Do you feel that mentioning the existence of slavery legitimizes it? Please do let me know. I won't bother with the rest as it had literally nothing to do with the topic, those examples were brought in as a rhetorical device to bolster what, on examination, was a totally unsupported accusation.
Moldbug did not simply "mention the existence of slavery."
He explicitly celebrated it. He talked about it being a natural order. He argued that "the innate character and intelligence of some is more suited to mastery than slavery."
This is pure, racist drivel. This is an evil way of thinking. There is a reason that racism, genocide, slavery are so abhorred in the modern world; they are poisonous ideas that have caused some of the largest atrocities history has known.
He is a fascist, arguing for a violent dictatorship, and arguing that slavery is a natural order. These are not mere rhetorical devices; this is the core of his argument. His entire argument is steeped in violence.
> Thus we may charge Carlyle not only with Hitler, but also with Stalin. Both dictators! You see what these dictators do.
> Of course, we are on equally safe ground in noting that both Hitler's party and Stalin's originated as political parties, and reading both genocidal maniacs as accidents of democracy.
I read Moldburg and I see an intelligent guy exposing the hypocrisies of politics left and right in an erudite, reasoned manner. I read yours and I see outright dumb slurs and lies.
