731656
I'm in my thirties.

>>15731673
because they're big meanies who hate Taleb >:(

>>15731668
>Comparing SDs between distributions of unequal kurtosis is a methodological error.
I never said anything about this, I simply stated that an uneven distribution is the default since almost nothing is perfectly distributed

Since IQ is defined with the average of humanity at 100, which it definitely is not updated to, then there has to be severe difference in large groups beforehand enough to make SD a bad measure. This is not known beforehand.

>there is nothing unique or exceptional about IQ in this feat; almost any cognitive task can demonstrate the same.
It's the very best single predictor of g, and if you don't like it there are more comprehensive tests like WAIS-IV if you feel you need it.
WAIS-IV is more difficult to use on a global scale since it requires from cultural background to get a representative score.

Moldbug is literally just repackaged Nietzsche and Carlyle. None of his best takes are original, the only original things he has to say are the cringey "guns biometrically controlled by big daddy sovereign" type shit. All of his diagnoses of society were said by smarter people 150 years ago.

>>15731674
I should hope you had read enough books by your thirties that a shitty blog from a software engineer with a political "theory" that sounds like a satire of his profession wouldn't be enough to convince you someone was a genius

>>15731673
> confusing an average and a random distribution
Say what now?

>>15731674
Thirty is the new fifteen in America.

>>15731727
If it didn't matter whether your IQ was 105 or 140, which was the implication of the post I replied to, then it would be unbelievably unlikely to have physicists profs have an average of 140(a minuscule percentage of IQ scores are that high).

>>15731556
>>15731568
Why can't I filter your pseud whining

>>15731735
Albert Einstein had an IQ of 110. He was basically retarded.

>>15731753
I doubt this is even true, but it wouldn't address my point anyway, since it would be a single data point.

>>15731758
Richard Feynman, IQ 125, was another diagnostic mediocrity and yet still a genius.
The academy has a selection bias for particular facets of intelligence selected for by things such as IQ and the SAT. This bias happens to cluster most professors around 130-140. Arbitrary pattern recognition under test taking conditions is not general intelligence, nor will there ever be a good psychometric for general intelligence. The mind is not an engine or an instrument or any other midwit analogy whose raw power can be precisely quantified.

>>15731806
>nor will there ever be a good psychometric for general intelligence.
why do you want this to be true so badly? Are you afraid of what the results would be?

>>15731832
Yer projecting bud. I don't care one way or the other, and neither should you. Blaegs are still gonna be retards with or without the validity of IQ testing if that's your concern.

>>15731056
This is depressing.

>>15731643
>unconventionally h-handsome

>>15731842
I care because people lie about it and I can't stand liars

>>15731832
Which part of general intelligence testing attempts to measure how well a person retains and synthesizes information over a long period of time?

>>15731708
Imagine having zero IQ. Must be similar to IQ=oo

>>15731879
The part where they take the general intelligence test they practiced the past 6 months for and received prep course materials for bought by their Asian parents.

>>15731735
No, if it 'didn't matter whether your IQ was 105 or 140', then a random sampling of people with IQ over 100 would have an average IQ of 123.

>>15731902
I hope you're being ironic

>>15731907
That is my point, it would not be 140, the chances of it randomly selecting the tiny group of people with 140 iq is are unrealistic. Also are you sure it would be 123 and not lower than that

>>15731056
desu, its still substantially better than commie/anarch meet ups if we go purely by apearence. these guys are average to bellow average. ive seen some literal trolls on some left meet ups.

>inbfor dyed hair el abominatio is not left.

>>15731056
absolute slayer in the back with his NAP-compliant war bride

>>15730291
He is a terrible speaker but smart guy. You won’t find many other people taking cues from Carlyle and Jünger these days.

>>15731921
>look i posted it again

>>15730704
4. He's jewisj

>>15731250
Leonardo Da Vinci.

>>15731056
Where are their girlfriends?

>>15731934
I'd hop onto her property if you catch my drift

>>15731250
Hobbes, Burke, Locke, Rousseau, Smith, George

Pretty much anybody who isn't a software developer who thinks inventing the pagerank algorithm objectively qualifies you as a great geopolitical leader

>>15731250
Actual academics and intellectuals who have contributed to their field. Not some pseud midwit that rants about his halfbaked opinions on blogs and podcasts.

>>15732719
>NOOO YOU HAVE TO BELONG TO THE INSTITUTIONS TO SAY SOMETHING
based brainwashed bootlicker

>>15732719
Those institutions are the very core of the problem.

>>15731873
you are blind

>Moldbug has been around for a decade and the only ""criticism"" the onions can throw at him is 'he's a bad public speaker' and 'he looks like a nerd'
Clearpilled? Clearpilled.

>>15732099
he's not wrong

>>15732736
>accepting any old huckster just to own the libs
lol

>>15732833
See >>15730720

>>15731106
>Both Communism and AnCap is assuming humans are relatively intelligent and mostly want the best for others. Since this is false neither ideology will succeed in any meaningful sense.

Surely a person who has actually read books wouldn't reach this conclusion

>>15732908
That is not a premise of either ideology but surely anyone can see that neither system can work without the cooperation of the populace, and the population has no real natural intensives to follow the rules of the game, so they will destroy it.

>>15730291
He's a scared little fag who still fear the Soviet supremacy
Also right wing will never accept this autistic Jew

>>15732937
Have you gone ahead and searched for books by advocates for these systems that address this extremely obvious armchair critique?

>>15732908
Most of "well read" people in my country are commies

>>15732956
No, but you should be able to at least give me a somewhat coherent answer.

