I like AA, but he strikes me as a man who lacks the some basic self-knowledge in many crucial areas. This leads to blindspots where he is either deaf to those fixtures of his identity which motivate him to think in a given way, or he’s too prideful to admit he’s fallible to motivated reasoning in the first place.
I believe AA has built an image of himself as this hard hitting, Dr. House type character. This arch gen X cynic who sees through all the bs and, to the discontent of weaker and more emotionally susceptible minds, is able cuts to the heart of every issue with cold, impartial logic and reason.
I think this more than anything holds AA back. The idea that he alone has this ability to view the world through a cold analytical lens, while everyone else slogs through the muck of ideology. The people who most vehemently insist they are uniquely above bias, or simply don’t have any, are often those who are most susceptible to bias. It is blind to them.
I am pretty sure AA himself has admitted to having similarities with the gen X archetype he created in his "boomer truth regime". That being an overly skeptical person
I agree. I liked 'The Populist Delusion' and some of his video essays, but AA definitely likes to think of himself as more intelligent than everybody else. The fact he lets 'Evelyn' Grant onto his channel shows how little he takes this stuff seriously, its just intellectual masturbation for him.
I lean towards Parvini's ideas. I think ideology does matter but when I really think about it, it seems to me that which ideology a person subscribes to is determined by underlying psychological factors which are ultimately biological. So, yes, the actions of the powerful will be influenced by their ideology but their ideology Is determined by their personal history, the prevailing conditions and their biological proclivities. I don't think that there is any room for a 'better' or 'more persuasive' ideology to turn the tide of history. The tides of history turn and the ideologies of the powerful change, but I believe that this follows from the changing conditions and the shifting selection pressures changing the gene pool. The changes in ideology are manifestations of the changing conditions and gene pool, they are not driving it.
I was born right-wing, I just only realized it in my 20s. Having said that though, coming into contact with radical ideas absolutely did get me to where I am now. I agree with you that ideology is ultimately downstream from innate personality traits, but that doesn’t mean you don’t still need to persuade people who have the latent potential to be brought over to you side organize them politically. There our guys out there who simply haven’t had their eggshell cracked, so to speak.
Conservatives -- I like your example of Heinlein -- often confuse authority with discipline and treat it as a matter of sheer domination. However, Weber analyzed the classic types of authority a long time ago: traditionalist, charismatic, and legal-rational.
It's just the question of why people obey other people. People can "will" all they want, but nothing happens without the cooperation of others. Authority matters everywhere, not only in Imperium, but in Sacerdotum et Studio, that is, for spirit and intellect.
I only know Parvini through his books. Still, the form of authority in humanities departments is a patronal type, corresponding to Weber's charismatic authority. Who gets published where and rises to the top depends on who's already popular, so you're at the mercy of influential people. So you can see why those who work in literature departments for too long notoriously acquire the vice of reducing everything to power. The humanities are just more "Protestant" than other departments. Attempts to publish result in rejection much more often than acceptance -- there is no salvation through works. Precarity leaves the scholar in a state of anxious self-doubt. They believe they deserve salvation (career success) more than all of their peers (you need invincible faith to stay on that miserable career path and think it will amount to anything), but they can never be sure. They're very jealous of recognition.
Other departments attract different personality types. STEM is more "Catholic" in that the authority is external, regulative, and predictable -- stuff needs to be published on time so other masons working on the cathedral know the latest information. Chemistry departments, for example, are bureaucratic and work-focused; their formal-professional authority corresponds loosely to legal-rational authority. Authority in physics is more of a collegial-elite system, loosely like a traditionalist model, because of the massive resources involved. But there isn't a situation of precarity and no need to put others down as stupid. When someone exits the field, they cash in in the private sector.
I explained my views on this in a comment in your previous post. To put it shortly: intellectuals produce big ideas, leaders and popular personalities and the political class, consume these ideas and translate them to simplified more easily digestible ideas for the folk. You could argue to some extent they (the political class) do so in pursuit of political power (that would favor Parvini's argument), however even if that is true I would say there is definitely more to it. All great leaders in history had their biggest philosophical influence, their philosopher. In a sense, if nothing else, you could argue the role of intellectuals is to influence and help the formation of leaders, and the political class, more than for the enjoyment of the folk. That said, I think I understand why Parvini hold such anti-intellectual views. He is a fan of Donald Trump, one of the most iconic buffoonish leaders the world has ever seen. If you are a “Trumpist”, if you make it your job to tell the people how Trump is the greatest man alive, then it is understandable you won't value intellect very much.
I would like to thank Academic Agent for provoking these responses from Keith. While I cannot stand to listen to AA, I very much enjoy Keith's rebuttals. So, thanks AA!
I love that these articles are read by Keith, himself. Content is excellent. The readings could be performed with a bit more drama to increase entertainment value and mass appeal. Molyneux mastered this. I am sure it will come with time.
