He posted this in another thread: "Back before 1940 progressivism was nominally Christian and protestant."

That's certainly Moldbuggian.

Not at all. Traditionalist Catholics have held such views since the 19th century! Also esoteric anti-Christian thinkers among pseudo-Pagan revivalists and anti-Semites alike have emphasised how socialism and its variants are basically a heretical strain or re-imagining of Christianity. Among Paleoconservatives, by intellectuals such as Paul Gottfried the fundamental protestant and Christian roots of progressivism have been spoken of in much the same terms, though he did so only in the late 2000's so it is hard to say if this is just the intellectual zeitgeist of the "alt right" or if he was indeed also influenced by Moldbug.

His implying that the University system is a mainstay of left-wing hegemony is also Moldbuggian.

Not necessarily, several groups of the Nouvelle Droite hold this view. It is also shared by nearly any fascist sympathizers that still spring up now and then. Right leaning Libertarians emphasise Academia's pro-statist bias. At the end of the day even mainstream conservatives speak of disparagingly of Ivory Tower left wing academia.

Also it is an empirical fact that departments like anthropology are not only firmly in the camp of the left but serve as the choice of employment for people with radical (compared to the mainstream) political views.

Note that sam0345 is a racialist; that is certainly a risk factor for obnoxious commenting. This is due to a combination of extremely strong in-group/out-group dichotomy (reinforced by social pariah status) and the fact that (setting aside mind-killing arguments against and in favour) racialism has a low barrier for entry (is not hard to come by for the less-than-smart) but allows people to feel that they are privy to profound truths to which others are blind.

Seems an accurate analysis.

from personal experience, he will eventually gain some maturity

He has been writing on such topics, with I believe substantially the same views and characteristic manner of expressing them, for at least 18 years. This is who he is.

Trying to argue with such a person is unwise

You don't want outside thoughts or empirical evidence contaminating the purity of Less Wrong's rationality.

I notice I get called a liar for stating easily verified facts that really should be common knowledge - but in Less Wrong circles, strangely, are not. Nor does a Less Wrongian in good standing feel any need to verify facts. That I am a liar is good enough. That I have failed to produce citations for the fact the sky is blue is proof that the sky is purple and I am a liar. Since Less Wrong knows everything by listening to itself, any unwanted facts do not excite the slightest curiosity.

This is the typical incestuous death spiral of close minded doctrine. A group gets together, hears their own voice confirming their own beliefs and their own wisdom, and applies the principle of the Bellman "What I tell you three times must be true". The elite of the larger society is suffering this death spiral, and in Less Wrong's eagerness to emulate high status behaviors, Less Wong does the same, only more so.

Consensus is the biggest mind killer. In the ancestral environment, where facts tended to immediately empirical, consensus was reliable, just as in the ancestral environment, eating the sweetest available food was good for you. In the modern environment, consensus, like sugar, is bad for you.

I don't think sam being Moldbug is likely at all. For starters, from what I've seen of Moldbug, he doesn't seem to usually make easily refuted factual claims -- and that's the chief definining characteristic of sam's interactions with LessWrong: saying things as silly, unsubstantiated and easily refuted as that conservatives don't consciously try to remake language, or claiming that marital equality and its supposed dread consequences were discussed a thousand years ago, or that Shakespeare wasn't politically censored, or that "Bloody Mary" of England was as bad as it ever got from the point of view of oppression, etc, etc... When he's challenged on those claims, he just makes some more random claims, again without substantiating them, again without citations, and so forth.

That and the passive-agressive self-pity about being downvoted and about him predicting we'll downvote him (as if that takes a great genius to figure out, when he's insulting us all over the place), which didn't strike me as a Moldbug characteristic either. sam's feelings towards gay people have been made clear as well, when Moldbug has instead stated that increasing tolerance of homosexuality is that bit of politics where he agrees with leftists.

Moldbug seems several levels above sam.