James Lindsay imagines that the reality in which we live today is the result of a series of public debates, essentially contests over ideas, the winners of which get to shape the new reality tomorrow. I shall call this The James Lindsay Debate Club Theory of History
Even someone like me, who stongly believes in the ideas as consequence interpretation of history/present, must credit your sharp intellect. Quite persuasive.
As an aside, here’s my top five list of most detested public ‘intellectuals’:
James Lindsey is simply justifing the tyrannical rule of the current 'elite' and this market place of ideas are merely different cadres of 'elites' vying for power in the mangerial system.
Bret Weinstein has a theory that societies prosper if their religions offer an evolutionary advantage. ie a collection of behaviours and customs leads to flourishing materially and numerically.
The view of ideas as governed by natural selection just like a kudzu plant or a cuttlefish makes vastly more sense of them than Lindsay's. Truth is orthogonal to adaptivity.
Well done. That picture of Lindsay on the debate throne says it all. The goofy look of an unheeled, uncultured doof on his face. The undignified, un-cultivated sitting pose. He looks like a circus clown waiting for the next little kid to come sit on his lap so he can water spray him from his nose. I am not joking. Look at that photo again. I mean, what would Agamemnon or Clovis, or Alfred, or Aeneas or Gaias Giulius or Don Pelayo say if they returned and saw that this is what now sits upon the thrones across The West? It is absurd, and we must call it out as so. We must see it as an affront to our dignity as would the aforementioned fathers of our people.
Here is how all of those and many other BS artists serve the regime. The key to their service is that they all fear most of all, "The Backlash." They want us to sit here and continue to get steamrolled by territorial, material and political dispossession. Better that we maintain our decorum in a savage fox's system than for lions to marshall our power and defend and protect ourselves through meaningful and effective postures and actions. Every single one of these guys identifies themselves every time they call defending and preserving our homelands and our folk, "The Backlash." The, "I Fear the Backlash", means I fear The Regime, more than I fear total oblivion of three continents full of a distinct people. This is the phrase that is the giftwrapping for the regime that equates self preservation and self determination with Nazism. That is the ultimate utility to The Regime that all of these degraded losers provide.
Better not to ruffle feathers and fight for your interests - the most fundamental and moral cause of all. Do not fight for your lands, your sovereignty within them, your genetic and cultural heritage that all amount essentially to your future. They call the fight for our preservation and for our future, "The Backlash." All the while they position themselves as the great preservationists of, "The West." Here is the thing my fellow Sons of Europe. "The West", is a coward's term. It is saying, Occidental Man, but it can't say it. For that is, "The Backlash." "The West", is just another proxy - another black or female conservative, that is nothing more or less than accepting the premises of those who seek our obliteration. It may not be the intention, but it is the reality - which is as you point out here today, is all that really matters.
Occidental Man identifying himself as such and taking up his banner and rallying all of his people to it, in the perfectly moral and necessary defense and preservation of it is our cause. We aren't trying to save, "The West", and free speech and debate clubs. We are fighting for the survival and the future of European or Occidental Man.
Fly the banners high with pride and rally to them with honor, dignity and pride of place and purpose. That will vanquish the clowns on the throne of the debate club. Then the real foes will follow. God speed!
“And it should not be forgotten that the rich - somewhat like the elites - have no ideology, they have money. Ideology is the emotion of the poor. Because - I emphasize – the rich have money; the elites, interests. […] The poor have no Rights. The poor primarily have emotions and ideologies, administered by the elites.”
Essay on the Historical Failure of Democracy in the 21st Century - Jesús G. Maestro
Thank you for this AA. I see what you are saying that in short, Power/Authority cares not which Ideology or Religion, but rather the assuredness of the faith (or righteousness) to carry out what is needed to ensure said authority/power. However, Christianity will prevail as God deems it shall be so, and in paraphrasing Jonathan Pageau, practically speaking, Christianity is the best story.
Ideology is just a tool for the Elite, that is very true.
At the same time, the military science would consider ideology to be vital in creating a group cohesion. John Calvin was able to transform a lawless city into an orderly city through strong social controls and indoctrination 3x a week. In any struggle, a more cohesive group will beat out a less cohesive group. The first will be more emotionally invested as well as interested, so they will be more zealous and inventive. One only have to see this in action between Cromwell’s New Model Army and Charles I’s army during the English Civil War.
