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.
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.
The basic problem with Kahneman's and Haidt's thinking is that they focus excessively on explicit verbalised thought, and in particular on self-modelling, which is especially prone to rationalisation.
Certainly all our thinking is motivated by underlying emotions and desires, but sometimes these motivations work out to promote accurate assessments over inaccurate ones. For example, if you're about to fight a duel to the death, and you are presented with several possible weapons to choose from, you will still be engaged in motivated reasoning, but your chief motivation will be to choose the weapon that is actually most likely to earn you a victory and save your life. This requires a lot of factual assessments about what the fight is likely to be like, and what the respective merits and shortcomings of the different weapons are, which ones are brittle, etc. So right of the bat we may feel assured that there are at least some cases in which underlying emotions direct our reasoning towards factual accuracy rather than away from it.
Political formulas can be generalised to apply to institutions aligned with a regime and not only the regime itself. Here, the job of the institution is to justify its own existence to the regime, ie. explain why the regime benefits from its allegiance. Here, we can draw a crude analogy to social interactions on a much smaller scale, with people's self-concepts working as a kind of "social formula" to justify why others ought to be friends or associates with them. Here, there is a great deal of incentive for rationalization and exaggerating one's own worth, but notice also that the account needs to be plausible to be useful.
As Curtis Yarvin has frequently observed, lies can win no permanent victory over truth. This gives deceptive political formulas a considerable disadvantage, and makes excessively deceptive formulas compel the regime to be Orwellian in nature, being existentially dependent on maintaining a deception. But if you had a regime built on absolute military authority, a fnarglocracy as Yarvin called it, that regime can afford to have a completely factual political formula. You might object that such never happens in history, but there are nevertheless gradations of deceptiveness that are politically relevant. For example, "divine right" or "mandate of heaven" can be interpreted as literally false ideas, but they can also be interpreted metaphorically, and under this interpretation, it may indeed be the case that the regime has the mandate of heaven. In such a case, the regime need not be Orwellian; an insightful, undeluded populace will be more loyal to it rather than less.
Here we see another analogy to "social formulae" - the formula, in order to be practical, needs to be reasonably plausible. The less plausible it is, the more manipulation and mind control is required, and the more the regime will have to be pathologically paranoid. To create a plausible formula however requires a certain ability to recognise reality, if only in order to know what sort of inconvenient facts to rationalise away. This can only be done effectively if you actually know the significance of those inconvenient facts, since otherwise you cannot know them to be inconvenient to your formula. Ergo, the very ability to rationalise in the manner described by Kahneman and Haidt itself presumes that your unconscious cognitive processes are accurately perceiving reality.
In summary, the basic problem with the excessively black-box view of political formulae is that it neglects the practical requirements for the maintenance of a given political formula. These requirements vary in a manner that is strongly dependent on the actual contents of the political formula in question. Sure, there are some commonalities, like the necessity to have some kind of intellectual hegemony, but it matters a lot whether that intellectual hegemony is peddling a completely distorted and pathological worldview, or a saner one accommodating of some clarity of thought, and if it happens to be located somewhere in between these two extremes, the precise location on that gradient is nevertheless important.
The sea is the best designer of ships. Very few humans have an accurate idea of how a ship works or the requirements of a friend or how a political formula works. But those that stand the test of time and the environmental elements continue to exist. Reality is more important than our formulas
The obvious error you make is that just because an idea is used as a post-hoc rationalisation does not mean it was only ever used as a post-hoc rationalisation. Your theory is reductionist and nihilistic.
What are some examples of leaders having a fully fleshed out rational plan of action and then following it to the letter once in power? “No ideology stands the rest of reality for long”
Hatler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Franco, Mao, Castro, FDR, Rockefeller, Rothschilds, the 100s of ~Fabian Socialists that've been ruling The West as Prime Administrators using the same ideology for the past ~150 years (from Wells & Russel to Kissinger, Brzezinski & Blair).
Unfortunately, your historical illiteracy has caused you to poast cringe& jump the shark for several years.
Netanyahu has a very consistent, predictable, actionable plan of action to ethnically cleanse Gaza: bomb houses, hospitals, residential areas, kill aid workers and destroy food trucks to force migration. This behavior by the IDF is an implementation a carefully well researched and well thought out plan of ethnic cleansing and Jewish domination over a piece of land.
