Why are you still a leftist when reactionary/right-wing thinkers have dominated nearly every single field of study from...

Why are you still a leftist when reactionary/right-wing thinkers have dominated nearly every single field of study from the 19th thru mid-20th centuries– philosophy (Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger), economics (Pareto, Veblen, Schumpeter), religious studies (Eliade, Jung, Schuon), math, et cetera?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=4-mD_wP-QwQ
unz.com/article/how-the-left-won-the-cold-war/
rense.com/general59/ein.htm
ssbothwell.com/documents/ebooksclub.org__The_Question_Concerning_Technology_and_Other_Essays.pdf
plato.stanford.edu/entries/derrida/
books.google.com/books?id=BODdpZCvvrQC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=foucault deathbed heidegger&source=bl&ots=w3OmoB6x7p&sig=pCOAVkb0ivMOiYOnU5TOidZ8kSg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiG6oqi6uTWAhXis1QKHeePB3wQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&q=foucault deathbed heidegger&f=false
physicsforums.com/threads/is-antimatter-a-theory-or-does-it-exist.249834/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I thought Cultural Marxists were subverting academia?

Just because the bourgeoise elevate right wing thinkers doesn't mean their thoughts hold more value user-kun~

It were (and still are) the ultra-boogie grande écoles that elevated the most radical left wing thinkers.

Okay, whatever your mind ghosts tell you

Money is power. Look at how much the Koch brothers spend on political adverts. Look at all the academics they had on their payroll, the propaganda their think tanks spurn out.
And don't you dare say Soros does the same for us. He's a neoliberal and openly opposed communist regimes in Europe

No. Academia does often redact entire categories of political philosophy and authors from the historical record due to them being hostile to Liberalism and/or Communism. They also often say such lies as Fascism being "anti-intellectual". How would you describe Georges Sorel, Werner Sombart, Joseph De Maistre, Martin Heidegger, or Carl Schmitt except as intellectuals? I'm not saying all these figures are strictly fascist but they're foundational to Fascist thought.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Could you describe how the bourgeoise are elevating Heidegger so that his thoughts hold more value?

First off, you do realize liberalism is not communism, right? Also, do you realize that libertarianism has its roots in liberalism, and that communism is incredibly distinct from both?
As for academia finding actual communist professors is quite rare. I completed a phd and met 1, and he was a closet Marxist, I found out he was Marxist 2nd hand. Never once did he promote Marxism, he taught a class on classical liberalism. Many years later when I became a commie only like one other faculty knew I was and looked at me like I had 6 heads when I told them. At most, academics are social democrats, not full on revolutionary Marxists. That shit is a fucking meme bro

Dont give this retard attention

I do realize Liberalism is not Communism which is why I said "and/or". I realize that the majority of professors are not orthodox marxists, I never implied that they were. I don't go on boards like Holla Forums but I assume when they use terms like "cultural marxism" they're referring to the Frankfurt School thinkers purposeful shift to investigate the social/philosophical aspects of Capitalist life instead of the economic, usually now referred to as critical theory. I don't believe in some so-called subversion by spooky puppeteer "cultural marxists", I do think however that contrary to popular opinion the Left did win the Cold War.

Are you denying that Nietzsche is a reactionary thinker? His philosophy is anti-egalitarian.

Einstein was a commie. Checkmate fashies

Then I do have to ask, which billionaire paid for French elite institutions to be dominated by the most radical of marxists, who is the richest man in babylon?

This is correct in the sense of anti-intellectualism being the persecution complex of the nerddom which holds itself as synonymous with intelligence.

That which is held as cultural marxism is the presence of marxist ideology beyond its explicit, orthodox confines. An example of this is a comment I recently read on Holla Forums stating that prostitution is no different from other labour because both rent out their bodies for services; this sort of banalization that is now rampant stems from the marxist conception of man as merely product and consumer, with communism not being the antithesis to this, but simply the best bargain.

Academia usually endorse academics that support the ruling ideology, and work against those who don't. For example, there's a reason David Graeber was basically kicked out of US academia and had his house foreclosed, even though he's one of the most prominent anthropologist and value theorist alive. In the economics department, it's impossible for even for milquetoast socdem academics that critique neoliberalism like Steve Keen to conduct research, making him leave to rely on patreon funding. Meanwhile if you're a generic neolib yes man you're not going to have any problem funding your research or face the threat of being expelled from universities. This is because the bourgeoise control the funding and rulebook of academia, and they have a class interest in promoting certain kinds of research and ideas.