This is why there is much attack on free speech, because ideology is just a creed. As soon as one man expressed his doubt of a creed, it will infect others. This fact threatened the elite control. So while the Elite may not believe in their ideology, they do know that it give them justification of power and this must be protected at all time. And there is no surer attack than exposure of their self-interest.
No one obtains power or grabs it or wins it etc. They obtain the LEVERS of power whether by law or force. Power lies within each one of us. Or rather two powers lie within each one of us. GOOD and EVIL. We have free will which to choose and which to use. The power of the will.
I like to call James Lindsey's theory, "Rule by Autist". It's a belief that word sorcery changes the reality and it very much in line with the jewish type beliefs he rails against. I don't care if you have a verbal proof that people don't actually need to eat food, once noon comes along I'm going to eat a burger and he'll likely fight me for his right to do the same.
It's also negligence in excluding emergent systems. You don't need a grand conspiracy of jews to create the situation we're in now, you merely need to have a general rule of thumb where you support any jew in front of you and weaken any obstacles to the same and now we're here. Autists tend to think everything was planned to the last step but if I know that water runs downhill I don't need an intellectual debate to explain the existence of lakes.
There is something I don't understand, at least at the moment:
You seem to suggest that debating ideas is somewhat useless, because ideas aren't that influential - they are merely chosen post factum by those in power in order to justify whatever they did and keep doing.
But those in power do choose between several options, therefore there is a competition between which ideas have an influence on the flow of events - the relation between ideas and leaders is bidirectional, as ideas influence leaders by appealing to them and leaders influence ideas by choosing them and developing them. Those in power cannot choose an idea that wasn't expressed by some intellectual or an idea that doesn't have its precursor or components already put in the ether by somebody.
"what matters is that the road taken in each case happened to coincide with the interests of who ruled in each case" very good!! What I like to call "Cause as Cover" The Cause (ideology) being a mere cover for what the power hungry want to acheive regardless of the supposed truth, beauty or goodness of the cause.
Bravo, AA!!
Even someone like me, who stongly believes in the ideas as consequence interpretation of history/present, must credit your sharp intellect. Quite persuasive.
As an aside, here’s my top five list of most detested public ‘intellectuals’:
1. Lindsay & Hanania
3. S. Pinker
4. J. Haidt (too many absurd takes — sorry)
5. J. Peterson
*more leftists ones aren’t even worth mentioning.
James Lindsey is simply justifing the tyrannical rule of the current 'elite' and this market place of ideas are merely different cadres of 'elites' vying for power in the mangerial system.
Bret Weinstein has a theory that societies prosper if their religions offer an evolutionary advantage. ie a collection of behaviours and customs leads to flourishing materially and numerically.
The view of ideas as governed by natural selection just like a kudzu plant or a cuttlefish makes vastly more sense of them than Lindsay's. Truth is orthogonal to adaptivity.
Well done. That picture of Lindsay on the debate throne says it all. The goofy look of an unheeled, uncultured doof on his face. The undignified, un-cultivated sitting pose. He looks like a circus clown waiting for the next little kid to come sit on his lap so he can water spray him from his nose. I am not joking. Look at that photo again. I mean, what would Agamemnon or Clovis, or Alfred, or Aeneas or Gaias Giulius or Don Pelayo say if they returned and saw that this is what now sits upon the thrones across The West? It is absurd, and we must call it out as so. We must see it as an affront to our dignity as would the aforementioned fathers of our people.
Here is how all of those and many other BS artists serve the regime. The key to their service is that they all fear most of all, "The Backlash." They want us to sit here and continue to get steamrolled by territorial, material and political dispossession. Better that we maintain our decorum in a savage fox's system than for lions to marshall our power and defend and protect ourselves through meaningful and effective postures and actions. Every single one of these guys identifies themselves every time they call defending and preserving our homelands and our folk, "The Backlash." The, "I Fear the Backlash", means I fear The Regime, more than I fear total oblivion of three continents full of a distinct people. This is the phrase that is the giftwrapping for the regime that equates self preservation and self determination with Nazism. That is the ultimate utility to The Regime that all of these degraded losers provide.