I am very certain Netanyahu was always a bloodthirsty psycho, once he got into power, he had other competent people that could help him finally implement his goal.
Another more local and close to home example is how minorities and trans infiltrate and rise to positions of prominence in corporations and then implement policies, change staff and company strategy to align more with their personal policy of DEI, which causes companies to lose organic support from customers but get massive subsidies from the government.
At the very least you should acknowledge, with Spengler, that the theory, while late emerging, is an expression of a distinct inner spirit or world-feeling.
We are biological creatures, thus everything we do is ultimately about survival and sexual production. You can't understand human behavior if you don't consider the ultimate need for survival and sexual reproduction. Similarly, you can't understand ideology if you don't consider the ultimate need for power and institutions.
Why does ideology matter? Because like morality, it is a side taking mechanism for human behavior and coordination and those ultimately power and biological reproduction.
The " blah blah blah" in your " blah blah blah and then I take power" matters because humans care and invest time and effort into it. "Blah blah blah" is used for sexual and biological selection.
The best blah blah blah rock band gets all the girls and the best blah blah blah ideology helps coordinates the best team to help the members get the girls
Not everything we do is purely in the service of survival and sexual reproduction. Art, religion, philosophy, even science to a degree, originate from the realm of pure form—ideas. You can argue that art, religion and the like are put into service of power and institutions, and can be incentives for survival, which they are, but that’s not always their ultimate goal.
Ideas like Beauty, Truth, Love, the ‘Good’, have no basis solely in biology. They exist conceptually somewhere beyond the material world. Their means isn’t purely just for social control. Instead they satisfy man’s innate urge to transcend the material world and reach towards the world of pure form, which is indeed the origin of all things material, biological and ideological.
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.
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.
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
The basic problem with Kahneman's and Haidt's thinking is that they focus excessively on explicit verbalised thought, and in particular on self-modelling, which is especially prone to rationalisation.
Certainly all our thinking is motivated by underlying emotions and desires, but sometimes these motivations work out to promote accurate assessments over inaccurate ones. For example, if you're about to fight a duel to the death, and you are presented with several possible weapons to choose from, you will still be engaged in motivated reasoning, but your chief motivation will be to choose the weapon that is actually most likely to earn you a victory and save your life. This requires a lot of factual assessments about what the fight is likely to be like, and what the respective merits and shortcomings of the different weapons are, which ones are brittle, etc. So right of the bat we may feel assured that there are at least some cases in which underlying emotions direct our reasoning towards factual accuracy rather than away from it.
Political formulas can be generalised to apply to institutions aligned with a regime and not only the regime itself. Here, the job of the institution is to justify its own existence to the regime, ie. explain why the regime benefits from its allegiance. Here, we can draw a crude analogy to social interactions on a much smaller scale, with people's self-concepts working as a kind of "social formula" to justify why others ought to be friends or associates with them. Here, there is a great deal of incentive for rationalization and exaggerating one's own worth, but notice also that the account needs to be plausible to be useful.
As Curtis Yarvin has frequently observed, lies can win no permanent victory over truth. This gives deceptive political formulas a considerable disadvantage, and makes excessively deceptive formulas compel the regime to be Orwellian in nature, being existentially dependent on maintaining a deception. But if you had a regime built on absolute military authority, a fnarglocracy as Yarvin called it, that regime can afford to have a completely factual political formula. You might object that such never happens in history, but there are nevertheless gradations of deceptiveness that are politically relevant. For example, "divine right" or "mandate of heaven" can be interpreted as literally false ideas, but they can also be interpreted metaphorically, and under this interpretation, it may indeed be the case that the regime has the mandate of heaven. In such a case, the regime need not be Orwellian; an insightful, undeluded populace will be more loyal to it rather than less.
Here we see another analogy to "social formulae" - the formula, in order to be practical, needs to be reasonably plausible. The less plausible it is, the more manipulation and mind control is required, and the more the regime will have to be pathologically paranoid. To create a plausible formula however requires a certain ability to recognise reality, if only in order to know what sort of inconvenient facts to rationalise away. This can only be done effectively if you actually know the significance of those inconvenient facts, since otherwise you cannot know them to be inconvenient to your formula. Ergo, the very ability to rationalise in the manner described by Kahneman and Haidt itself presumes that your unconscious cognitive processes are accurately perceiving reality.
