/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20339384]

Thomas Carlyle was a fraudulent, racist charlatan who propagated the myth of the Teutonic race (which never existed), a direct precursor to Nazi ideology.

[Anonymous No.20339391]

He kinda does look like a chud if you imagine him without the exquisite beard and hair

[Anonymous No.20339393]

Who cares

[Anonymous No.20339408]

>>20339384
>racist

[Anonymous No.20339410]

>>20339384
He was super based (überbasiert)

>He disliked Jews - claiming that they had no sense of humour. Standing in front of Rothschild's house at Hyde Park Corner, Allingham reports in his diary, Carlyle imagined himself King John demanding money from a rich Jew -'palaces or pincers'. " 'You won't?' Carlyle gives a twist of his wrist. 'Now will you?', and then another twist, till the millions were yielded." This unpleasant piece of sadistic fantasy, torturing rich Jews, exceeds the conventional anti-semitism of the period.

[Anonymous No.20339412]

>>20339391
And glasses, and a different face

[Anonymous No.20339596]

>>20339384
Based. Just ordered his books.

[Anonymous No.20339611]

Based

Sartor Resartus is one of the best novels ever written, along with Don Quixote

[Anonymous No.20339626]

>>20339384
>racist
Based!

[Anonymous No.20339628]

>>20339410
Heckin yeah gonna chud myself up.

[Anonymous No.20339634]

>>20339393
>>20339408
>>20339410
>>20339596
>>20339611
>>20339626

[Anonymous No.20339804]

>>20339384
>Teutonic race (which never existed)

Fuck off, Papist

[Anonymous No.20339930]

>>20339804
It didn't and he wouldn't be part of it if it did exist

[Anonymous No.20340026]

>>20339930
you are hispanic or otherwise mixed race

[Anonymous No.20340088]

>>20339384
Thank you for the recommendation OP, I'll check him out

[Anonymous No.20341116]

>>20339634
Stop posting yourself mate.

[Anonymous No.20341120]

>>20339930
next time the atlanteans will drown you instead

[Anonymous No.20341862]

>>20339384
Thanks will look into him

[Anonymous No.20342102]

>>20341116
says you

[Anonymous No.20342321]

Where do i start?

[Anonymous No.20342531]

Has anyone here read his biography of Frederick the Great?

[Anonymous No.20342783]

>>20339384
I have his complete works.

[Anonymous No.20342823]

>>20342531
I own it

I recommend his essay Signs of the Times to get a sense of his completely unique prose. Heroes and Hero Worship would probably appeal most to /lit/ since it's a romantic metaphysical treatment of the Great Man.

His essay on Chartism (British socialism basically) was hugely influential for decades, including on Marx and Engels. The story of the burning of the first draft of his French Revolution is also insane.

[Anonymous No.20342867]

>>20342823
So we know what you think about why his work is or may be well-received, but what do you think of his work? At least favorites, least favorites, why?

Sign of the Times strikes me as unique in being one of the first explorations of the consequences (after the fact) of the Industrial Revolution and the ascendancy of liberalism (leading to the primacy of the Mechanical for Carlyle). Particularly notable (or at least humorous) for me was his comparison between the religiosity of the millenarians and the utilitarians. While his analyses are hardly groundbreaking today, I find his value is in his ability to ask and explore the important questions (which are still yet to be answered), and from a perspective much closer to the outside than we are normally able to muster. Even if his romanticism can hardly be expected to shed light on the correct answers, he always seems to make the best argument possible for his case.

[Anonymous No.20342899]

Sounds based!

[Anonymous No.20343765]

>>20339384
>Thomas Carlyle
You keep posting this guy and I don't even know who he is.

[Anonymous No.20344129]

>>20339384
It's 2022 and human beings are still using the term "racist" as a genuine denigration toward someone's character and expect to be taken seriously on an intellectual forum.

You're not going to get very far with this type of thinking, my guy. Carlyle is 1000x the human you will ever be.

[Anonymous No.20344175]

>>20342823
how did carlyle influence marx and engels?

[Anonymous No.20344412]

>>20344129
how is racist not a denigration? it demonstrates an irrational bias

[Anonymous No.20344423]

>>20344412
Because judging based on race is not irrational. Biases are perfectly helpful and rational when they are based in reality.

