posted on March 30, 2021 02:54 PM by
u/Consistent_Actuator
42
u/DELETED48 pointsat 1617116629.000000
I read like 2 paragraphs of that and then my eyes started to glaze
over as I completely failed to see anything resembling a
throughline in the argument.
Thankfully, due to the understanding I have gained here on
/r/SneerClub, I had the knowledge needed to recognize what I was looking
at: complete and utter bullshit. Holy fuck what the
hell even is that? It’s like trying to read really fucking
terrible philosophy printed in small print on a magic eye painting.
Who thinks this is good writing? Who thinks this is insightful? What
kind of idiot does this to their readers?
checks author
Cody R. Wilson is the founder of DEFCAD, a repository for models for
3D-printable firearms.
> Cody R. Wilson
This is the guy caught seeking out a child prostitute?
He combines libertarian with moral relativism if I recall correctly and somehow this leads to anarcho-capitalism.
I read the whole thing solely because I misread the URL and thought
it was Jacobin and was trying to understand why on earth they published
this; I feel like a fool
It's a reference to the Jacobites, a historical movement in Britain for restoring the House of Stuart to power, believing in the divine right of kings, and generally being associated with what would become the Tories and today are idolized by traditionalists.
They get confused with the Jacobins, who were in France and believed pretty much the exact opposite and are today associated with the left-wing since they were revolutionaries who seized power and because of the magazine.
By today's standards they'd be classical liberals at best in terms of politics, and there are some things about them that are controversial like marginalizing women, the Reign of Terror, and trying to replace Catholicism with a, "rational" religion.
Jacobinism is a bit hard to pin down, because it covered a pretty wide range of ideological positions over its main run. It started off as a club for those who wanted a constitutional monarchy (center right, basically), and ended up being super far left for the day. At the beginning of the club, Robespierre actually fought *against* creating a republic, as it was too radical.
It doesn’t help that the most famous Jacobin, Robespierre himself, went bugshit insane near the end there, and ended up cosplaying “Jacobin Moses” during the public reveal of a new French religion to replace the Catholic Church.
It's worth noting as well that Robespierre was ultimately brought down by a coalition of the 'classical liberal' wing of the Jacobins who objected to his policies on helping poor people and abolishing slavery, and the 'extreme' wing who objected to his attempts to restrain their violence in the Terror. So in the aftermath of Thermidor many people who were actually much more brutal managed to pin most of the guilt on him, and popular history remembers him for turning the guillotine on his fellow revolutionaries, but not for the significant ideological differences and exceptionally difficult political circumstances that led him to the conclusion that it was necessary.
Also, till his breakdown he was generally in the right on most of the big strategic issues during the revolution (e.g. don't declare war on Austria and Prussia, don't pursue aggressive dechristianization policies in the countryside), and the whole thing would likely have gone much better if he'd won those early arguments.
I think you’ve got that totally wrong. I think Robespierre was taken down by a coalition of men whose only interest was in staying alive. Any attempt to explain the coup as ideologically driven is a pure retcon, especially since the directory ends up being such a complete and total ideological mishmash. It also helps that historically we know these men started planning Thermidor *after* Robespierre delivered an address in the chamber accusing unspecified members of a conspiracy against the government, which gives the whole situation a “we need to kill him before we go the way of Danton” vibe.
And yes, Robespierre didn’t start the terror, nor was he the most enthusiastic proponent of it, that would certainly be Jean Paul-Marat. But to say that the terror was “pinned” on him is to understate his later support for the terror. This is not a quote from someone who isn’t enthusiastically pro-terror:
> If the basis of popular government in peacetime is virtue, the basis of popular government during a revolution is both virtue and terror; virtue, without which terror is baneful; terror, without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing more than speedy, severe and inflexible justice; it is thus an emanation of virtue; it is less a principle in itself, than a consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing needs of the patrie [homeland, fatherland].
