People like to make fun of him for writing primarily in blog format or being half-Jewish or not believing in biology or...

Somebody really needs to print all of Moldbug's work in book form, for posterity and to preserve it.

>I think he and Nick Land would cringe however how the simpleton cancer that is the alt right is devouring and polluting their ideas
I know very few Alt-Righters who read or even know Nick Land and as pathetic as it sounds the Alt-Right has already degenerated to the point where only the leaders and old guard have read Moldbug.

It's literally just Peter Thiel reading on the toilet while watching bonded in the mirror.

The "alt-right" literally doesn't exist.

Rawls is a stand-in for all mainstream post-WW2 liberal philosophy, unlike Moldbug he didn't really contribute anything unique.

>most important works of political philosophy ever are Leviathan and The Prince
Sometimes I wonder how many books the average Veeky Forums poster actually reads

It literally does and refers to hubs and figures with an easily recognizable set of beliefs, aesthetics, and rhetoric like Richard Spencer, Daily Stormer, therightstuff, Identity Evropa, etc.

Name someone then.

Moldbug is a stand-in for Carlyle's techno-futurist cyborg avatar, he didn't really contribute anything unique.

See how easy that is?

>Carlyle's techno-futurist cyborg avatar
Okay but this didn't exist until Moldbug.

Neither did Rawls' formulation of the 'principles of justice' prior to him.

>not believing in biology or whatever
Scratch that, it was a typo.

No, it does not. It's an American Media buzzword to refer to anyone who isn't a neoconservative. Before the recent US presidential election it was rarely used to refer to Neoreactionaries but now it has been redefined as a scare word and lumps people of vastly different ideological and philosophical backgrounds together (Rand Paul and Mussolini were recently compared in an article I saw, for example).

The fact that a handful of idealogues on the right took this term and wore it as a badge of honor (IE, Richard Spencer) doesn't change this fact.

>The "alt-right" literally doesn't exist.
Because you don't like it, right? But seriously the way I use it is just an umbrella term for a new kind of right with online presence - and it encompases all kinds of rightwing ideologies.

And maybe unfairly, I differentiate between low and high culture alt-right: alt-right the low, and neoreaction the high. There are also some actual fascists but they are not new, so I don't consider them alt-right.
I keep track of all kinds of fringe political movements on a 'certain site' (yes, that one), and it has one dark enlightenment 'board', and the posts there are of as low intellectual content (read sensational) as you'll find on the more typical and numerous alt-right 'boards'.

I think how I classify the stuff in this post could be critiqued. I consider old school fascism and dark enlightenment, and maybe some of the more fringe ideologies, as the more intelligent ones. While stuff like the alt-right, the /pol/ and the_donald kind as the more populist and less intellectual ones.

Feel free to disagree and point out where you disagree.

>and it has one dark enlightenment 'board', and the posts there are of as low intellectual content (read sensational)
I could see how this reflects THAT site more as the actual dark enlightenment, but it does mean - I believe - that it is being appropriated.

>The fact that a handful of idealogues on the right took this term and wore it as a badge of honor (IE, Richard Spencer) doesn't change this fact.

It's more likely that you don't know what you're talking about. Spencer coined the term and has always promoted white ethnostates. Alt right has a loose ideological framework but ultimately involves whites separating themselves and most importantly removing jews from their homelands. That jews and clingers on try to make the term mean something else is inconsequential.

So, what's the deal with /pol/ not liking him, just fun and games?
And what's the difference between /pol/ and stormfront?

Adolf Hitler by the sheer power of his existence alone.

Moldbug doesn't really have anything to do with fascism. His "formalism" is basically tweaked libertarianism. His worldview is actually very mechanistic and nihilistic. He has developed some new ideas, yes, but he is essentially another dreary Improver of Humanity.

Fascism is either a form of socialism/populism or it's a kind of radical political idealism.

I've never been a pol person, but pol these days is full of jews trying to d&c the right, so that's why the label is cast negatively aside. Stormfront has also long been considered a honeypot.

Very different strains of white nationalists have coalesced behind the alt right label for strategic purposes -- to convey a united front instead of bickering about minutiae that detracts from the greater goal. It's not a perfect label, and I personally don't like it, but I can appreciate the need for solidarity under one label, whatever it happens to be.

>I keep track of all kinds of fringe political movements on a 'certain site' (yes, that one), and it has one dark enlightenment 'board', and the posts there are of as low intellectual content (read sensational) as you'll find on the more typical and numerous alt-right 'boards'.
That's because most of the people there are alt-righters at heart pretending to be rationalists and wanting Moldbug-senpai to notice them. DE is defined by its main writers, not their fanboys.

>Moldbug doesn't really have anything to do with fascism.
I'm not saying that.
Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it because it is not that relevant, but I also checked out some fascist community and they stroke me as rather intelligent in comparison to the 'alt-right' (which means different things to different people and is used as an umbrella term).
I think you are correct.