[Anonymous No.20344448]

>>20344423
an entirely subjective assessment.

[Anonymous No.20344467]

>>20344448
pattern recognition is one of the most objective phenomena to be aware of, and your war against it is most pathetic

[Anonymous No.20344484]

>>20344448
stop responding to trolls

[Anonymous No.20344494]

>>20344484
you got btfo by the other anon

[Anonymous No.20344503]

>>20344467
this kills the debatelord. Good job anon.

[Anonymous No.20344505]

>>20344467
no, it is literally subjective because it is based on each individual's experiences and heuristics. Plus, if it were objective, AI would be a lot goddamn farther along than it is.

>>20344484
I'm on a boring conference call, I'll do whatever the fuck I want to pass the time.

>>20344503
Nope, still here fucker!

[Anonymous No.20344514]

>>20344448
Imagine this anon, he has to work on a farm and the farmers tells him he needs to pick out the weeds between the green shoots of grain, to bad anon is not a racist so half the time he picks out the grain shoots. Leftists are stupid.

[Anonymous No.20344518]

>>20344514
imagine being so craven as to not say what you area really thinking and resorting to weak analogies.

[Anonymous No.20344520]

>>20344505
>no, it is literally subjective because it is based on each individual's experiences and heuristics.
This would apply to your neoliberal concepts like racism, lol.

[Anonymous No.20344525]

>>20344520
actually no. Equal treatment is the absence of bias. How are you so dumb as to not understand this?

[Anonymous No.20344526]

>>20344505
>Yeah well... racism is subjective
Damn you really gave up after like 4 posts?

[Anonymous No.20344528]

>>20344526
it seems you struggle with reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.20344529]

>>20344518
Not even an analogy, its basically the same thing. If you cant tell the difference between lets say a crow or a raven, or between two species of mushroom, you are officially stupid.

[Anonymous No.20344532]

>>20344529
>still making spurious comparisons
oh so you're saying other races are different species? Citation fucking required.

[Anonymous No.20344538]

>>20344525
Equal treatment is evil and insane, bias is perfectly oke, except when people like you are biased against people like me.

[Anonymous No.20344555]

>>20344538
I don't know anything about you other than you're an idiot, and I admit my bias against idiots.

Oh and please expound on how equal treatment is evil and insane. Feel free to drop those n bombs you're bottling up.

[Anonymous No.20344558]

>>20344532
Lol trying to change the discussion.

Lol, imagine walking up to a pitbul and petting it, this anon would do so. Lol

Anyone who does not have the abilities of a naturalist should be sterilised.

[Anonymous No.20344565]

>>20344528
>Racism is an irrational bias
>....Actually its subjective
>Nevermind I base my worldview on subjectiveness
Damn you actually gave up after only 1 post

[Anonymous No.20344567]

>>20344555
>I admit my bias against idiots.
Here we go, just took one post and this anon has already rejected his previous believes as inconvenient. Morality is just a tool these sociopaths use to gain power.

[Anonymous No.20344569]

>>20344558
no, I'm directly challenging your assertions. There's no change here, so you must be ESL or something to fail to understand that.

You're inferring there are species/subspecies dynamics at play with regard to race, but you can't prove that claim. So you dance around it and refuse to back it up because you know the foundation of your argument is built on sand.

>>20344565
Irrationality and subjectivity go hand in hand shit-for-brains.

>>20344567
I rejected no beliefs, I just insulted you.

[Anonymous No.20344576]

>>20344569
>Irrationality and subjectivity go hand in hand shit-for-brains.

That's just subjective speculation you ass eating nigger

[Anonymous No.20344583]

>>20344576
no, it's logic. If you got t-boned by a redhead and concluded all redheads are bad drivers, you have made a subjective but irrational judgment.

[Anonymous No.20344587]

>>20344569
>You're inferring there are species/subspecies dynamics at play with regard to race, but you can't prove that claim.
Nope, never said that, you are so dumb, if someone had small beady eyes or a bad skin, you wouldnt notice or use that too understand their character because you lack the required intelligence.