Well, I'm not a Robespierre expert, but I'm basing my opinion on respectable sources and I believe I am fairly representing the information contained in them. Unfortunately I got most of my information from audio lectures ([here](https://www.audible.co.uk/pd/Living-the-French-Revolution-and-the-Age-of-Napoleon-Audiobook/B00DP3HFRK?ref=a_library_t_c5_libItem_&pf_rd_p=7bf74090-5cb9-4f5e-bc6f-6ea28d055287&pf_rd_r=PAP748J0KDYVAMKF8PQC) and [here](https://www.audible.co.uk/pd/Robespierre-une-biographie-expliquee-Audiobook/B07CRHLLN9?ref=a_library_t_c5_libItem_&pf_rd_p=7bf74090-5cb9-4f5e-bc6f-6ea28d055287&pf_rd_r=VXTNBKAS72R3MGS92C6Q)) so it's hard to provide quotes that other people can judge by. However, here is a somewhat relevant quote from [this](https://academic.oup.com/fh/article-abstract/29/3/396/2398992?redirectedFrom=PDF) book review:
>The key question has always been Robespierre’s role in the revolutionary government that ensued and, on this, Leuwers generally concurs with McPhee, regarding him as shaped by circumstances as much as determining their outcome. Even before the Thermidorians scapegoated him, Robespierre seemed to personify the Terror since his essential role was to reconcile violence and virtue in speeches to the Convention, a task tested to destruction by the draconian law of Prairial in June 1794. Leuwers acknowledges Robespierre’s growing plot-mentality and, whatever his individual misgivings, a ready recourse to deadly purges. Thus, he shared significant responsibility for the death of friends and fellow deputies (see Marisa Linton, Choosing Terror, reviewed in vol. 28, 2), as opposed to the brutal provincial repression which, like dechristianization, he had sought to restrain.
You can also look at the career of e.g. [Tallien](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Lambert_Tallien) for an example of someone who was extremely brutal in pursuit of the terror but who nevertheless was a leading figure in Thermidor and went on to have a long career in the French government.
The Jacobites relationship with the tories was... complicated, largely for religious reasons. (basically, the Stuart pretenders were catholics, while the supremacy of the Church of England was a cornerstone of tory ideology)
NPR’s Elsa Chang and Marie Louise Kelly would be hilariously
inappropriate reporters from the front of any real event. Kelly’s
bizarre voice conjures the ethical horror of allowing the bourgeoisie to
overbreed news anchors. Chang’s is the literal sound of the invisible
violence of security. The very voice (ipsissima vox) of a world order
that nothing must disturb.
i've read a good chunk of his book *Come and Take It*. He actually has read some Baudrillard and others. And yet manages to turn them into funhouse mirror versions of what were already not always the clearest theoretical statements.
This text is what emerges when you run a Markov chain generator on
six random pages from Simulacra and Simulation combined with a
50 tweet thread someone makes after being banned from Paypal for selling
3d-printed guns.
You privatize away, what is ours, what is ours
You privatize away what is ours.
You privatize away, and then you make us pay,
But we’ll take it back someday, Mark my words, Mark my words,
We’ll take it back someday, Mark my words.
Misread the domian as jacobinmag and did get very much did confuse f'r a minute
***
^(I am a bot and I swapp'd some of thy words with Shakespeare words.)
Commands: `!ShakespeareInsult`, `!fordo`, `!optout`
Thank you, TheCandelabra, for voting on Shakespeare-Bot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
I read like 2 paragraphs of that and then my eyes started to glaze over as I completely failed to see anything resembling a throughline in the argument.
Thankfully, due to the understanding I have gained here on /r/SneerClub, I had the knowledge needed to recognize what I was looking at: complete and utter bullshit. Holy fuck what the hell even is that? It’s like trying to read really fucking terrible philosophy printed in small print on a magic eye painting.
Who thinks this is good writing? Who thinks this is insightful? What kind of idiot does this to their readers?
checks author
WELL FUCK I GUESS THAT CHECKS OUT
I read the whole thing solely because I misread the URL and thought it was Jacobin and was trying to understand why on earth they published this; I feel like a fool
Like seriously I’d rather read Moldbug than this
is Jacobite a neoreactionary riff on Jacobin?
Homie what
If I pretend I’ve read Baudrillard, will that make my nonsensical ramblings sound smart instead of insane?
This text is what emerges when you run a Markov chain generator on six random pages from Simulacra and Simulation combined with a 50 tweet thread someone makes after being banned from Paypal for selling 3d-printed guns.
Ye Jacobites by name, lend an ear lend an ear,
[…]
Your doctrines I maun blame, you shall hear.
Calling your magazine Jacobite is kinda like putting on a powdered wig and strutting around screaming “HEIL DOENITZ”
So pretty in character for the NRx
adding this for good measure
https://jacobitemag.com/2018/05/14/somebody-wants-to-take-down-nick-land/
Broke: Jacobin
Woke: Jacobite
I know somebody who makes software for 3d printers, they hate that guy. Thanks for the bad press about 3d printers pedo shitlord.
how do you read Baudrillard and not understand that he’s telling you to become a communist lmao
Yeah it’s just two steps.
Misread the domian as jacobinmag and got really confused for a minute