In summary, the basic problem with the excessively black-box view of political formulae is that it neglects the practical requirements for the maintenance of a given political formula. These requirements vary in a manner that is strongly dependent on the actual contents of the political formula in question. Sure, there are some commonalities, like the necessity to have some kind of intellectual hegemony, but it matters a lot whether that intellectual hegemony is peddling a completely distorted and pathological worldview, or a saner one accommodating of some clarity of thought, and if it happens to be located somewhere in between these two extremes, the precise location on that gradient is nevertheless important.
The sea is the best designer of ships. Very few humans have an accurate idea of how a ship works or the requirements of a friend or how a political formula works. But those that stand the test of time and the environmental elements continue to exist. Reality is more important than our formulas
The obvious error you make is that just because an idea is used as a post-hoc rationalisation does not mean it was only ever used as a post-hoc rationalisation. Your theory is reductionist and nihilistic.
What are some examples of leaders having a fully fleshed out rational plan of action and then following it to the letter once in power? “No ideology stands the rest of reality for long”
Hatler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Franco, Mao, Castro, FDR, Rockefeller, Rothschilds, the 100s of ~Fabian Socialists that've been ruling The West as Prime Administrators using the same ideology for the past ~150 years (from Wells & Russel to Kissinger, Brzezinski & Blair).
Unfortunately, your historical illiteracy has caused you to poast cringe& jump the shark for several years.
The prophet Muhammad was a successful military and political leader.
That's because he was a gifted man, blessed by God. In terms of regular leaders, not many examples.
Who follows everything to the letter? I dont think I've ever done that. That is not a sensible request. People's views evolve over time anyways Lol
People making tweaks to their views when they feel its necessary does not mean what you imply that it means
Netanyahu has a very consistent, predictable, actionable plan of action to ethnically cleanse Gaza: bomb houses, hospitals, residential areas, kill aid workers and destroy food trucks to force migration. This behavior by the IDF is an implementation a carefully well researched and well thought out plan of ethnic cleansing and Jewish domination over a piece of land.
I am very certain Netanyahu was always a bloodthirsty psycho, once he got into power, he had other competent people that could help him finally implement his goal.
Another more local and close to home example is how minorities and trans infiltrate and rise to positions of prominence in corporations and then implement policies, change staff and company strategy to align more with their personal policy of DEI, which causes companies to lose organic support from customers but get massive subsidies from the government.
General Washington and his colleagues died peacefully.
No true scotsman fallacy
So you won’t be giving me a long list of examples then? Got it.
The example of Muhammad should be enough to be getting on with.
Interesting that you never acknowledged the fatal BTFOs of your gay logically fallacious "arguments". Almost federal in your "reasoning"...
Idealogical compromises are consistent with rejecting your strong claim that theory doesn’t matter
At the very least you should acknowledge, with Spengler, that the theory, while late emerging, is an expression of a distinct inner spirit or world-feeling.
We are biological creatures, thus everything we do is ultimately about survival and sexual production. You can't understand human behavior if you don't consider the ultimate need for survival and sexual reproduction. Similarly, you can't understand ideology if you don't consider the ultimate need for power and institutions.
Why does ideology matter? Because like morality, it is a side taking mechanism for human behavior and coordination and those ultimately power and biological reproduction.
The " blah blah blah" in your " blah blah blah and then I take power" matters because humans care and invest time and effort into it. "Blah blah blah" is used for sexual and biological selection.
The best blah blah blah rock band gets all the girls and the best blah blah blah ideology helps coordinates the best team to help the members get the girls
Not everything we do is purely in the service of survival and sexual reproduction. Art, religion, philosophy, even science to a degree, originate from the realm of pure form—ideas. You can argue that art, religion and the like are put into service of power and institutions, and can be incentives for survival, which they are, but that’s not always their ultimate goal.
Ideas like Beauty, Truth, Love, the ‘Good’, have no basis solely in biology. They exist conceptually somewhere beyond the material world. Their means isn’t purely just for social control. Instead they satisfy man’s innate urge to transcend the material world and reach towards the world of pure form, which is indeed the origin of all things material, biological and ideological.
Curious that you never replied to being BTFOd, as usual.
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.