[Anonymous No.20344589]

>>20344583
Holy shit this reddit tranny has never heard of either inductive or deductive reasoning. You should start at the beginning (ABCs, basic arithmetic) and work your way up again

[Anonymous No.20344594]

>>20344587
>running away from his own insinuations
weak shit anon, weak fucking shit

>>20344589
>refuses to explain his own biases
13 minutes left in my meeting, give me your best shot.

[Anonymous No.20344598]

>>20344589
Thats my whole point, he literally is unable to tell different objects apart or animals apart, because his mind simply does not look for the details that seperate them. Its like some ancient bronze age language where snake, worm and rope are all the same thing.

[Anonymous No.20344603]

>>20344594
>weak shit anon, weak fucking shit
If you can not tell the difference between animals or people or plants based on their appearance, you are stupid. Period. This whole discussion and the whole concept of racism is about leftists trying to disappear the prove of their stupidity.

[Anonymous No.20344610]

>>20339384
Wasn't he madly in love with a Pajeeta?

[Anonymous No.20344612]

>>20344594
>meeting
Fuck me, i can imagine it, the entire table surrounded by the underclass of society, just blabbing away, using vague abstract concepts that dont mean anything.

[Anonymous No.20344613]

>>20339384
>>20339410
Shave the beard, Cut the Hair, Put Glasses on him and Caryle is 1800s Chud incarnate.

[Anonymous No.20344617]

>>20344594
No

[Anonymous No.20344626]

>>20344603
I never said you can't tell the difference, but you're the one who can't quite bring himself to say what he's thinking that means. Just say it.

>>20344612
enjoying the NEET life?

[Anonymous No.20344642]

>>20344626
>never said you can't tell the difference
If there is difference, it can not be equal.

[Anonymous No.20344669]

>>20344642
don't distort your own argument. No two people are identical, even twins due to epigenetics and epistemics, so that's a stupid way to position it.

[Anonymous No.20344689]

>>20344669
>No two people are identical, even twins due to epigenetics and epistemics
Therefor equality does not exist.

[Anonymous No.20344695]

>>20344689
I never said it did you dunce. But all people deserve equal treatment.

[Anonymous No.20344698]

>>20344689
this BTFO's the tranoid

[Anonymous No.20344737]

>>20344695
>I never said it did you dunce. But all people deserve equal treatment.
Lol imagine saying two different things that completely contradict each other.

If people are not equal, they dont deserve equal treatment.

[Anonymous No.20344763]

>>20339384
why is it the more talented an author is the more racist they are? Telling me Thomas Carlyle is racist my reaction isn't "oh no" but "of course."

[Anonymous No.20344791]

>>20344763
"Racism" is factually true.

[Anonymous No.20344894]

>>20344555
>admit bias against idiots
This justifies racism, doesn't it? Controlled for all possible factors the distribution of intelligence in blacks is 1-1.5 standard deviations below the mean in the US. Further, considering that most blacks find themselves to be poor, reality is not controlling these factors, and so the vast majority of blacks suffer from an immensely low distribution of intelligence, or, as you might put it, are idiots.

It is a painfully obvious fact that people are not uniform in their abilities or intelligence; human beings are not equal, and no leveling of environmental barriers will make them so. This is before race enters the discussion. To think otherwise is a fiction, perhaps well intentioned but betraying common sense, and it is you that must provide an argument for the claim that men are equal in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are not and have never been.

Re-introducing race, there is no reason to believe that the distribution of intelligence would be uniform between mutually isolated groups across thousands of generations; intelligence is highly heritable and culture, which is also obviously not uniform between groups, rarely places such an emphasis on raw intelligence in group selection that we would not expect drift. To be plain, science has not settled the matter of intelligence as a racial trait.

See more on that here: https://web.archive.org/web/20150404205305/https://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/06/10/the-facts-that-need-to-be-explained/

It is worth noting that science like this is immensely hard to publish or even talk about because of the political implications, which brings me to my next point. But that difficulty does not settle the issue of racial intelligence in one way or the other, and it is the claim that groups are equal, not that they are unequal, that needs evidence provided for it.