If ideology is the singular most important driving force to attaining power then why does every leader change theirs one they attain it, sometimes radically in order to pragmatically maintain power (managerialism) this can be seen and observed in every case.
Because both AA's and Keith's understanding of power AND ideology are wrong. The nature of ideology is to spread itself at any and all costs, the nature of power is to preserve itself at any OR all costs.
When the nature of both reach a focal point you end up with a state, a peoples organized around some common ideals and governed by a potlical, economic and academic elite.
When the ideals held by the majority are stray far enough from by the governing class, revolutions or reforms happen. How violent they become is greatly affected by outside interference, the culture and the current ideals of the governed majority.
TLDR; Power seeks to preserve. Ideology seeks to evangelize. When their interests intersect the ideology gains clout and is used to organise people to put a new governing class in power or keep the current one going.
I imagine that his response would be that it in itself doesn't matter, but the fact that the regime publicly justifies itself through anti-fascism means that to not crack down on nationalists would undermine the regime.
Because the idea is currently a threat to the governing and ruling classes in power since it is a solid foundation to organise people around.
When Hitler gained power he didn't just purge the entire political economic and academic elite like commies and socialist do even tho he was a national socialist. What happened prior to that was the spreading of his ideas and promises which everyone got behind. The german economic elite realised Hitler didn't indiscriminately hate them, so they got behind him, Porsche, Hugo Boss etc, Volkswagen was founded.
When he finally got into power most of the political economic and intellectual apparatuses were there ready and willing to work with the nat socs.
The Ego Of Neema Pavini shows to us we need to stop this parasitical trend in Dissident circles that should reserved for White Nationalists only. Not brown parasites who exploit our struggle for self narcism or tactical subversion.
Since when does unfalsifiable expand to encompass how logically sound a claim is? If something is unfalsifiable it's because one is currently unable to prove it's false, wether it's actually true or not is irrelevant.
Unfalsifiable means you can't (don't have the mental and physical tools) prove it's not false. What starts inquiry or experimentations in the first place is if a claim or argument is internally consistent. If it is, then it is inspected/critiqued, if it satisfies the critique enough it is then put to the test or expanded upon.
Also value free judgment is non existent. If something is being judged there is some criteria set by the one passing judgement which is being met or lacking.
I like AA, but he strikes me as a man who lacks the some basic self-knowledge in many crucial areas. This leads to blindspots where he is either deaf to those fixtures of his identity which motivate him to think in a given way, or he’s too prideful to admit he’s fallible to motivated reasoning in the first place.
I believe AA has built an image of himself as this hard hitting, Dr. House type character. This arch gen X cynic who sees through all the bs and, to the discontent of weaker and more emotionally susceptible minds, is able cuts to the heart of every issue with cold, impartial logic and reason.
I think this more than anything holds AA back. The idea that he alone has this ability to view the world through a cold analytical lens, while everyone else slogs through the muck of ideology. The people who most vehemently insist they are uniquely above bias, or simply don’t have any, are often those who are most susceptible to bias. It is blind to them.
I am pretty sure AA himself has admitted to having similarities with the gen X archetype he created in his "boomer truth regime". That being an overly skeptical person
I agree. I liked 'The Populist Delusion' and some of his video essays, but AA definitely likes to think of himself as more intelligent than everybody else. The fact he lets 'Evelyn' Grant onto his channel shows how little he takes this stuff seriously, its just intellectual masturbation for him.
Speaking of power; this essay has it in spades. Bookmarked.
I lean towards Parvini's ideas. I think ideology does matter but when I really think about it, it seems to me that which ideology a person subscribes to is determined by underlying psychological factors which are ultimately biological. So, yes, the actions of the powerful will be influenced by their ideology but their ideology Is determined by their personal history, the prevailing conditions and their biological proclivities. I don't think that there is any room for a 'better' or 'more persuasive' ideology to turn the tide of history. The tides of history turn and the ideologies of the powerful change, but I believe that this follows from the changing conditions and the shifting selection pressures changing the gene pool. The changes in ideology are manifestations of the changing conditions and gene pool, they are not driving it.
I was born right-wing, I just only realized it in my 20s. Having said that though, coming into contact with radical ideas absolutely did get me to where I am now. I agree with you that ideology is ultimately downstream from innate personality traits, but that doesn’t mean you don’t still need to persuade people who have the latent potential to be brought over to you side organize them politically. There our guys out there who simply haven’t had their eggshell cracked, so to speak.
Potent take.
Major moral relativist L
Conservatives -- I like your example of Heinlein -- often confuse authority with discipline and treat it as a matter of sheer domination. However, Weber analyzed the classic types of authority a long time ago: traditionalist, charismatic, and legal-rational.
It's just the question of why people obey other people. People can "will" all they want, but nothing happens without the cooperation of others. Authority matters everywhere, not only in Imperium, but in Sacerdotum et Studio, that is, for spirit and intellect.