For communism a functional idea to prevent the populace from corrupting the system has surely never been implemented.

If there are theoretical rebuttals they are surely mostly moot since they either don't work in reality or are not able to be implemented correctly.

>>15732986
>Have you gone ahead and searched for books
>No, but you should be able to at least give me a somewhat coherent answer.

As before,

>Surely a person who has actually read books wouldn't reach this conclusion

Here's a simple place to start: How does Marx think economic relations will be enforced? How does he think this state of affairs will come about in the first place? It's incredibly easy to ask yourself these questions about almost any ideology you can think of, and to go read what's been written on the subject. If you can't do that minimal task you should recognize that you have nothing of value to contribute.

>>15733070
You are not answering the question. You are telling me to read more.
There is no reason for such a cop out.
If you asked me what is the most fundamental parts of the world according to modern physics I could tell you about how a bunch of field equations describe the fields of the fundamental forces and so on. This doesn't make you an expert in quantum physics but it still tells you enough as to make it easy to gather more information and it is indeed true as far a physics knows too.
No question is too hard to be able to do this.

I know Marx's theory of labor is a cornerstone and that hypothesis has never been proven and should obviously be seen as false by any non-ideologue.

I have never seen any reason as to what incentives the normal workers have to actually work for society.
I myself live in a social democratic society and has worked in the floor in a factory for 8 years and the general attitude of the workers is that they want to pay as little tax as possible and grab as many tax benefits they can, with no regard for society.

To each according to his ability and to each according to his need never enters the mind of a worker when given the opportunity to work less and get more.

>>15730320
>uuuuuubmmm I'll haveeeeuuuuuuuh double qrter quarter pounder annddddaaaaaaaaaum a milk skate please.

Le Moldbug!! xD

>>15733163
You must understand how remarkably frustrating it is to "debate" with someone who admits they have not read a word about the thing they confidently speak about.

I will point you in the right direction. Marx never suggests that workers are going to just give everything away for free to each other and work because of some commitment to the utopia. I strongly suggest you look up the origin of the quote you used, "[From] each according to his ability and to each according to his need" comes from Marx's Critique of the Gotha program, and the context of the quote is literally Marx saying that this maxim will never be achieved until technology has developed to the point where consumer goods are produced with minimal human labor.

His actual proposal, which he outlines in this very same text, is that capital required for production is held by the state, and that workers are paid in "labor vouchers", in proportion to the duration and intensity of their work, which they can redeem for consumer goods.

He specifically talks about how it is *not* the role of government to produce a "fair distribution" of consumer goods and resources, and that the distribution will follow from how the economy is organized.

So how, exactly, did you reach the conclusion that communism can't work because people don't have each other's best interests in mind? Other people's interests never even come into the picture--Marx expects people to follow their economic incentives, which are changed by the organization of the economy.

>>15733362
>capital required for production is held by the state,
and what is the state? Who decides how that part works

>>15733362
Bruh that's retarded. I know you'll ignore me and this phonepost will probably just reinforce your beliefs, but you are very stupid to unironically marxism in the 21st century.

>>15733375
>and what is the state? Who decides how that part works
Marx thinks a violent proletariat revolution will seize control by force.

>>15733378
I'm not a Marxist, dipshit. I'm just accurately reporting what Marx wrote, because this board is illiterate. There are good criticisms of Marx, but "people are selfish lol" isn't the knock-down argument that braindead zoomers think it is.

>>15733409
>a violent proletariat revolution will seize control by force.
This is rather vague. Do you mean a mob? Will they elect a leader or how is this supposed to work

>>15730747
He has a wife and kids

>>15733418
>This is rather vague. Do you mean a mob? Will they elect a leader or how is this supposed to work
Lmao literally just read a book you ignoramus. I am not here to convince you Marx is right, I'm trying to convince you that you have no fucking idea what any of these people believed or wrote.

>>15731714
>he's not original
originality is not a value in itself. Who cares?

we're going to need an r/sorceryofthespectacle containment board.

Alright since this thread is shit, give me some podcasts to listen to.
I hadn't listened to any until 2 weeks ago. I like Fash the Nation and The Daily Shoah now.

>>15733428
So what did they write? What exactly does it mean for 'violent proletarian revolution'? You understand that 100s of millions of people can't act coherently spontaneously, they have to be organized somehow. So how are they organized?

>>15733362
>He specifically talks about how it is *not* the role of government to produce a "fair distribution" of consumer goods and resources, and that the distribution will follow from how the economy is organized.
If that is the idea it is no wonder its self defeating, since it's a built upon a faulty, and corruptible, theory of value.

>>15733469
>So what did they write?
Jesus fucking Christ kid. Is your goal here to continually ask me to summarize multiple works and schools of thought for you so you can respond with your gut reaction to them, thus "debunking" communism/ancapitalism or whatever other ideology you've decided is wrong? Read a fucking book.

>>15733477
What does the line you quoted have to do with a "theory of value"?

>>15733532
If you have nothing to contribute stop posting. A basic question like 'how the proletariat are going to organize' should not provoke this kind of hand wringing.

>>15733567
Just to be clear, I provided you with both a summary and a reference that explains why "communism assumes people have each others best interests in mind" is completely wrong, and you responded by changing the subject and asking me to summarize other aspects of Marxist thought

How in the world do you meet the standard of "having something to contribute" when you haven't read anything at all by the authors you're criticizing?

>>15733598
SInce this guy can't answer it, anyone else want to explain how the proletariat are organizing, is it done by voting?

>>15730704
This is relevant to my interests.

>>15731832
his point completely flew over your head