Think of the political consequences of your position, which you claim to be rationalist but in reality is just your rationalization of arbitrary axioms on unexplored premises (that the races are equal): what if it was the case that blacks are less intelligent or that Asians are more intelligent? It would be very rational indeed to get from there to the disparate socioeconomic positions the two races currently occupy in respect to whites.

Your self-righteousness in spite of the obvious retardation of your position (and your failure to recognize it) is what people hate more than blacks and jews, and that you continue to rationalize your intolerance is a source of racism in the people you speak with (and of novelty for me). Be very careful adopting a rationalist mindset because when you start examining what you've previously left unexamined and realize that it does not justify your worldview you might not find it a very useful tool. Things are not so simple, and your assumption that they can be or are is more lacking in common sense than any racist has conjured up in this thread.

[Anonymous No.20344936]

>>20344695
>>20344894
It is because you look at people like the anon you are arguing with, or me with my post, or the study that I linked, and see some sort of covert racism ("why don't you just say what you want to say," implying that we do all this so we can run around pointing out blacks on the street and screaming, "nigger!") that your bias is so obvious to the people you argue with and yet so apparently impossible for you to see.

[Anonymous No.20344960]

>>20344936
>implying that we do all this so we can run around pointing out blacks on the street and screaming, "nigger!"
why else would you write paragraphs arguing about this shit on 4chan

[Anonymous No.20345063]

>>20344737
christ what kind of parenting philosophy did your parents have?

[Anonymous No.20345068]

>>20344894
>TLDR, I'm a racist
biased cherry picker.

[Anonymous No.20345119]

>>20344960
Because the mindset of the anon I'm talking to is even more brain-dead than he perceives is, for example, that of a violent religious fundamentalist. At least the religious fundamentalist has recourse to a tradition that, while not founded in "reason," has provided generations upon generations with a valuable source of not only consolation and perspective but of morality and ethics to live up to; virtue.

In contrast, the "rational" anon only has recourse to a milquetoast humanitarianism that not only can never provide a concrete morality but basically forgoes judgment altogether. Its defining characteristic is to ask nothing of anyone, except insofar as it demands some vague ideal of equality (which we know beforehand to be impossible anyways, because people aren't equal). It disdains the concerns of the population in front of it for the theoretical oppression of "other" groups who for some reason just won't be equal.

So while maintaining none of the good elements of religious fundamentalism it manages to adopt all of the bad: resentment, self-righteousness, violence. Because it is ostensibly founded in "reason" (which is a fiction), it can dismiss opposition as irrational (or oppressive to a group, hence irrational), precluding argument on the topic. But the deeper reality of course is the same: the true believe is so certain that mere facts cannot shake his certainty.

So anon, who at this point I'm comfortable calling a redditor, dismisses my post by calling me racist, circumventing the need for any dialogue on the matter (which might cause him severe emotional stress upon realizing his position is no more rational than the guy he's been arguing with): >>20345068

[Anonymous No.20345150]

>>20344594
You have been thoroughly BTFO.

[Anonymous No.20345165]

>>20345119
> At least the religious fundamentalist has recourse to a tradition that, while not founded in "reason," has provided generations upon generations with a valuable source of not only consolation and perspective but of morality and ethics to live up to; virtue.
The problem is, the Holocaust happened, which refuted any moral standing that said tradition had. There's no Reason involved here, indeed, Reason itself can reveal racist facts.

[Anonymous No.20345298]

>>20344894
>>20345119
Everyone always approaches this question in a very stupid and uninformed way. A better approach is to pinpoint the genes associated with experience-dependent neuroplasticity, such as what genes are associated with more heightened experience-dependent plasticity, longer critical periods (typically ends around age 27 from what I've read), and so on.

"Intelligence" is simply about being able to ingrain certain algorithms to solve abstract problems. People act like it's the be-all and end-all to everything, but they are unknowingly lacking in wisdom and metacognitive awareness by acting so. That's not to say rational, discursive, or algorithmic thinking aren't valuable, but there is more to approaching complex (social) problems than that. Moreover, and this ties into the point I was making before digressing, learning algorithmic thinking is ultimately about how plastic your brain is. How easily you can learn, retain, and consolidate that 'template'.

