Academic Agent recently published an essay called “The James Lindsay Debate Club Theory of History”, where he repeats arguments he has been making for the last couple of years about the impotence of ideology and ideas in shaping history. I previously critiqued this same thesis, in video form, on my YouTube channel:
AA is a brilliant midwit. He is brilliant at understanding, applying and explaining concepts like libertarianism and elite theory. And a midwit because he does not know when to apply them to real world events and when to not apply them. The classic: when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.
In a nutshell it’s clear to me that you’re fundamentally opposed ontologically. It’s not an issue of arguments, it’s a matter of belief about reality. And AA believes that everything about reality can be, and ought to be, explained by materialistic causes.
Of course, he’s wrong, but that’s a whole nother topic and you’ve already addressed that Keef.
I'm inclined to agree with Parvini. You have people like James Lindsay tracing intellectual genealogies as if the ideology of the Frankfurt School worked a causal magic of its own apart from the financial, media, and political power of those whose interests it served. Again, why is it that the ideas of Franz Boas won out, while the ideas of Madison Grant died away? Look who wields power, and there is your answer.
Yet the question of whether and to what degree ideas shape history is complicated. It requires subtlety and care and can't be answered by brusquely pointing to a few examples or counterexamples.
This Saturday's Counter-Currents Radio livestream will be dealing with this issue, as well as Mike Maxwell's comments on it. If you would like to join in, please email me at editor@counter-currents.com.
Whilst I agree that he for some reason seems the has something against you (meaning he probably disregards any credible ideas you present) I like both of you (those are my ‘sentiments’) and I don’t really understand the attacks - because they do somewhat come across as personal. But, I find his arguments and ideas themselves make much sense to me
It's sad really. I've been quite disappointed with the trajectory AA's ideas have been following lately. And the weirdest part is that he doesn't seem to realize how self-contradictory and self-undermining these positions are. Furthermore, it's becoming more and more obvious that he knows absolutely nothing about history (I recall in one video he thought the huns were germanic), yet still wants to construct these big history-spanning ides. But then anyone who wants to actually get these topics right and tries to correct him on his huge blindspots and errors simply gets labeled a "soy thinker" and blacklisted.
It was the death of Bobby Sands that served as the catalyst for me, as an Irishman in the British army, to leave that army and cover war as a photojournalist. All war is rigged by the international money power, the central banking cartel, according to the historical record and contemporary data
The dweebs who subscribe to the Sith Lord theory of history fear nothing more than the true believer, the fanatical ideologue whose motives are truly incomprehensible to the self-interest theorists, hence the impotent dweebish flopping-about.
It appears to me that you're arguing past each other. In some ways, you're both right, and in others, not so much.
Some men clearly don't care about ideology and only care about power (e.g. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot). Some men care deeply about ideology and only desire enough power to implement it (e.g. Jefferson). Obviously, ruthless psychopaths that desire power are going to have better success than idealistic ideologues.
As with most human endeavors, it's not this or that, it's this *and* that, and at the same time, everything is on a spectrum. Beware the human need for certainty, because outside of immediate survival issues things are rarely black and white.
You are cool enough. You can get me at www mccarthyplan.com It isn't the most attractive of sites but it means well. Early days. Have the best day ever..........🕊️🙏☘️
AA is a brilliant midwit. He is brilliant at understanding, applying and explaining concepts like libertarianism and elite theory. And a midwit because he does not know when to apply them to real world events and when to not apply them. The classic: when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.
I’ve read AA’s reply as well as yours.
In a nutshell it’s clear to me that you’re fundamentally opposed ontologically. It’s not an issue of arguments, it’s a matter of belief about reality. And AA believes that everything about reality can be, and ought to be, explained by materialistic causes.
Of course, he’s wrong, but that’s a whole nother topic and you’ve already addressed that Keef.
I'm inclined to agree with Parvini. You have people like James Lindsay tracing intellectual genealogies as if the ideology of the Frankfurt School worked a causal magic of its own apart from the financial, media, and political power of those whose interests it served. Again, why is it that the ideas of Franz Boas won out, while the ideas of Madison Grant died away? Look who wields power, and there is your answer.
Yet the question of whether and to what degree ideas shape history is complicated. It requires subtlety and care and can't be answered by brusquely pointing to a few examples or counterexamples.
This Saturday's Counter-Currents Radio livestream will be dealing with this issue, as well as Mike Maxwell's comments on it. If you would like to join in, please email me at editor@counter-currents.com.
I have dealt with some of these issues here: https://counter-currents.com/2022/05/neema-parvinis-the-populist-delusion/ and here: https://counter-currents.com/2022/05/neema-parvinis-the-populist-delusion/
Reply here: https://forbiddentexts.substack.com/p/reply-to-keith-woods-on-power-ideology (you can unblock me on twitter if you like, or not).
A Monarchy and people under a God of reason is the only way a people and nation can be strengthened and defended. Anything else is slow suicide.
What political solution does AA propose? If none, why is anyone even talking about him?
Thanks a lot Keith. I had almost forgotten about that weirdo entirely.
Whilst I agree that he for some reason seems the has something against you (meaning he probably disregards any credible ideas you present) I like both of you (those are my ‘sentiments’) and I don’t really understand the attacks - because they do somewhat come across as personal. But, I find his arguments and ideas themselves make much sense to me
It's sad really. I've been quite disappointed with the trajectory AA's ideas have been following lately. And the weirdest part is that he doesn't seem to realize how self-contradictory and self-undermining these positions are. Furthermore, it's becoming more and more obvious that he knows absolutely nothing about history (I recall in one video he thought the huns were germanic), yet still wants to construct these big history-spanning ides. But then anyone who wants to actually get these topics right and tries to correct him on his huge blindspots and errors simply gets labeled a "soy thinker" and blacklisted.
He was an English Lit. academic at an English polytechnic-turned-university - this tells you all you need to know about his analytical prowess.
It was the death of Bobby Sands that served as the catalyst for me, as an Irishman in the British army, to leave that army and cover war as a photojournalist. All war is rigged by the international money power, the central banking cartel, according to the historical record and contemporary data
A couple of fair points but not a convincing argument
The dweebs who subscribe to the Sith Lord theory of history fear nothing more than the true believer, the fanatical ideologue whose motives are truly incomprehensible to the self-interest theorists, hence the impotent dweebish flopping-about.
It appears to me that you're arguing past each other. In some ways, you're both right, and in others, not so much.
Some men clearly don't care about ideology and only care about power (e.g. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot). Some men care deeply about ideology and only desire enough power to implement it (e.g. Jefferson). Obviously, ruthless psychopaths that desire power are going to have better success than idealistic ideologues.
As with most human endeavors, it's not this or that, it's this *and* that, and at the same time, everything is on a spectrum. Beware the human need for certainty, because outside of immediate survival issues things are rarely black and white.
You are cool enough. You can get me at www mccarthyplan.com It isn't the most attractive of sites but it means well. Early days. Have the best day ever..........🕊️🙏☘️