This post represents the kind of muddying of terms that leads people who are unfamiliar with these movements to become confused. Moldbug is a jew. The alt right takes a strong position against jews. Therefore, people who are actually associated with the alt right are not going to be wanting "moldbug senpai" to notice them -- they'll be telling him to move to Israel or gas himself.

>having a Jewish father = being a Jew

Unironically, yeah. Jewishness is genetic, and even quarter jews like Tim Wise can display full-blown characteristics of the jewish sickness.

While this is true for the rabid foot soldiers some of the main figures such as Seventh Son and Mike Enoch of TRS fame have said Moldbug was seminal to their "redpilling" process. I'm sure this is true of others though increasingly less so.

cute americans and their soundbites and irrelevant sub sub movements

I'm aware and am not downplaying the connection too much. But ultimately once the jewish question becomes understood by someone it puts moldbug into perspective. He's a jew whose beliefs were of course shaped by his jewishness and resulted in subversive tendencies, like his labeling of "the cathedral." I don't think any white nationalists/alt rightists/etc. are clamoring for his attention these days even if he was a stepping stone in their awakening.

So where are from and why does it bother you that white people are speaking openly about their interests?

>It's an American Media buzzword to refer to anyone who isn't a neoconservative.

Do those people exist? If so, the alt-right exists

It's the "postmodern right"

>Silicon Valley's emotionally stunted billionaires club.
Can I join?

Academic Philosophers are very threatened by the fringe blogosphere, even if their blogs only have 10 regular viewers that's 9 more than most academics who have literally no audience or influence.

>tfw you'll never be some chucklefuck in 2005 or so who lent Mark Zuckerberg a few thousand dollars in exchange for the promise of some shares of Facebook stock

You couldn't be more wrong. It represents the exact opposite: the antithesis of, or the fix to, the postmodern identity crisis.

By adapting and relying on the postmodern condition...

It's a natural reaction to the negative effect postmodernism had on European people's sense of identity. It is reconstructing what was deconstructed.

The Alt-Right has embraced post-modernism they've taken it to the next level, plus they've actually managed to successfully implement it unlike the left.

Nah, dude. Postmodernism is over. The alt right represents the next, coming movement and is antithetical to postmodernism.

It's the natural reaction to the negative effect the conditions of postmodernity had on Europeans, not postmodernism. Postmodernism (the leftist kind) is also a natural reaction and it doesn't deconstruct, it is the result of deconstruction.

Regardless, alt-right is just postmodern right, like postmodernism is alt-left, i.e. not modernist left. It's no coincidence the 'alt-right' is so concerned with media representation and is so fractured, drawing on a diverse range of historical examples of traditionalism, secularism, libertarianism, religion, modernism, fascism, etc. as proposed solutions to the postmodern problem

It's hard to say postmodernism is over when postmodern criticism is still so relevant to contemporary society. The alt-right hasn't (unwittingly) adopted its arguments because it's over, they're just pointing out different targets

I know you want to pretend you understand what postmodernism is, but you clearly do not. Postmodernism was a jewish movement that set out to fracture and deconstruct white people's culture and identity. Now it's over, and what is taking its place is the reconstruction and revitalization of European culture and identity.

Doesn't matter, the point is postmodernity precedes postmodernism

It's not relevant and hasn't been relevant for some years now. The people pretending it's still relevant, along with the rotting academic institutions they belong to, are the greatest examples of this irrelevancy.

>The people pretending it's still relevant, along with the rotting academic institutions they belong to, are the greatest examples of this irrelevancy.

This is literally a postmodern argument. Can you not hear someone in the 60s saying the exact same thing?

Your words don't mean anything because you clearly don't understand what you're trying to talk about.

Postmodernism doesn't mean what you think it means because you don't understand it was a meaningless jewish movement to destroy the things the alt right, in its own way, is now trying to rebuild and reconstruct.

By using the meaningless jewish movement against itself.

No. All postmodernism was was the inversion of European culture and identity -- it's as simple as that. European philosophy strives for meaning and truth, jewish postmodern philosophy says there is no meaning or truth. This is how jews think and operate, and postmodernism is a reflection of their nature, which defines itself in opposition to European nature.

I know people like and want to believe that postmodernism is something real and complicated, but it's actually very simple if you understand how the jewish mind operates.

Literally none of this argument matters. The point is the tenets of the argument are being turned against itself by the alt-right, no matter what you or I think the argument is.

"European identity" doesn't exist and has never existed. Europe is comprised of many different races and nationalities. What used to exist was not "Europe" but "Christendom". But Christianity is dead, and Europe is dead with it.

America has barely begun. The last thing America needs is a reinstitution and resuscitation of the old European powers, the kings, the bishops, the popes. Europe needs to die before America can flourish. America has always wanted Europe to die.