Because someone being X doesn't make their contributions to a field invalid nor does it mean I have to adopt their beliefs. Also broken clock right twice a day and so on.

Very true. The political Right and right-wing thought has also been shuttered off from Academia and has been effectively criminalized in America since WW2, though figures like Schmit and Heidegger are so monumental and influential that you'll find the timid liberals hand-wringing in order to justify reading their work. Even the conservative political parties in America are "cultural marxists". Fascism is anti-Marxist, anti-Liberal, and anti-Secular humanist so it obviously has no place in this arrangement. While orthodox Marxists may have difficulty (there are some like Richard Wolff) receiving tenure the Post-Marxist Left that's main focus is in pushing social radicalism than proletarian revolt has absolutely no problem.

This is because social radicalism has been fully coopted by neoliberalism. The bourgeoise couldn't care less if another board member is gay or not as long as people don't speak about class.

Yes, that's part of it, though the post-Marxist Left began to supplant Communism as the major leftist ideology in the West before the fall of the Soviet Empire, you could see this already in the 1960's in Europe with the youth movements. This is why I believe Right-wingers should have allied themselves with the Soviets after WW2, because ultimately Communism was less destructive to the Russians than full on neo-liberalism has been for Americans.

t.
youtube.com/watch?v=4-mD_wP-QwQ

No, I'm not "Nazbol", I'm a Not Socialist so I'm fundamentally opposed to Marxism. The Nazis were also opposed to modern industrial capitalism and modernity. Fascism is the "turd position", the Axis were actually the anti-imperialist side of WW2 because they were fighting against the encroaching forces of Liberalism and Bolshevism that were actively threatening to wipe their people and culture out.

It's not imperialism when my guys wage wars of conquest because they're waging them against the imperialists who wage wars of conquest.

Not only are the thinkers you cited still well regarded for the contribution and influence, but its a stretch to apply any political label to some of them. If want my opinion its because right wing thinkers didn't dominate every single fields and you're just selectively using the ones you agree with as examples.

And what is this "the left won the cold war" bullshit? You like to claim that because academia in general is mostly centrist/liberal (same thing) that the right-wing lost, but political science and economics, the only fields of academia that affect policy, are mostly right-wing.

I think the situationist and autonomist movements had more to do with working class youth gaining access to the academia and discovering their lost history of radical culture, rather than them having the idea of communism planted in their heads by Marxist masterminds. But even as situationist ideas have become common sense, they have been stripped of their radicalism. For example, while most people admit the Spectacle exists to keep us as obedient consumers, any thought that it can be subverted by the workers has been replaced by defeatist cynicism, since that doesn't threaten capital. Autonomism's core ideas on the other hand threaten capital as a whole, which is why they haven't been allowed to gain any traction

...

This is your brain on Holla Forums kids

???

Nietzsche was really mostly concerned with understanding how humans were limited by being humans in thought, will, and physicallity, and that we have to develop ourselves until the problems, conceptions, and bounds of being human are a thing of the past.

It's hard to understand where that would take us, but that's not surprising given that it's literally the Post-Human.

Can you provide some proof that the french elite institutions are dominated by "the most radical of marxists"?

you are a cuck, sorry

...

...

...

...

Which university had Althusser as it's most prominent professor when he developed the theory that the main role of education in a capitalist society is the reproduction of an efficient and obedient work force?

And what about the Gypsies, Jews, Slavs etc who the Nazis were literally trying to exterminate? What about General Plan Ost? What about the campaigns of resettlement of Polish children for Germanization? You are retarded, the only people actively trying to stomp out anybody's culture were the Germans. The USSR wasn't Mao's China, they didn't sweep old culture away wherever they went.

So all we need to do to dominate the elite institutions of a country is one professor at one university?
Man, dismantling capitalism is gonna be a lot easier than I thought.

Nietzsche could be more accurately categorized as an anti-reactionary. He hated the right wing forces within Germany almost as much as he hated nihilism. According to Nietzsche, values can die, and it's impossible to go back to the past. His thought can definitely be appropriated by the right wing but only if they butcher it first, which is what happened.

I don't care what is popular

Your expert knowledge regarding the subject displayed by your effortless gotcha's astounds me. Please, show me this treasure trove of knowledge you posses which will allow us to rewrite history, so that we might all know that radical leftism in French elite institutions was limited to one professor, at one university.

Nah nigger, I'm mostly saying universities hardly count as elite institutions.

The reason right-wingers think he's one of them is because he opposed egalitarianism, as if there aren't left-wing anti-egalitarians/individualists, and because he criticized socialist individuals and groups he encountered.
Not to say he's one of us, he wasn't really, but like I've said labeling him on the political spectrum is pointless.

Nietzsche said himself that he can only be interpreted authentically by those who use him.

So is Stirner's.

He was an anti Zionist you fucking brainlet

rense.com/general59/ein.htm

anti-intellectuals

from "Our Debt to Zionism"

Really makes you think huh?

The only people who think this are people who have never seriously engaged with philosophy.

Georges Sorel is a complex figure who can't be accurately described as a fascist even though he did influence some fascists later on precisely because of his promotion of myth-making and redemptive violence. De Maistre and Schmitt were conservatives, not fascists. Heidegger was a ranting, barely legible autist first and foremost — the Nazi establishment couldn't care less about Dasein.

That a handful of intellectuals may have been associated with the far-right doesn't mean fascism isn't deeply anti-intellectualist at its core; it has always been more about guts than brains, which is why they put so much emphasis on public propaganda (speeches, parades, ceremonies, etc).

Read his black notebooks, brainlet. The nazi-poster is stupid but I'm tired of leftists trying to rehabilitate their precious philosophers.

kek

Can you prove that statement wrong without invoking an haunted-house-foul of spooks?

Let's take this exorcism one step further; what difference is there between hiring a prostitute and murdering her, when both are simply a man doing as he pleases?

No, they weren't. The obscure Völkisch leagues from which some of the most batshit Nazis like Darré came from were suspicious of urban life, but the Nazis themselves embraced modernity in many of its aspects. For instance, they did a complete 180 regarding the autobahn (which they initially opposed) when they realized it was a popular policy and they would need it in their military infrastructure anyway. How are mass-produced cars and radios industrial capitalism and modernity?

Meant: How are mass-produced cars and radios NOT industrial capitalism and modernity?

Foucault admitted he owes everything to Heidegger. Derrida claimed he said nothing Heidegger hasn't. Marcuse also shaped his "Heideggerian Marxism" They weren't Nazis nor endorsed Nazism in any way.

Because liberals can't distill ideology.

huh, it's as if that is what I implied, really makes me think

Sure, you could convey every philosophical observation to be made into a political conclusion, but that doesn't necessarily warrant sterile observations or formulations in themselves political. Please tell me how come some niche epistemology is fundamentally political.

Modernity in this sense refers to consciousness, which has very little with technology itself. If the teutonic order knew how to build thanks, they would have done so.

If you think technological advancement doesn't shape human culture and identity you are a fool. If the teutonic order had radio they wouldn't really be what they were. And also nationalism is a result of modern (as "of the modern era") technological discovery and advancement. You would have to go back in time and kill copernicus to have a true traditional society, even nietzche understood that.

What the hell are you babbling on about? There is no such thing as "modern consciousness" as you imply it.

This statement is entirely anachronistic.

You ignore my point; if pre-modern people would have had acces to tanks, would they have refused to use them because doing so would be too modern for their tastes? Of course they would! Pre-modern people were much more ruthless with the technology they had, the opposition to the technology as is is a modern thing in itself.

A good example of the nazi's being detached from modernity is Hitler not clapping himself after he made a speech (contrary to stalin). In nazism, the leader didn't have the place of prime interpreter in the ideological structure, Hitler was Man, this is contrary to the modern conception of a leader as the most perfect of servants.

