>Thomas Carlyle is my favorite author and the one whom I read most often.

>Thomas Carlyle is my favorite author and the one whom I read most often.
What kind of person do you imagine?

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I fat stinky chud with bad breath.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I imagine a*

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        nah, I prefer the first version

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Curtis Yarvin, because Thomas Carlyle is Curtis Yarvin's favorite author

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This. He's chudcore sorry.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Carlyle and Yarvin are both about 500 times smarter than anybody on here so your use of buzzwords doesn't mean anything

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Hi Moldie

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/TVACASF.jpg

      Carlyle and Yarvin are both about 500 times smarter than anybody on here so your use of buzzwords doesn't mean anything

      Stop associating Carlyle with this fat dork. Carlyle has been one of the most well read authors in English since his own time, he doesn't need homosexual e-celebs to popularise him. Also Yarvin just lies about being a Carlylean. He says he's a Carlylean in the same way as a Marxist is a Marxist, yet his political philosophy blatantly contradicts Carlyle's. He also claims he has read the every single work of Thomas Carlyle, which is another lie, though he's vain enough to believe he's one of the few people on earth do so.

      have a nice day.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yarvin should 'reread' Sartor Resartus and learn to dress properly.

        a decade and a half passed and this guy still makes everyone seethe, fantastic.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yarvin's back. Haven't you heard?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            yeah i know, but the shit he wrote still makes people seethe

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A chuad

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      damn, he was one ugly c**t.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You’re a conservative and probably pretty smart, but somehow, you still don’t quite get it entirely or you want something which is not really conservative or practical.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      are you just saying that carlyle is a false stand-in for catholicism? if so, i would say that the two are not mutually exclusive, and that there isn't a catholic writer as good as carlyle.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I am not, no.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          i shouldn't have assumed. what did you mean by

          You’re a conservative and probably pretty smart, but somehow, you still don’t quite get it entirely or you want something which is not really conservative or practical.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >there isn't a catholic writer as good as carlyle.
        Dante, Alexander Pope, Joseph de Maistre, Léon Bloy, Charles Baudelaire, François-René de Chateaubriand, Miguel de Cervantes, Ludovico Ariosto, Sigrid Undset, Giambattista Vico.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You’re clearly just throwing a bunch of famous names out instead of actually naming anybody good. Have you actually read Vico? He’s a mess and very small-minded.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You’re clearly just throwing a bunch of famous names out instead of actually naming anybody good.
            All as good as Carlyle, if not better in some cases.
            >very small-minded.
            Carlyle wasn't particularly big-minded.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >All as good as Carlyle
            NTA, but no. Dante and Cervantes are divine geniuses that have nothing to do with this discussion. The other poets shouldn't even be compared with Carlyle as a writer, because they're above all artists and not writers. But Maistre, Bloy, Chateaubriand are not on Carlyle's level. I find it ridiculous to even call Baudelaire a Catholic, even if he belonged to that culture. I would accept Vico, even if he belongs to a completely different era. I don't know a thing about Undset, but it seems like she's just a novelist that happens to be a Catholic.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >they're above all artists and not writers
            What is this meaningless dichotomy? A writer IS an artist. I think you meant they're artists and not thinkers.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Chateaubriand is definitely on Carlyle's level. Dante and Cervantes are above him. Also, poets are writers. IQfy overrating this writer just because he's lesser known is funny.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That anon surely didn't mean Carlyle was the greatest writer, in the most literal sense, of all Protestants, it's clear he meant Catholics do not have someone of equal worth who shares a similar function and style to Carlyle. Because Carlyle is a uniquely great figure in literature. As far as poets are concerned, they have nothing to do with the question, they are not, primarily at least, political commentators or social critics. They are not forceful thinkers reacting to the nature of modern times. Yes, Dante and Cervantes are above him, as I already said, but so are Shakespeare, Milton and Schiller. Carlyle is not lesser known, his greatness is universally known to any literati, whose prose and criticism is second to none. And it's not surprising, Protestants have always had the greatest rhetoricians.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He said there wasn’t any Catholic as good as Carlyle, then he doubled down. I don’t know why you try to sugarcoat it. Political commentators or social critics? Great prose? Chateaubriand is that Catholic writer.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Chateaubriand was French so of course he misunderstood everything. He was more caught in his times than prophetic of them. Not at all comparable to Carlyle's transcendence of political factionalism, and while I don't know Chateaubriand's French, I doubt it with everything I know of French prose that he could be Carlyle's equal. Very witty and impassioned and linguistically marvelous, I'm sure, but that's not what sets Carlyle apart, even if they are comparable for what they did with prose in their respective countries in the same century.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > Chateaubriand was French so of course he misunderstood everything
            Opinion discarded. Have a nice day/night. Carlyle is inferior to C btw.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sorry, but French people are just silly and can't be trusted to think clearly. He re-converted to Catholicism. Wow, great revelation there! What Frenchmen do in the confines of their insulated culture, like return to their old Catholicism, has no significance for the rest of the world.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If the French had no significance to the rest of the world now imagine a dwarf-faced self-hating Scot from the 1800s whose living fanboys mostly exist in the night shift of a Chinese basket weaving forum.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How’s Vico small minded?