So was Nietzsche a Jew? Nietzsche was, by your definition, the first postmodernist, because he rejected reason and believed that all truth was relative.

Of course it matters. But I don't even know what you're trying to say because apparently you're too afraid to elaborate beyond a mere sentence or two.

the irony is nietzsche is actually more sympathetic to catholics, he hated protestants mostly, which would make pre-modern if anything, but he's also post-modern, i guess you could say he's beyond pre-modern and post-modern

Of course European identity exists. How the net in the looney bin?

I didn't say the jews invented the tenets of what became postmodernism. They merely took certain ideas to their logical conclusions and defined them in their favor through institutional control.

Nietzsche criticism of Christianity is really fucking weak, he was really ignorant of Christian doctrine or philosophy.

Nietzsche didn't like any kind of Christianity.
Europeans never identified themselves as "Europeans". They were German, French, Italian, English, Polish, Spanish, etc. These different countries fought against each other frequently. What united them was Christianity. They didn't hate niggers or Arabs because they were "non-European" or "non-white", but because they were heathens.
You're saying that the people who promote "social equality" and "freedom" do not believe that equality and freedom are unquestionably Good? Liberals believe in absolutes, always did.

I have but you ignore it. The condition of postmodernity precedes the 'movement' of postmodernism. Postmodernity is 'advanced' capitalism in an electronic, post-war age, and these conditions shape how we experience the world/reality. Reality is mediated through TV, images, etc. all created with an agenda in mind. You claim it's the Jews, the postmodernists claim it's the capitalists (or the communists), it doesn't matter -- the point is they use the same argument. Distrust of institutions? Postmodern, except now the distrust is of the liberal institutions that have adopted the postmodernist arguments.

Well Christianity is gone, and it's not coming back, nor should it. Scope changes as well, and there very clearly is a "European people" who are united in cultural similarity, interest, and genetic composition.

Liberals take their cues from jews, and jews are authoritarian semites from the middle east who don't think in terms of nuance. Therefore neither do those who follow their belief systems, Christians historically included. Other than that, "freedom" and "equality" are abstract ideas that are not worth focusing too much on. We need to move away from abstractions like that.

>Postmodernity is 'advanced' capitalism in an electronic, post-war age, and these conditions shape how we experience the world/reality.
This is where you're getting hung up. Those things in and of themselves are not what causes the condition. It's the people who shape how they are implemented. TV is a prime example, and since what has been conveyed through that medium has been created jews, it becomes to no surprise a reflection of them, as I was saying.

Think in terms of people, not things with minds of their own. It's not about capitalism vs communism, it's about jew vs gentile.

>jews

This is where you're getting hung up. And anyway, if a relatively miniscule fraction of the population has nevertheless been able to elevate or insinuate its members into positions of such power and wide-reaching influence, maybe it's because they are simply *better* than everyone else. Better adapted, and more adaptable to wildly changing fortunes, including multiple, concerted attempts to annihilate them.

No, they are the condition. They're the material conditions of our age. These conditions are our reality

>as I was saying.

Yes and as I was saying it literally doesn't matter. The postmodern criticism of the conditions is adopted by the alt-right. Same criticism but the scope is expanded to include the whole post-Enlightenment liberal project, even if some of the proposed solutions only exist because of Enlightenment thinking (rationalism, fascism)

Typical jew here. When he can't argue the point he goes right to the 'jews must be better than whites' argument, despite the fact that every component of the modern world being discussed was created and developed by whites. Being better at lying and taking over other people's institutions through ethnic nepotism is no virtue; it's the opposite.

lol whatever you say, you're still under my thumb

pussy bitch cry more

>every component of the modern world being discussed was created and developed by whites
Jew-admixed whites, for the most part.

Who implements them defines the condition. Stop being obtuse. These are functions of human creation.

>The postmodern criticism of the conditions is adopted by the alt-right
Lol ... no, it's not -- it's *gasp* just regular old criticism.

You can always tell when someone is too immersed in postmodern jewish logic.

The words of a man who knows he lost the argument. Thanks for playing, Moshe.

Negative.

>Who implements them defines the condition.

I'm not disagreeing, but you're missing the point again. The origins of the condition don't change the argument itself, only the targets.

>Lol ... no, it's not -- it's *gasp* just regular old criticism.

Yes, it is Marxist criticism, which is 'regular old' criticism.

The postmodern condition is a reflection of what the postwar jewish elites who took over institutional and cultural control in the west. You're essentially saying it would have turned out the same way regardless because of the machinery. But I'm telling you it turned out the way it did because of who was in control of that machinery and that we would have never had a 'postmodern condition' if Europeans were in control of it.

You're simply wrong on the Marxist point of the alt right. Some use similar tactics because they're effective but the movement itself represents the exact opposite. You're confusing the parts with the whole, and it's making you unable to understand the whole.