This might interest you and

ssbothwell.com/documents/ebooksclub.org__The_Question_Concerning_Technology_and_Other_Essays.pdf

You ignore my point; if pre-modern people would have had acces to tanks, would they have refused to use them because doing so would be too modern for their tastes? Of course they wouldn't!

correction*

both are ok imo

The only field I'm familiar enough with to comment is economics, and right wingers didn't dominate till the Chicago school and those guys were responsible for some of the most socially destructive ideas ever.
The Austrians too, but they weren't particularly relevant till Chicago and were outgunned by left wing economists. Then in the 60s funding began to move to those who would create policies that benefitted the rich.

But this thought experiment doesn't make any sense. For people to have access to tanks presupposes material conditions that couldn't exist in pre-modern Europe.

That's a lot of mental gymnastics to try and "prove" technology and history aren't related.

How is that evidence of the Nazis being "detached from modernity"…? Hell, what do you even define as modernity in the first place?

Not only is the "modern conception of a leader" (if there ever is one) not reducible to that, Hitler definitely presented himself as a selfless servant of the German people's will.

you need to read

and here are things to back up his assertions
plato.stanford.edu/entries/derrida/
books.google.com/books?id=BODdpZCvvrQC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=foucault deathbed heidegger&source=bl&ots=w3OmoB6x7p&sig=pCOAVkb0ivMOiYOnU5TOidZ8kSg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiG6oqi6uTWAhXis1QKHeePB3wQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&q=foucault deathbed heidegger&f=false

I've read Marx and Hegel and take after them. But Heidegger is also very good, certain parts of Being and Time are a must-read imho especially if you are going into Foucault and later xx century thought. it helps going into Heidegger to know the greek alphabet because a lot of his conclusions come about by 'going back to the Greeks'

basically this. Nietzsche in theory wouldn't have liked you guys. He would say you are a herd, and he did not like German nationalism.
he doesn't like us either of course. but in the end he went to pieces so who really cares what he thinks. beyond good and evil and genealogy of morals are ok texts at least.

einstein was a socialist, nuff said

That's besides the point. The question is, would they use them?

If you truly can't imagine what you can't conceive, ask yourself this, did pre-modern people who suddenly got acces to modern weaponry and tools refuse them because those weapons were too modern for their tastes?

I'm not trying to prove any such thing, I'm explaining that a non-modernity does not imply a rejection of technology.

What I call modernity has to be dependent on context for it to have any meaning other than something like "the years 1800-2000". In this case it's the ideological constellation birthed by the enlightenment. Of this constellation, nazism had the structure (political party, leadership structure, nation state..) of modernity, but not its consciousness (although they were very much conscious of said consciousness, much like Muslims are today when they appeal to leftist pieties).

Ofcourse it isn't fully reducible to that but that's besides the point, since my point was about the place of the leader ideological structure, not in actuality. Hitler was the great war chief, the Fuhrer, which simply means leader, while Stalin was the first comrade, Lenin's truest servant. Hitler was the father, Stalin was the son.

Another example are the show trials under Stalin, the charges were made up, the confessions were extracted with torture, but still, there were trials, there was the image of lawful legitimacy. The nazi's could have done the same, they could have put some Jews on trial and made them confess all the conspiracies they were accused of, yet they had no need of this, their ideological structure didn't require such. Nazism is distinguished from the modern forms of totalitarianism by its brutal honesty, this is not to say the nazi's weren't liars, but that those lies were merely opportunistic instrumentalities, not a propitiation like the show trials were.

That's besides the point. The question is, would they use them?

If you truly can't imagine what you can't conceive, ask yourself this, did pre-modern people who suddenly got acces to modern weaponry and tools refuse them because those weapons were too modern for their tastes?

I'm not trying to prove any such thing, I'm explaining that a non-modernity does not imply a rejection of technology.

What I call modernity has to be dependent on context for it to have any meaning other than something like "the years 1800-2000". In this case it's the ideological constellation birthed by the enlightenment. Of this constellation, nazism had the structure (political party, leadership structure, nation state..) of modernity, but not its consciousness (although they were very much conscious of said consciousness, much like Muslims are today when they appeal to leftist pieties).

Ofcourse it isn't fully reducible to that but that's besides the point, since my point was about the place of the leader ideological structure, not in actuality. Hitler was the great war chief, the Fuhrer, which simply means leader, while Stalin was the first comrade, Lenin's truest servant. Hitler was the father, Stalin was the son.

Another example are the show trials under Stalin, the charges were made up, the confessions were extracted with torture, but still, there were trials, there was the image of lawful legitimacy. The nazi's could have done the same, they could have put some Jews on trial and made them confess all the conspiracies they were accused of, yet they had no need of this, their ideological structure didn't require such. Nazism is distinguished from the modern forms of totalitarianism by its brutal honesty, this is not to say the nazi's weren't liars, but that those lies were merely opportunistic instrumentalities, not a propitiation like the show trials were.

What little credibility you still had is now gone.

Agreed, but what difference does it make whether right-wing or "left-wing" bourgeois economists dominate in academia? Contra what OP is trying to imply, dominance of academia doesn't prove their ideas aren't shit, which they are.

Is there really that much difference between Chicago style neoclassical economics and "liberal" New Keynesian economics? From what I could gather as an econ student the only real difference was whether wages and prices are assumed to be sticky/inflexible or whether they adjust instantaneously. Kinda like theological debates about how many angels could fit on the head of a pin.

If Hitler was really anti-imperialist then why did he send Rudolf Hess to negotiate with the British a separate peace? An actual anti-imperialist ceaselessly fight Anglo hegemony, not offer them peace and the protection of their vast empire. He offered separate peace so that they could focus on invading the USSR with operation barbarossa which was a major act of imperialism itself.

The Nazis actual calculation was that the USSR was weaker so that they could run them over quickly with little resistance, but even then if you justify it is a per-emptive strike against "enchroaching Bolshevism" you can justify literally any imperialist invasion as a pre-emptive strike. The dominant feature of the later part of the 19th century was the rise of Germany. You could argue that the Entente pre-emptively striked Germany to stop encroaching Germanism. You could argue the same thing again with when the British and French then started the second world war against Germany. The pre-emptive strike justification is garbage.

...

Nietzsche wasn't very reactionary, he shit all over on traditional morality and religion. Dionysian heroism is about transgression, his archaism is a revisionist project. Egalitarianism and socialism he saw as the outcome of a latest in a long string of errors along with German nationalism, because they were weak ass half measures: not radical enough. Absolute spirit was too fruity and too much of an endorsement, so he brought in will to power. Fascism really wasn't particularly "reactionary" either, in the sense of calling for any sort of restoration of a prior order, unless despite your best effort you have subscribed to the Marxian synopsis of it as a desperate patchwork counter-revolution against the historic arrival of the foreclosure of capitalism and immanent communism. While it interpolated some features from radical conservative thought, as integral modes of the authentic national spirit, it was just as much about creating something radically new. It makes about as much sense to call Proudhon and even Bakunin reactionary, when you look at their nationalistic (and anti-Semitic) sympathies and more being about returning to unalienated labor, as opposed to orthodox Marxism with its limited recapitulation to the primordial condition which they purposefully characterized as "primitive communism" and not a Hobbesian shitshow.

Nazis are such bootlickers. You crave the recognition of a system that hates you. You are like a small girl being dominated by a bigger, stronger, and perhaps dirtier man.

Nazis crave daddy's cum more than the filthiest slut.

Its a fact the Socialism will always be about taking things from the weak for no reason other than sick (and vaguely Jewish) satisfaction

Hobbe's claims about the primitive state of man weren't based on anthropology tho, and social organization in primitive societies was actually widely varied from group to group. "primitive communism" isn't really that incorrect of a label given that the production in these societies tended to be for collective rather than individual use.

Mathematics only follows the philosophy of Plato's forms, all mathematicians are closet Platonists.

Actually its about taking what is rightfully yours and mine from strong parasites who are only strong because of their precious nanny state looking out for them.

Yes, but evidence suggests that when paleolithic tribes came in contact the results were quite often violent. If course that still means hobbes is wrong, since that's just a small scale version of warfare, which hobbes never really addresses.

Thanks. When I was making that joke, I really thought it would be aided by an actual explanation of Socialism.

Egalitarianism is reactionary.

Because I look at arguments and consider evidence. I am a Leftist because I am a scientist. Marx's analysis of Capitalism is quite accurate and supported by a considerable body of evidence.

Quote or paraphrase the relevant things these men have said that makes them worthy of my attention.

I'm sure that Nietzsche would have just loved the nationalist herd morality populace protected by the nanny state government.

legit one of the smartest nazi posts I've ever seen

Yes, on a superficial level Nietzsche does seem excellent regarding right-wing thought, he's philo-semitic at times, anti-german nationalist. But if you've done a deeper reading of his work like I have and have looked beyond the exoteric level then I think you'll find a lot that resonates, Nietzsche's vision of a hierarchal aristocrat society is definitely incompatible with Leftism. I'm not a big follower of Nietzsche by any means, I'm a Christian, but he's still essential reading considering how influential he was to future right-wing thinkers. That's why I said Nietzsche was a "proto-fascist" anyway, his thought was influential in the intellectual history of fascism, even though the Nazis were more Wagnerian than Nietzschean. We'll never know for sure what Nietzsche would have thought about the developments of the 20th century, I think he would have supported the NDSAP but still there's no use speculating.

*meant to say "problematic" instead of excellent is this another instance of the silly word filter? How about "troublesome" instead.

Never mind, must have been my auto-correct.

If you're at all interested in these fields of study then those figures are essential reading. If you want a recommendation then I'd say Vilfredo Pareto's sociological essays (his math is important as well), along with Mircea Eliade's(who was probably the greatest religion scholar of the 20th century) "A History of Religious Ideas".

The reading of Nietzsche as an aristocrat seems sound on it's surface, but it really isn't, especially if you take "aristocracy" to mean governance by people who have been born into an elevated class. Nietzsche was anti-democratic, anti-egalitarian, and elitist, but he wasn't right-wing and he certainly doesn't support the domination of others for to preserve a national identity/mythos.
Lmao, no. Nazi mysticism and Nazi ideology both run pretty counter to Nietzsche's ideals. You'd have to do a lot of twisting to make the claim that Nietzsche would have liked the NDSA.

Also Nietzsche fucking hated nationalism, patriotism, and antisemitism which excludes about 99% of modern far right ideology.

garbage thread and kys OP but how did you get Jung on the reactionary list?

You're clearly not familiar with the intellectual lineage of Fascist theory or have done a deep reading of Nietzsche's work but that's OK, there are a lot of misconceptions out there.

Are you not familiar with Jung's personal views at all? Pretty much all the best religious, mythological and spiritual writers of the 20th century had reactionary views, you could of course include figures like Guenon, Dumezil, Cioran, and Evola to my list, along with all the great Christian writers of which there are too many to name.

Tell me how what I said was incorrect then. What makes you think that Nietzsche would support an aristocratic society based around a fetishized nation state?

Einstein was also a fraud and his only original theory is complete non-sense in practice.
Well, not everything that works on math works in the real world. For example, negative numbers exist, do negative objects exist? (I know it is somewhat of a dumb example, but still).

We've got someone smarter than Einstein here holy shit

This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my entire life.

Can you have any less of an object than 0? Yes, i know it is a dumb example, it wasn't supposed to debunk relativity (i pointed that out in my first post) on its own, it is just supposed to show that not everything that works on math works in real life as well.

Theres something called anti-matter you summerfag.

Does there exist an application of negative numbers to physics? The answer to that one is a resounding yes, as the real and complex numbers are used throughout physics and one is frequently dealing with negative real valued quantities. The integers also arise in various settings regarding the theory of waves, and very famously in quantum mechanics (the discrete integer quantities are actually the reason behind the word "quantum"). In particular, the quantum spin of a particle can be negative.

Taken from physicsforums.com/threads/is-antimatter-a-theory-or-does-it-exist.249834/

In essence, it is negative in terms of charge, not matter. I'm asking if there is negative MATTER (i wouldn't be surprised if there is, and i simlly haven't heard about it, i'm not claiming in any way to be an expert).

Fixed.
Just committed the same mistake as you, great job.
Remember, as mentioned before:

You illiterate nigger. That man was nothing more than modern-day self-improvement faggot. Intellectual lightweight. Never call him thinker again.

wait how did this become a physics thread?

When people started pushing the "genius Einstein socialist" meme, and i questioned the genius part of it.
Sorry for "skewing" (?) this thread.

You're going to have to elaborate on this ultra deep reading of Nietzsche where his legacy can run counter to everything he actually stated and preferred and still be considered properly his legacy.

News to me.