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Either:

    >Intellectual and endowed with the power of wit. A more traditional man, but possibly not so monopolistic. It's uncertain, though the connotations are clear. Above all, he is a real, actual lover of literature. He may even write himself. Their quasi-religion is the greatest of men. A sense of contempt for capitalism and mass culture in general is hidden just below the surface. Extremely well-read.

    >The dark enlightenment. Moldburg. Bold and brash, but ultimately shallow. He is more aesthetically-minded for his choice of writers, as in, they aren't vocal for their love but for its connotations. Deeply contrived. He loves to kick up a storm.

    >Spiteful. Shallow. Immature.

    >A chud.

    There is no in between.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Either:

      >Intellectual and endowed with the power of wit. A more traditional man, but possibly not so monopolistic. It's uncertain, though the connotations are clear. Above all, he is a real, actual lover of literature. He may even write himself. Their quasi-religion is the greatest of men. A sense of contempt for capitalism and mass culture in general is hidden just below the surface. Extremely well-read.

      >The dark enlightenment. Moldburg. Bold and brash, but ultimately shallow. He is more aesthetically-minded for his choice of writers, as in, they aren't vocal for their love but for its connotations. Deeply contrived. He loves to kick up a storm. Spiteful. Shallow. Immature. A chud.

      There is no in between.

      (Better formatting)

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's weird how popular Carlyle was among more lefty leaning writers of his time. People like Emerson and Thoreau for example couldn't stop praising him.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      leftists are notoriously stupid

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The chud-lefty spectrum isn't exactly applicable to countries undergoing their cultural genesis like the US in the transcendentalist era, neither does opposing slavery make you a lefty necessarily when not a single chud advocates for unironic slavery nowadays. Really the US slavery vs. antislavery debate feels like a debate between people who would have preferred to phase it out organically vs. those who wanted to abolish it instantly either for moral or economic reasons.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >when not a single chud advocates for unironic slavery nowadays.
        ~~*Yarvin*~~ does but he's a israelite so that's expected.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Jews can't be chuds, the only thing they can be is a israelite.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Everyone praised him and paid attention to him at the time. Engels wrote a raving review of Past and Present. The reason he’s often forgotten today is because he’s too anti-liberal for modern standards. Really hated those blacks and israelites.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Maybe he shouldn't have been too hateful. Céline was anti-israeli as well but he's more popular than ever. The issue with Carlyle is that he wrote things that basically no one cares about.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          He was literally a national socialist before it existed

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And Céline wasn't an extremist or what? Carlyle simply didn't write something that resonates with today's reader.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Carlyle simply didn't write something that resonates with today's reader.
            any other writers like this?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            his fellow students ruskin and emerson are not too well-known today either

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            emerson is pretty well-known

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yarvin should 'reread' Sartor Resartus and learn to dress properly.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You can only criticize the attire of a noble if you are yourself one. And "Sartor Resartus" is of no use to him because he admitted that he is not educated in German Idealism. So why should he read it in the first place?

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Doesn't agree with my 21st century corporate approved politics so chud. Sentences that have more than 5 words are racist.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      nice boogeyman

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *