Reply to Keith Woods on Power, Ideology and History
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 09. 2024
- Article: forbiddentexts...
Why I responded to Keith: / 1760474665695236214
Buy courses here: www.academic-a...
Sub to my substack here: substack.com/p...
Join the channel here: / @academicagent
All my vital links: unpopular.acad...
I steal your oil, because civil rights are good.
We never stole the oil. We paid a market rate, favorable to us, to the puppet government we installed.
😅
Putting aside the sound logic of your rebuttal, this is the best example of reading to an audience - without sounding like you're reading at all. I've been a teacher since 2007, and I've never heard such a natural reading cadence before. Bravo, mate.
Agree
Problem is I can’t work out when he’s reading or making a comment about what he is reading.
He absolutely has the pedagogy nailed down.
It was very good, for whatever reason I have a very hard time following if someone is reading from a script or page, but I had no issue here.
@@Copendium I don't think any of us can work that out.
The history of the USSR provides interesting examples of people in power trimming their sails to the prevailing winds, while insisting they’re absolutely sticking to the plan. In 1931 Stalin famously demolishes Moscow’s giant Cathedral of Christ the Saviour as part of the Bolshevik ideological war on God. But when the very survival of the USSR is at stake during WW2, his previous Bolshevik hostility to religious and national feeling abruptly reverses. The war is renamed the Great Patriotic War, and the Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church is suddenly reconvened for the first time since 1918. Stalin probably realises that appealing to people’s enthusiasm for Dialectical Materialism alone might not be enough to win the war, so he adds some very un-Communist appeals to God and Mother Russia.
But ideology still affects things a lot, at least in the framing. Communist revolution is the very basis of the regime’s legitimacy, so it can never be disavowed. For the whole of the USSR’s existence, none of its leaders, from Lenin to Gorbachev, can say publicly “this whole Communism thing is stupid. It doesn’t work. Let’s give it up and try something else”. Even Communist China, which has abandoned almost all of Mao’s economic doctrines, still insists it’s implementing “Socialism with Chinese characteristics”.
Great comment. I learned something . (Always good). 👍
Ideology or any ordered belief is absolutely necessary to keep society and a regime from eternal infighting, overt or covert, either in the palace or on the streets.
If people believe in nothing, you get late Roman Empire, collapse of which was welcomed by everyone, but its oligarchs and bureaucrats. Not unlike the GAE.
This is done when you defeat your enemies and are the authorities.
No one is really arguing that, it is that the power has to be there first in order for the ideology to replace an existing power structure.
Now, creating an ideology that a power can adopt can be helpful but that is the power structure taking advantage of the ideology, not acting because of the ideology.
@@requited2568 An ideology that power can adopt is not simply helpful but essential in gaining the critical mass of followers, who dissatisfied with the old power, will be willing to fight to overthrow the old power structure. The ideology must be present beforehand as men will always ask "what's in it for me" before they are willing to fight and risk their lives for a cause. The great man cannot be a great man without highly motivated followers. The revolutionaries are not an actual power existing beforehand but a potential power until they take control of the State. The successful leader will believe he has the key to creating a better society and seeks power to make his vision come true. That is what he will tell himself and that is what he will believe even as a rationalization of his actions. Then the deeper the belief, the leader will be more inclined to atrocities using his faith in how correct he is in his beliefs as justification.
@@GlasbanGorm
No. A shared moral vision is the impetuous for men to organize and displace an existing power structure in the first thing. Men don’t give their lives for a paycheck or power for powers sake. The only point at which that cost-benefit analysis makes sense is when somebody believes in something more than themselves.
Lenin’s pragmatism and power-politicking didn’t change the fact that he and he closest associates were bound by and singularly, fanatical focused on a shared ideological vision. AA doesn’t seem to think that is vital, and I don’t think he could possible be more wrong.
@@50centpb7 the impetus is the getting a whiff of weakness from the current rulers
I'll be honest, man, sounds like you two are just talking past each other. Saying the same thing but in different language, with different emphasis
You are right in this assessment. The original statment sounded very provocative and was somewhat reductive. Many other people in these spheres also miss understood what AA ment. If Aa was only referring to what he described here, which is that achieving power by what ever means is more important than any ideological constraint, then he is entierly correct. However I think he overemphasised the point.
Its funny that they are both citing the same material as evidence the other is wrong. This video focused on the final grasp for power as the universal amongst those in power, but the fundamentals of their dispute were more apparent in their original videos on the topic.
I like both of you nerds. Keep up the back and forth
Yup, these arguments could be considered somewhat semantic but these minor differences are helpful to explore.
@@requited2568This video got pretty nuanced. The difference in opinion was more pronounced in earlier videos.
Yeah, appreciation for both parties may be responsible for NOT choosing one argument over the other.
@@tcorourke2007 I agree. I thought the Thatcher explanation was good - I'd read about that before, she very much did subscribe to Monetarism then once its job of reintroducing mass unemployment was achieved, she put the Monetarism away and denied she'd ever believed in it
@@OnlineEnglish-wl5rp As a theoretician myself, I can confirm I don't get much done in a day.
There’s a video of Slavoj Zizek interviewing Stephen Kotkin about Stalin. It’s clear Zizek wants Kotkin to tell him that, in private, Stalin said cynical un-Communist things. He wants to believe that Stalin was like Alan Rickman’s Hans Gruber in Die Hard, who pretends to be a Baader-Meinhof style terrorist, but is really just a cynical bank robber who’s only in it for the money. Kotkin replies that, no, Stalin’s private conversations used exactly the same Marxist-Leninist language as his public pronouncements.
I don’t know if this provides any evidence for either side in this argument, but I find it interesting all the same.
That discussion was an exercise of the kindly thoughtful with the deaf. I can only barely believe it happened. Will Self debating Niall Fergusson looked brainy by comparison. Heaven help us.
i’ve long accepted that i don’t do things bc they’re rational but because i feel like doing them.
of curse, i didn’t come to this conclusion through logical means, i just felt drawn to it
That is kinda funny, heh. But very true.
Sounds logical to me.
This is exactly what most research on "free will" concludes. People probably think it's funny and they are rational but in reality it's even luck how rational a person can be and most, like almost everything, we do now is based on previous experiences and an emotional decision in reality. It's people completely overestimating themselves and the luck they had in their lives, in other words it's a false sense of pride to think one is rational and in control. "Personal responsibility" wasn't even a thing before the tobacco industry advertised the phrase in the 1960's to gaslight people and distract them from the true responsibility and science.
The big problem I see is when you come to somebody who is genuinely convinced by a person they disagree with. It happens sometimes. They didn’t just go along with their emotional attachment to their previous beliefs and ideas but rejected them for new ones. And when you say it is based on previous experience, isn’t this tautological as everything is an experience? I hear a new idea and the hearing of the idea laid out is itself an experience that I can now use to justify what I believe. All you have said is that a person cannot know or believe anything a priori. One can have that argument, but suddenly the whole point you were trying to make sounds much less profound. The question of whether the person who changed their mind is being rational itself has not been broached. We know it wasn’t based on affinity for the speaker who convinced them, and we know that they have prior experiences that they use as a base to determine what is true about reality. But how does somebody being told rocks are soft and disbelieving it because they’ve never encountered a soft rock make them irrational? Having a limited set of information to base your reason on doesn’t make you unreasonable, but ill-informed. That people make post hoc justifications for things doesn’t delegitimize rationality. Not all decisions people make are justified post hoc. Many times people choose to take a certain course of action after deliberation. So where is the bs justifying what they had already chosen to do in those cases? Can people not conspire before hand to take premeditated decisions to acquire power with rational justification? I see no reason to wholesale disregard the notion of rational actors. This line of argument that you and AA are making seem to me to be a the case of somebody finding a hammer and now everything looks like a nail.
Hope you two can have conversations soon.
I don't like when Mummy and Daddy fight 😢
😅 sweet.
Hope you two can return to having open and positive dialogue again. Both of you have been a net positive to the right.
If your argument is true, and ideology is reducible to power and pragmatism, is this exchange just a way for you to exert influence over an audience for your own benefit? Are you making any truth claims to human nature and the nature of ideology, or are you just trying to convince your audience of your own "gut feeling" which is what benefits yourself and your own influence as opposed to keith's? How could I ever tell any difference at all between those two things?
Well you couldn't, but you're being presented with it and can take it or leave it. I suppose this is either true, or untrue, and his personal drive to do this is irrelevant in the face of those two things. And you can feel in your gut either way about AA, but he does do this for a living and it can be thought provoking and entertaining. Couldn't say much more than that about this discourse though because I dip out and back a lot to see what's being spoken about every now and again. You should know that Mr AA doesn't do jokes if this meant as rhetorical question to tease😂
The BS BS therefore I rule can be partly true. You still fail to grasp that it's an argument outside an ideology. And I would be more wary of a man selling me his ideology and his truths. He will be willing to do unspeakable things to prove his point.
He's not saying that's the aim, he's saying that's the process itself, and that it's what wins over power in the end of which the masses then accept and incorporate. And yes, technically both AA and Keith are trying to win over more people who could in the end bring about their own vision if power becomes a possibility. It might only be "power" regaining small influence within the DR sphere but it's still a branch of power.
@@iwanspolwatch4281 And what makes you think a philosophical pragmatist wouldn't do unspeakable things to prove his point? Isn't that the whole point of pragmatism???? Pragmatism itself is an ideology that accepts certain truth claims about human nature, i.e. humans are self interested and tribal, but sells itself and masquerades as a non-ideology. It's dishonest, and what's worse is that pragmatists can be dishonest but still be true to their own worldview. This is a philosophically and morally bankrupt position to hold.
"This says nothing about motivations, beliefs, good faith, bad faith, self-delusion or anything else."
In truth, the man peddling his thinking-slow justifications - that justify his thinking-fast assumptions - often believes those logical arguments and believe them more strongly than any other. The fact that it's all nonsense that justifies his seizure of power to himself is also true. The logical argument doesn't matter except to strengthen resolve in himself and those who agree on the irrational feelings. Those elite few then conquer and enforce their will on everyone else. Their logical arguments are BS but are repeated anyway to the plebians as justification for their instinctual acts while ruling.
Humans build a world of rationalization, not rationality 100%
It’s seems that very few can honestly follow arguments where they lead and will warp logic to ensure they end up at a more palatable destination.
I think the only way objectivity is sustainable is through radical skepticism. Not exactly conducive to building movements.
Short and sweet. 👍
I was just listening to an interview with Robin Hanson talking about how human brains evolved as justification machines. Human brains just decide to do something they want, and then come up with some convoluted argument for why it was a good and principled thing to do.
There are split brain studies where they tell a man's right side to pick up a toy soldier. Then they ask the man's left side why he just did that. And he says some story about how he liked toy soldiers as a kid.
Why “justification” and not merely “association”? It would seem to me that a lot of what we as humans do is association and pattern recognition. The byproduct of this can be post hoc justification, but why must it be?
8:30 If this is true though, you'd have to ultimately believe there is no such thing as objective truth or logic and that everything we do is based on emotions and instincts we can't control and we are all just post-hoc rationalising our every thought. But if that's the case what's the point of anything?
There isn't an objective truth as such a thing would be all encompassing. The objective truth of the universe, would be the universe. Truth is always subjective to the parameters you specify. The same goes for logic, and math. With truths you can claim an approximation which would have to be tested against the stated parameters.
I still fail to grasp how you then go to there is no point in anything. Yes, humans always rationalize their worldview and actions to appear smarter than they are and claim the truth for the ultimate upper hand.
@@iwanspolwatch4281 A tree existing is an objective truth yet according to AA's theory it's irrelevant whether it exists or not, I will formulate my belief based on emotional reactions to other people's arguments. And those people have come to their conclusions through the same process, so it's recursive.
The reason I say there is no point in anything is this effectively makes all positions meaningless. Like the tree being irrelevant, taking a position on politics is irrelevant because there is no objectively true and moral position to take and I am not actually choosing any of my positions anyway so way bother with it at all
@@Some_retardThat's only if you are a technocrat who rejects any divine nature to humanity's instinct in favor of machine logic. It's only when you reject the instinctual feeling as meaningless that you reach this nihilistic position.
Many Christians treat conscience as a divinely sourced instinct. That imbued into our very soul is that objective truth of God, which guides our feelings and emotions. We are revolted by abortion, adultery, and so on because deep in our souls, we know it to be evil. The BS we make to justify that instinct to others (The baby is clearly alive at this point in time because of x, y, and z arguments) is just BS to justify power - but that supplementary BS doesn't erase the guiding hand of God
@@Some_retard I agree. If every belief held is an irrational belief, what makes our beliefs better than those of our enemies? If we take that road, what reference could we use to show our moral superiority, after all, it is emotion x emotion. Alasdair mcintyre talks about his in his book "after virtue" in which he shows that the dominant approach to morality in the modern world is emotivism, the theory that every moral discourse has the objective of gaining the upper hand, convincing people of a belief that's held.
@@Some_retard
AA doesn't discuss whether objective truth exists or not; he is simply describing how power works. You can possess the ultimate objective truth, but that doesn't necessarily indicate how you would rise to power with it. Rationalizing ideas based on a feeling or being drawn to them through their sentiment doesn't deny the possibility of them being objective truths.
The Trivium ad is part of my workout playlist
aww
Buy It!
@@HouseholdDog Nice try AA
@@Oliver-b7j Affiliate link below..
I used to believe in egalitarianism because I thought it was correct - eventhough I did not like the acceptance of many _groups_ .
Eventually I changed my mind based on evidence, and felt relieved emotionally.
While I agree that the masses are mainly lead by emotions, I do not think it is absolute, and not always happens in all individuals
If what you say is correct then why are you doing what you are doing rather than being a establishment shill?
I believe KW made this point.
Cause he FEELS it's the right thing to do. Tribal merchants would FEEL otherwise. Doesn't mean truth wholly belongs to one or another.
@@UnimaginedThroughSmoke ok and how does that not disprove his argument? It shows that how people feel about things may trump their desire for power. Not sure what you mean on your point on truth which exists independent of what we may think about it
@@joshuadavies5631 Simple, you cannot operate within the structure designed to destroy you as effectively as you would outside it.
If you desire for power, you seek to eliminate rival castles, not strengthen them. A stooge is de facto not sovereign, and controlled opposition has many knives at its throat.
@@joshuadavies5631 And to go deeper, feeling is a function of the mind, not the spirit. Though mind can direct us to spirit it ultimately is prone to illusion. Your political intentions are what benefits the world existing in your mind, first and foremost. We are conditioned beings, and we center "our" inner world around different things, only slightly touching on the surface of the external, absolute truth. Any even slight contradictions between these inner worlds do inevitably spur into political conflicts, when the time comes. Clinging onto ideology restricts your movement and chances of your beliefs actually coming to pass. You become a static figure to be fiddled with by more cynical types. Creating a doctrine without overwhelming power at your disposal makes you open to subversion and infiltration. These liberal ideas about free competition in any walk of life are nothing but poison to round up and weaken, if not utterly destroy the regime's enemies. You never win by revealing every card.
@@UnimaginedThroughSmokeyou say the system is designed to destroy us and I agree... but that shows that there is an ideology behind it this disproving the argument again. I agree with your second post we should definitely not let the perfect be the enemy of the good but we should also be wary of compromise.
Power demands that you act against your principles to retain it, and that you lie in order to justify those actions.
Ideally, an ideology should be suited to the situation of the political elite in power, when they come to power, so that continuity and legitimacy can be maintained.
Modern left-liberal managerialism is very suited to our current elites
All I can say is that the last 300yrs of the Age of Reason don't look very reasonable.
I have recently finished Revolt Against the Modern World and this seems to me to be a history of belief, with more recent ideology being a degrading aspect of this evolution. How does this reconcile to the power argument? There seems to be an ideological process at work, regardless of the power plays, with certain periods representing a transition from one belief to another. Spengler, Nietzsche also sense this.
