3 ms·

And when your favored divine-right monarchy comes for their "divine right" with your underage daughters and sons? Will you still be willing to give all for the

And when your favored divine-right monarchy comes for their "divine right" with your underage daughters and sons? Will you still be willing to give all for the cause?

ratrace 9mo ago
I'm going to draft a new theory of sociopolitics called Pedophile-Oriented Ontology. It's when someone's political critique becomes entirely oriented around accusations of pedophilia or lack thereof. Monarchy? Le bad, because the king could be a pedo!
- mindslight 9mo ago
  Well in this case it would be "is" rather than "could." Maybe Thiel himself doesn't partake in the forbidden underage fruit (although I don't see why we would rule that out, as it seems to be how the Epstein club binds its members). But then Thiel isn't set up to be the king either, right? But yes such a critique would be interesting! I think all of Moldbug's florid prose about enlightened monarchism would land much differently if the apogee of that enlightenment isn't some sort of assumed societal grand plan or direction, but is rather just the old base desire for increasingly-immoral perverted debauchery.
  - ratrace 9mo ago
    Tens of thousands of years of political history and the only known paranoia-fueled scandal and suspicion of the elite being immoral pedophiles that I'm aware of is currently happening in a democracy, because a guy who based his identity on knowing as many other powerful people as possible happened to know many powerful people (really??? no way!), and anti-capitalists are desperate for moral superiority so they're willing to psy-op themselves into thinking it's plausible that every person this guy ever emailed must have been a pedo too. Monarchy never had any of this nonsense. Bring back King George. We made the wrong choice.
    - mindslight 9mo ago
      You're saying that monarchies never had perverted debauchery? It sounds like you need to read a little more broadly, rather than just contemporary writings that seek to burn down all of Chesterton's fences. And keep in mind that the monarchies of old were still constrained by religion, and by the lack of digital communications! What is being pushed today is better characterized as autocracy. The "monarchy" label is merely meant to evoke simpler-seeming times that are comfortably in the past. Also I think you meant "capitalists" rather than "anti-capitalists". That people who were successful under capitalism want to move to a different system does not imply that their favored system is also capitalist! If monarchy/autocracy is "capitalist" then North Korea is also "capitalist" and the word is meaningless. (also it seems like you're still in denial about the implications of Epstein's emails, regardless who was or was not partaking in the minors)
      - ratrace 9mo ago
        > Also I think you meant "capitalists" rather than "anti-capitalists". No, I'm very much talking about talibanized socialists/communists/whatever they want to particularly call themselves. "Eat the rich" has become "The rich eat babies" because it doesn't matter what you try and get people to believe as long as they align themselves with your side and against the people you don't like. The Big Lie of our times, perhaps?
        mindslight 9mo ago
        > I'm very much talking about talibanized socialists/communists/whatever they want to particularly call themselves. So you're just bashing a strawman that you've pigeonholed all opposition into? Okay then... We had a previous exchange that I ended up dropping. I was a bit sorry about that because I thought it would have been interesting to critique "universalism" on its own merits, rather than the term generally only being mentioned by its detractors. (For context here I was reading Moldbug while he was writing, and spent a bunch of time internalizing other reactionary writings. I actually credit Moldbug with my transition from a right-Libertarian to an unaligned libertarian that sees left vs right as mere modes of thinking, each with their own merits) But after seeing how quickly this conversation went downhill, I'm not sure that conversation would have been terribly productive either!
- pixelatedindex 8mo ago
  You didn’t answer the question. Is it because: 1. You think the question isn’t applicable 2. You think doesn’t happen 3. You think justice is served for pedophiles 4. The president didn’t do anything wrong and so none of these discussions are valid

And when your favored divine-right monarchy comes for their "divine right" with your underage daughters and sons? Will you still be willing to give all for the cause?

ratrace 9mo ago

I'm going to draft a new theory of sociopolitics called Pedophile-Oriented Ontology. It's when someone's political critique becomes entirely oriented around accusations of pedophilia or lack thereof. Monarchy? Le bad, because the king could be a pedo!

mindslight 9mo ago
Well in this case it would be "is" rather than "could." Maybe Thiel himself doesn't partake in the forbidden underage fruit (although I don't see why we would rule that out, as it seems to be how the Epstein club binds its members). But then Thiel isn't set up to be the king either, right? But yes such a critique would be interesting! I think all of Moldbug's florid prose about enlightened monarchism would land much differently if the apogee of that enlightenment isn't some sort of assumed societal grand plan or direction, but is rather just the old base desire for increasingly-immoral perverted debauchery.
- ratrace 9mo ago
  Tens of thousands of years of political history and the only known paranoia-fueled scandal and suspicion of the elite being immoral pedophiles that I'm aware of is currently happening in a democracy, because a guy who based his identity on knowing as many other powerful people as possible happened to know many powerful people (really??? no way!), and anti-capitalists are desperate for moral superiority so they're willing to psy-op themselves into thinking it's plausible that every person this guy ever emailed must have been a pedo too. Monarchy never had any of this nonsense. Bring back King George. We made the wrong choice.
  - mindslight 9mo ago
    You're saying that monarchies never had perverted debauchery? It sounds like you need to read a little more broadly, rather than just contemporary writings that seek to burn down all of Chesterton's fences. And keep in mind that the monarchies of old were still constrained by religion, and by the lack of digital communications! What is being pushed today is better characterized as autocracy. The "monarchy" label is merely meant to evoke simpler-seeming times that are comfortably in the past. Also I think you meant "capitalists" rather than "anti-capitalists". That people who were successful under capitalism want to move to a different system does not imply that their favored system is also capitalist! If monarchy/autocracy is "capitalist" then North Korea is also "capitalist" and the word is meaningless. (also it seems like you're still in denial about the implications of Epstein's emails, regardless who was or was not partaking in the minors)
    - ratrace 9mo ago
      > Also I think you meant "capitalists" rather than "anti-capitalists". No, I'm very much talking about talibanized socialists/communists/whatever they want to particularly call themselves. "Eat the rich" has become "The rich eat babies" because it doesn't matter what you try and get people to believe as long as they align themselves with your side and against the people you don't like. The Big Lie of our times, perhaps?
      - mindslight 9mo ago
        > I'm very much talking about talibanized socialists/communists/whatever they want to particularly call themselves. So you're just bashing a strawman that you've pigeonholed all opposition into? Okay then... We had a previous exchange that I ended up dropping. I was a bit sorry about that because I thought it would have been interesting to critique "universalism" on its own merits, rather than the term generally only being mentioned by its detractors. (For context here I was reading Moldbug while he was writing, and spent a bunch of time internalizing other reactionary writings. I actually credit Moldbug with my transition from a right-Libertarian to an unaligned libertarian that sees left vs right as mere modes of thinking, each with their own merits) But after seeing how quickly this conversation went downhill, I'm not sure that conversation would have been terribly productive either!
pixelatedindex 8mo ago
You didn’t answer the question. Is it because: 1. You think the question isn’t applicable 2. You think doesn’t happen 3. You think justice is served for pedophiles 4. The president didn’t do anything wrong and so none of these discussions are valid