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.
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 think tbh that both explanations contain an element of truth and can be combined at times to explain the trajectory of movements.
Materialistic/power considerations motivate many a man, and these often, as AA rightfully points out, coincide, and most often subconsciously as actors align certain ideologies with their materialistic interests.
That being said, people are still driven by ideas and inspired by moving belief systems. I really think that more concessions should be done by both Keith and AA to the other’s view.
Keith needs to understand the role that realpolitik plays in movements.
AA needs to understand that ideas also unite people and provide social cohesion for movements even when the adherents to those ideas are clearly acting against their own biological and materialistic interests.
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.
Very well, I've unblocked you. Your post warrants a proper response though, so you'll be getting another essay.
Though my first impression is you have walked back the scope of your theory, I should still give an explanation of my own view on this relationship between ideology and power.
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're right, but power hungry individuals are rarely the type to come up with new ideas that are adopted by others. They instead use already existing ideas to legitimize their power.
It is the ideologues who come up with new ideas that shape the society around them. It is their ideas that are adopted by various people all throughout society, including the power hungry individuals you speak of.
I have been invited to Russia and am waiting for visas. Any chance for a chat, Keith? I appreciate the work of Ivan Ilyin and Dr.. Matthew Raphael Johnson. I am at www.mccarthyplan.com a work in progress. You're thoughts and suggestions are welcomed
There are as many problems with monarchs as with elected officials or republics. Look at the British monarchy, who are just basically rich people with titles, tourist attractions, they do not rule or make any laws. They live off the taxed citizens. A benevolent dictator, if they really were for providing a good world and future, would make more sense.
Why not? Democracy and republicanism failed, as intended. www.mccarthyplan.com is up. A good, wise and virtuous King will role it out. I have you down as a well behaved, foreign lady in waiting. I hope you are enjoying the engineered collapse. Let's talk soon 🕊️❤️🙏☘️
What's the point of that? Making up a god, to reflect what you want, or think is best? What if God exists, and isn't anything like what you would want?
Representative democracy is just a corrupt political cartel. Once the advice of George Washington's farewell speech is properly followed and political parties abolished, things should improve after a one-party theocracy is established.
A Caliph is a constitutional dictator of a republic without the right to pass his leadership position to his male relations. Monarchy supported by Christianity - Christendom - already ended in 1918.
It should be borne in mind that the pool of political talent in a republic is significantly bigger than the pool of a political talent of a royal familiy.
A constitutional dictator is better than an absolute dictator.
An absolute dictator is better than an absolute monarch with the right to bequeath his position to his male relations.
What is required is for a republic to follow an official moral system. and not just allow its ruling classes to make up the rules as it goes along.
I don’t think “rational liberalism” is inherently bad either. It’s just that it only works when an empire is in its “economic powerhouse” stage. Not in the “looting the treasury” phase.
Unfortunately though there is no simply rolling it back to better economic times. Liberalism can only view reality in terms of rational arguments and economics. Everything else gets ignored. A perfect description of AA’s general viewpoint.
European nations used to be sovereign, with homogeneous populations. Everyone was on the same page. They were highly taxed in a socialist nation, but for the taxation, they got a lot. Free or low cost college, quality healthcare, etc. But not now. Taxing the workers to pay for nonworkers doesn't really work well. They take one jar of frosting, and spread it over 4 cakes, and call it equality.
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..........🕊️🙏☘️
Big ideas are the origin of change in public though. These new big ideas can only convinced by intellectually gifted *individuals*. Intellectuals, thinkers. And contrary to what you, Keith, may believe or may want to believe that: "ideology comes about in a collective manner", or is created by the collective, they are not. Big new ideas are conceived by gifted intellectuals but these ideas themselves can't be transmitted directly to the masses, because the intellect gap between the originator of such ideas and the folk is so large it is as like they are different species. There is where the popular personality, the entertainer, comes in, he is the link between the intellectual and the folk. And popular leaders are nothing but that, they are charismatic and enthusiastic translators of powerful intellectual ideas that the common folk can relate to.
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 think tbh that both explanations contain an element of truth and can be combined at times to explain the trajectory of movements.
Materialistic/power considerations motivate many a man, and these often, as AA rightfully points out, coincide, and most often subconsciously as actors align certain ideologies with their materialistic interests.
That being said, people are still driven by ideas and inspired by moving belief systems. I really think that more concessions should be done by both Keith and AA to the other’s view.
Keith needs to understand the role that realpolitik plays in movements.
AA needs to understand that ideas also unite people and provide social cohesion for movements even when the adherents to those ideas are clearly acting against their own biological and materialistic interests.