While we are on the subject of juden, how's Culture of Critique? Is it acceptable scholarship?

It's a must read. Why haven't you already read it, friend?

>. Spencer coined the term and has always promoted white ethnostates
Why should I care who coined it? What's relevant is how it's used now. I doubt if the nazis coined the phrase "national socialist," but only a moron would you use it to describe to describe a patriot who happens to support social benefits

>The postmodern condition is a reflection of what the postwar jewish elites who took over institutional and cultural control in the west.

Again, I don't disagree. Again, you're missing the point.

>You're essentially saying it would have turned out the same way regardless because of the machinery.

No, I'm saying the target of postmodern criticism changes from 'the capitalists' to 'the Jews'. I'm saying nothing about the development of the conditions, only that they exist and we find ourselves in similar conditions today as the postmodernists did 50 years ago. There's nothing more to say on this point.

>Some use similar tactics because they're effective but the movement itself represents the exact opposite.

Yes, the application of postmodern arguments leveled at different targets results in different outcomes. This doesn't change what I'm saying at all and if you were paying attention instead of trying to shoehorn in your argument against the Jews you would have recognised this in the beginning and not wasted all this time. You're not arguing against me, you're just doing exactly what I'm describing.

>Well Christianity is gone, and it's not coming back, nor should it.

Says you.

Postmodernist criticism is almost definitionally the most successful form of criticism

You're acting like postmodernism is an intellectual alliance instead of a group of methodologies

I know what you're trying to say, but you're using the term "postmodern" incorrectly. I don't expect you to change your mind about it now, because people go tunnel-vision in argumentative situations, but maybe you should look more into it later (if only to have a better understanding of your enemies)

You could be saying the thing that you're saying more accurately if you knew how to describe your enemy. What you're doing now is like shit talking modern politicians by decrying "governance" and saying that your cool new rebel group doesn't use any "governance" you just "make rules"

In a western world with politics stuck in an abyss of jewish lies and subversion, it becomes relevant. I know what CNN inter alia wants the term "alt right" to mean, and it's very different from what the person who coined it and is arguably the leader of it intended.

Smash the system!

>alt right
>more like cuck right amirite ?

>"European identity" doesn't exist and has never existed
There is such a thing as the West. Sorry senpai

You've been very strange and incoherent arguments this whole time, likely because these things are not straightened out in your head. That some on the alt right read and try to use ideas from Rules for Radicals does not make the movement itself an extension of postmodernism. Since as I've been telling you it is a reaction against it and something entirely different. Postmodernism was an aberration that reflected the jews who were able to cease instituonal power from whites by guilt tripping them about WWII.

>What you're doing now is like shit talking modern politicians by decrying "governance" and saying that your cool new rebel group doesn't use any "governance" you just "make rules"

Why would you expect me to respect your argument when you misjudge my own so badly?

>Postmodernist criticism is almost definitionally the most successful form of criticism
No, it's not. It is jewish inversion based on relativism that was devised to eradicate any hierarchy of thought.

It's you, dear fellow, who doesn't know what he's talking about here.

Because I'm too busy autodidacting Aristotle

It's possible I'm misunderstanding your position, but I kind of doubt it. It's not like I'm infallible, though. It might help me if you tell me what you mean by "postmodern" in a more comprehensive way than "this thing is postmodern" and "this thing isn't postmodern"

My arguments have been coherent but you've been unable to reconcile them in your head with your own arguments. I've done it for you several times already.

>That some on the alt right read and try to use ideas from Rules for Radicals does not make the movement itself an extension of postmodernism.

No, having your arguments be remarkably similar to postmodern arguments but directed at different targets makes it an extension of postmodernism, by which I mean an intellectual and cultural response to the conditions of postmodernity.

If you had any sense of history this wouldn't be so confusing for you.

Since you're a right-winger I won't list off all of them but here's a few:

De Maistre
Burke
Evola
Nietzsche
Heidegger

More or less.

No, they haven't. Your argument has been full of 'I don't cares' and 'it doesn't matters' and you seem incapable of providing specifics.

The alt right is not an extension of postmodernism, postmodernism is dead, and the ethnonationalist movements moving in to replace it are by their very nature almost exactly the opposite. They seek to repair the postmodern damage. In other words, you are wrong.

So you're defining postmodernism as the systematic destruction of Western values? In that case you're right about not being postmodernist, but that seems like a pretty idiosyncratic way to use the word. You should expect people to be confused, most define it by certain methods and not by particular goals

Applies to almost everything in this thread? Please tell me, why do psuedo-intellectuals on the right insist on using "Postmodernism" as a virtual pronoun for anything they don't like?

There is no one, succinct, useful definition for the word "Postmodern" and I doubt most of the people in here ramming on about it could deliver a good definition.