I only know Parvini through his books. Still, the form of authority in humanities departments is a patronal type, corresponding to Weber's charismatic authority. Who gets published where and rises to the top depends on who's already popular, so you're at the mercy of influential people. So you can see why those who work in literature departments for too long notoriously acquire the vice of reducing everything to power. The humanities are just more "Protestant" than other departments. Attempts to publish result in rejection much more often than acceptance -- there is no salvation through works. Precarity leaves the scholar in a state of anxious self-doubt. They believe they deserve salvation (career success) more than all of their peers (you need invincible faith to stay on that miserable career path and think it will amount to anything), but they can never be sure. They're very jealous of recognition.
Other departments attract different personality types. STEM is more "Catholic" in that the authority is external, regulative, and predictable -- stuff needs to be published on time so other masons working on the cathedral know the latest information. Chemistry departments, for example, are bureaucratic and work-focused; their formal-professional authority corresponds loosely to legal-rational authority. Authority in physics is more of a collegial-elite system, loosely like a traditionalist model, because of the massive resources involved. But there isn't a situation of precarity and no need to put others down as stupid. When someone exits the field, they cash in in the private sector.
I explained my views on this in a comment in your previous post. To put it shortly: intellectuals produce big ideas, leaders and popular personalities and the political class, consume these ideas and translate them to simplified more easily digestible ideas for the folk. You could argue to some extent they (the political class) do so in pursuit of political power (that would favor Parvini's argument), however even if that is true I would say there is definitely more to it. All great leaders in history had their biggest philosophical influence, their philosopher. In a sense, if nothing else, you could argue the role of intellectuals is to influence and help the formation of leaders, and the political class, more than for the enjoyment of the folk. That said, I think I understand why Parvini hold such anti-intellectual views. He is a fan of Donald Trump, one of the most iconic buffoonish leaders the world has ever seen. If you are a “Trumpist”, if you make it your job to tell the people how Trump is the greatest man alive, then it is understandable you won't value intellect very much.
Can somebody please tell Keith we didn't actually go to the Moon?
What do you mean. Can you give me a TLDR?
I would like to thank Academic Agent for provoking these responses from Keith. While I cannot stand to listen to AA, I very much enjoy Keith's rebuttals. So, thanks AA!
You continue to strawman AA's arguments. Who's living rent free in who's head, again?
The Irish keeps wining .
I love that these articles are read by Keith, himself. Content is excellent. The readings could be performed with a bit more drama to increase entertainment value and mass appeal. Molyneux mastered this. I am sure it will come with time.
If ideology is the singular most important driving force to attaining power then why does every leader change theirs one they attain it, sometimes radically in order to pragmatically maintain power (managerialism) this can be seen and observed in every case.
Because both AA's and Keith's understanding of power AND ideology are wrong. The nature of ideology is to spread itself at any and all costs, the nature of power is to preserve itself at any OR all costs.
When the nature of both reach a focal point you end up with a state, a peoples organized around some common ideals and governed by a potlical, economic and academic elite.
When the ideals held by the majority are stray far enough from by the governing class, revolutions or reforms happen. How violent they become is greatly affected by outside interference, the culture and the current ideals of the governed majority.
TLDR; Power seeks to preserve. Ideology seeks to evangelize. When their interests intersect the ideology gains clout and is used to organise people to put a new governing class in power or keep the current one going.
Why would they try so hard to kill an idea if it didn’t matter?
I imagine that his response would be that it in itself doesn't matter, but the fact that the regime publicly justifies itself through anti-fascism means that to not crack down on nationalists would undermine the regime.
Because the idea is currently a threat to the governing and ruling classes in power since it is a solid foundation to organise people around.
When Hitler gained power he didn't just purge the entire political economic and academic elite like commies and socialist do even tho he was a national socialist. What happened prior to that was the spreading of his ideas and promises which everyone got behind. The german economic elite realised Hitler didn't indiscriminately hate them, so they got behind him, Porsche, Hugo Boss etc, Volkswagen was founded.
When he finally got into power most of the political economic and intellectual apparatuses were there ready and willing to work with the nat socs.
The Ego Of Neema Pavini shows to us we need to stop this parasitical trend in Dissident circles that should reserved for White Nationalists only. Not brown parasites who exploit our struggle for self narcism or tactical subversion.
Since when does unfalsifiable expand to encompass how logically sound a claim is? If something is unfalsifiable it's because one is currently unable to prove it's false, wether it's actually true or not is irrelevant.
Unfalsifiable means you can't (don't have the mental and physical tools) prove it's not false. What starts inquiry or experimentations in the first place is if a claim or argument is internally consistent. If it is, then it is inspected/critiqued, if it satisfies the critique enough it is then put to the test or expanded upon.
Also value free judgment is non existent. If something is being judged there is some criteria set by the one passing judgement which is being met or lacking.