A child with a highly plastic brain who practices formal logic or programming problems all day will undeniably become more intelligent. For example, many Arabic kids memorize the Koran at a young age. This is not easy. If they were to apply their minds to something like formal logic or math (e.g., set theory) instead of memorizing the Koran, then they would become more "intelligent". However, the question is why do that over memorizing Koran? Haven't we experienced enough destruction of the natural world, local communal cultures, self-reliant ways of life, and more from the "intellectuals", technocrats, and industrialization? Is embracing intelligence in light of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, where man will fuse with machine and have his mind connect to the cloud, ultimately worth it?

This is why Ludwig Klages is an interesting thinker who I frequently recommend to others. His Leben vs. Geist dichotomy is worth discussing too. Leben refers to the vitalistic spirit of nature underlying biodiversity. Klages also refers to it as soul/seele. Geist refers to the discursive mind that led to industrialization, which invades Leben. Klages calls it spirit.

[Anonymous No.20345584]

>>20345165
what does the holocaust have to do with what he's saying?

[Anonymous No.20346216]

Bump

[Anonymous No.20346320]

>>20345063
>christ what kind of parenting philosophy did your parents have?
I left for a few hours and lefty anon just gave me a snarky response. How childish.

[Anonymous No.20346334]

>>20345165
>The problem is, the Holocaust happened, which refuted any moral standing that said tradition had. There's no Reason involved here, indeed, Reason itself can reveal racist facts.
Dam thats some schizo tier shit.

[Anonymous No.20346352]

>>20346334
It's true though. Facts don't matter if they imply racial inequality, now.

[Anonymous No.20346370]

>>20346334
There was an anon on here a few days ago saying the zeitgeist of western civilization post world war ii is a reaction to the holocaust, which refuted the existing moral systems. I bet it's the same clown

[Anonymous No.20346397]

>>20346370
How is that particularly different from le no poetry after Auschwitz man?

[Anonymous No.20346447]

>>20346397
Celebration parallax. If you are trying to problematize the moral order of the post-war world (notice here that WW2 is the definitive historical moment) suddenly all of the order’s defenders deny the existence of the order. But say that “the holocaust changed how we think” or “World War II taught us so much, but apparently not enough because of all the racism that still exists!” and you’re just stating facts backed by consensus. It’s obvious that WW2 is the founding myth of the West, I don’t know how an American can get through highschool and not see that

[Anonymous No.20346485]

>>20344594
Is it an AA meeting? You’re retarded, my negro.

[Anonymous No.20346497]

>>20346447
>But say that “the holocaust changed how we think” or “World War II taught us so much, but apparently not enough because of all the racism that still exists!” and you’re just stating facts backed by consensus. It’s obvious that WW2 is the founding myth of the West, I don’t know how an American can get through highschool and not see that
>American
While it's true that WW2 is the West's founding myth, American schools focus much more on black history. I believe that in certain school districts students will do several units on the Holocaust, though.

[Anonymous No.20346510]

>>20346447
Where can I read the most convincing explanation of your retarded perspective? It's so offensive to common sense.

[Anonymous No.20346781]

>What are the true relations between Negro and White, their mutual duties under the sight of the Maker of them both; what human laws will assist both to comply more and more with these? The solution, only to be gained by earnest endeavour and sincere experience, such as have never yet been bestowed on it, is not yet here; the solution is perhaps still distant: but some approximation to it, various real approximations, could be made, and must be made;—this of declaring that Negro and White are unrelated, loose from one another, on a footing of perfect equality, and subject to no law but that of Supply and Demand according to the Dismal Science; this, which contradicts the palpablest facts, is clearly no solution, but a cutting of the knot asunder; and every hour we persist in this is leading us towards dissolution instead of solution!
>What then is practically to be done? Much, very much, my friends, to which it hardly falls to me to allude at present: but all this of perfect equality, of cutting quite loose from one another; all this, with 'immigration loan,' 'happiness of black peasantry,' and the other melancholy stuff that has followed from it, will first of all require to be undone, and have the ground cleared of it, by way of preliminary to 'doing!'—
so true bro

[Anonymous No.20346871]

>>20342823
>Chartism
>socialism

I'm pretty sure they just wanted representation.