Better not to ruffle feathers and fight for your interests - the most fundamental and moral cause of all. Do not fight for your lands, your sovereignty within them, your genetic and cultural heritage that all amount essentially to your future. They call the fight for our preservation and for our future, "The Backlash." All the while they position themselves as the great preservationists of, "The West." Here is the thing my fellow Sons of Europe. "The West", is a coward's term. It is saying, Occidental Man, but it can't say it. For that is, "The Backlash." "The West", is just another proxy - another black or female conservative, that is nothing more or less than accepting the premises of those who seek our obliteration. It may not be the intention, but it is the reality - which is as you point out here today, is all that really matters.
Occidental Man identifying himself as such and taking up his banner and rallying all of his people to it, in the perfectly moral and necessary defense and preservation of it is our cause. We aren't trying to save, "The West", and free speech and debate clubs. We are fighting for the survival and the future of European or Occidental Man.
Fly the banners high with pride and rally to them with honor, dignity and pride of place and purpose. That will vanquish the clowns on the throne of the debate club. Then the real foes will follow. God speed!
“And it should not be forgotten that the rich - somewhat like the elites - have no ideology, they have money. Ideology is the emotion of the poor. Because - I emphasize – the rich have money; the elites, interests. […] The poor have no Rights. The poor primarily have emotions and ideologies, administered by the elites.”
Essay on the Historical Failure of Democracy in the 21st Century - Jesús G. Maestro
I think you’re both wrong.
Thank you for this AA. I see what you are saying that in short, Power/Authority cares not which Ideology or Religion, but rather the assuredness of the faith (or righteousness) to carry out what is needed to ensure said authority/power. However, Christianity will prevail as God deems it shall be so, and in paraphrasing Jonathan Pageau, practically speaking, Christianity is the best story.
He is a classic example of why the Anglo-sphere Right has been a complete failure.
Ideology is just a tool for the Elite, that is very true.
At the same time, the military science would consider ideology to be vital in creating a group cohesion. John Calvin was able to transform a lawless city into an orderly city through strong social controls and indoctrination 3x a week. In any struggle, a more cohesive group will beat out a less cohesive group. The first will be more emotionally invested as well as interested, so they will be more zealous and inventive. One only have to see this in action between Cromwell’s New Model Army and Charles I’s army during the English Civil War.
This is why there is much attack on free speech, because ideology is just a creed. As soon as one man expressed his doubt of a creed, it will infect others. This fact threatened the elite control. So while the Elite may not believe in their ideology, they do know that it give them justification of power and this must be protected at all time. And there is no surer attack than exposure of their self-interest.
No one obtains power or grabs it or wins it etc. They obtain the LEVERS of power whether by law or force. Power lies within each one of us. Or rather two powers lie within each one of us. GOOD and EVIL. We have free will which to choose and which to use. The power of the will.
I like to call James Lindsey's theory, "Rule by Autist". It's a belief that word sorcery changes the reality and it very much in line with the jewish type beliefs he rails against. I don't care if you have a verbal proof that people don't actually need to eat food, once noon comes along I'm going to eat a burger and he'll likely fight me for his right to do the same.
It's also negligence in excluding emergent systems. You don't need a grand conspiracy of jews to create the situation we're in now, you merely need to have a general rule of thumb where you support any jew in front of you and weaken any obstacles to the same and now we're here. Autists tend to think everything was planned to the last step but if I know that water runs downhill I don't need an intellectual debate to explain the existence of lakes.
There is something I don't understand, at least at the moment:
You seem to suggest that debating ideas is somewhat useless, because ideas aren't that influential - they are merely chosen post factum by those in power in order to justify whatever they did and keep doing.
But those in power do choose between several options, therefore there is a competition between which ideas have an influence on the flow of events - the relation between ideas and leaders is bidirectional, as ideas influence leaders by appealing to them and leaders influence ideas by choosing them and developing them. Those in power cannot choose an idea that wasn't expressed by some intellectual or an idea that doesn't have its precursor or components already put in the ether by somebody.
"what matters is that the road taken in each case happened to coincide with the interests of who ruled in each case" very good!! What I like to call "Cause as Cover" The Cause (ideology) being a mere cover for what the power hungry want to acheive regardless of the supposed truth, beauty or goodness of the cause.