I agree 100%
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).
Have you retracted publicly bad-jacketing me yet?
Here you go: https://x.com/OGRolandRat/status/1760474665695236214?s=20
Very well, I've unblocked you. Your post warrants a proper response though, so you'll be getting another essay.
Though my first impression is you have walked back the scope of your theory, I should still give an explanation of my own view on this relationship between ideology and power.
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.
What are Zionists in your view?
You're right, but power hungry individuals are rarely the type to come up with new ideas that are adopted by others. They instead use already existing ideas to legitimize their power.
It is the ideologues who come up with new ideas that shape the society around them. It is their ideas that are adopted by various people all throughout society, including the power hungry individuals you speak of.
I have been invited to Russia and am waiting for visas. Any chance for a chat, Keith? I appreciate the work of Ivan Ilyin and Dr.. Matthew Raphael Johnson. I am at www.mccarthyplan.com a work in progress. You're thoughts and suggestions are welcomed
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.
There are as many problems with monarchs as with elected officials or republics. Look at the British monarchy, who are just basically rich people with titles, tourist attractions, they do not rule or make any laws. They live off the taxed citizens. A benevolent dictator, if they really were for providing a good world and future, would make more sense.
Why monarchy though?
Why not? Democracy and republicanism failed, as intended. www.mccarthyplan.com is up. A good, wise and virtuous King will role it out. I have you down as a well behaved, foreign lady in waiting. I hope you are enjoying the engineered collapse. Let's talk soon 🕊️❤️🙏☘️
Dr. Mathew Raphael Johnson is worth a read and listen, an orthodox Christian, thanks be to the God of reason 🕊️❤️🙏☘️
What's the point of that? Making up a god, to reflect what you want, or think is best? What if God exists, and isn't anything like what you would want?
Representative democracy is just a corrupt political cartel. Once the advice of George Washington's farewell speech is properly followed and political parties abolished, things should improve after a one-party theocracy is established.
A Caliph is a constitutional dictator of a republic without the right to pass his leadership position to his male relations. Monarchy supported by Christianity - Christendom - already ended in 1918.
It should be borne in mind that the pool of political talent in a republic is significantly bigger than the pool of a political talent of a royal familiy.
A constitutional dictator is better than an absolute dictator.
An absolute dictator is better than an absolute monarch with the right to bequeath his position to his male relations.
What is required is for a republic to follow an official moral system. and not just allow its ruling classes to make up the rules as it goes along.
What political solution does AA propose? If none, why is anyone even talking about him?
Some form of lasseiz-faire liberalism, probably
And, it's all talk, too. Just powerless talk.
I don’t think “rational liberalism” is inherently bad either. It’s just that it only works when an empire is in its “economic powerhouse” stage. Not in the “looting the treasury” phase.
Unfortunately though there is no simply rolling it back to better economic times. Liberalism can only view reality in terms of rational arguments and economics. Everything else gets ignored. A perfect description of AA’s general viewpoint.
European nations used to be sovereign, with homogeneous populations. Everyone was on the same page. They were highly taxed in a socialist nation, but for the taxation, they got a lot. Free or low cost college, quality healthcare, etc. But not now. Taxing the workers to pay for nonworkers doesn't really work well. They take one jar of frosting, and spread it over 4 cakes, and call it equality.
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
Thanks a lot Keith. I had almost forgotten about that weirdo entirely.
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.
You can read the reply and tell me what I got wrong then. https://forbiddentexts.substack.com/p/reply-to-keith-woods-on-power-ideology
He was an English Lit. academic at an English polytechnic-turned-university - this tells you all you need to know about his analytical prowess.
You can read the reply and tell me what I got wrong then. https://forbiddentexts.substack.com/p/reply-to-keith-woods-on-power-ideology
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..........🕊️🙏☘️
Big ideas are the origin of change in public though. These new big ideas can only convinced by intellectually gifted *individuals*. Intellectuals, thinkers. And contrary to what you, Keith, may believe or may want to believe that: "ideology comes about in a collective manner", or is created by the collective, they are not. Big new ideas are conceived by gifted intellectuals but these ideas themselves can't be transmitted directly to the masses, because the intellect gap between the originator of such ideas and the folk is so large it is as like they are different species. There is where the popular personality, the entertainer, comes in, he is the link between the intellectual and the folk. And popular leaders are nothing but that, they are charismatic and enthusiastic translators of powerful intellectual ideas that the common folk can relate to.
I never heard of Neema Parvini. Should've stayed that way.