I like your arguments AA.. I tend to look at it like this: Libertarianism is toothless and can never hold power because the ideology it expresses doesn’t allow for the steps necessary to seize it. This means they would have to “bend the rules” in order to achieve their goals. After doing so, they can then walk it back and drone on about “non aggression”. This perfectly encompasses the idea you are expressing here. Power requires a specific set of behaviors and actions and ANY ideology, no matter how different, would have to acquiesce to those behaviors if they are to succeed. This is why I can’t stand arguments like ,”We don’t want to stoop to their level or we will be no better than them.” These are the ideas and thoughts of fools who don’t realize power dynamics and how they work. Good article.
Was originally on Woods’ side before watching this. I think there’s only one mistake to your argument, though I accept it over his. All you are saying is “everyone who obtains power must come up with a rationalization for why they are in power and the steps they took to get there”. The post-hoc part is where I think the confusion comes from, when people seek power they have should have generated their rationalization prior to obtaining it. If those who secure power are smart, the rationalization remains the same after power is secured, lest they lose popular support. The way it was originally worded made the argument sound like “everyone who seeks power is a sociopath, and so the justification for their actions is an afterthought”. That’s not the point of your argument at all. Good video
AA you are right! Utopianism always leads to catastrophic loss. Pragmatism, realism, and the acceptance that you don’t need a window on to men souls.
The most extreme example: Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. They killed around a quarter of Cambodia’s population, making the country so weak that the Vietnamese easily overthrew them in 1978-9. I think the counterproductive murderous frenzy of the Khmer Rouge was the result of an ideological purity spiral. Pol Pot visited China during the height of the Cultural Revolution, and apparently wanted to prove to the world that Mao and the Gang of Four just weren’t as hardcore about Communism as he was.
If you don’t believe in something, you will soon be at the mercy of somebody who does.
You’re missing the part where the fanatics were able to organize and take power before carrying out their brutal will.
A theory that was originally alluded to in the deconstructavist classic 90s song "I'm an Asshole".
i just hope both of you have fun
AA is still a nihilist.
Those from The Big Lebowski?
He believes in power mechanics at minimum, so not a nihilist
The stronger someone's post hoc rationalisation skills are the less awareness they have that they are driven by intuition.
For example, Sam Harris claiming to be ultrarational whilst having the most obvious TDS.
I think the problem with your presentation of the argument is that you seem to say (from what i have heard) there is direct self-interest, i think that is false. Its about existential identification on the group level.
As a Shakespeare scholar, you will understand that, “Heavy is the head that wears the crown.” Why would someone want the crushing responsibility of power, unless they had some principles?
Er, because they're psychopaths?
@@winstonsmith8240 Wouldn't a CEO position suit them more?
Because you can exert more control over your life and the fate of the world around you with power. Power has many more pros than downsides.
I pride myself on rationality and acceptance of difficult truths, but I wonder if bias isn't a bit like ego; easy to see in others, but difficult to recognize in oneself, particularly when you think you've licked it.
Look who decided to stop acting like a petulant child and do some growing up. Finally.
it is not only the law of power and instinct that dedicate the course of history, but a synthese with ideology. in the short term it is true, that most decisions are made out of a gut feeling with later rationalization, but how do these emotions manifest in a grown up man? these instincts are partly inheritet, partly a circumstance of ones upbringing and the ideological influence over a prolonged period of time. what in the end triumphs is matter for debate and individual case.
Keith Woods, a guy who associates with Nick Fuentes, a known Mexican homosexual grifter which is probably an FBI informant... that Keith Woods.
Your formula seems to imply that every ruler is a despot which isn't true
Whether any given regime is despotic or not depends on who you ask: their friends or their enemies
The system in the UK is clearly despotic. But sunak is not a despot. The man barely weilds any power.
@@alg7115 next week I will write about the difference between soft and hard managerial regimes
@@alg7115 I'd say that the people who made him Prime Minister, should be the focus
Thatcher just needed Evil Mage Chic
ThAyatollah
The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment 2001 Oct;
Could have saved you a lot of typing.
There doesn't need to be just one answer to this question, but in the grand scheme of things, power is wielded by those who would wield it. Once they realize what they are capable of, they also realize what their rivals are capable of towards themselves... and then circus really gets started.
11:20 Have you ever agreed with someone’s argument, but you just can’t get them to realize it?
Now… one thing AA has not addressed is autism… there are those for whom ideology is an autistic pursuit- Keith Woods would be a good example of this. It is hard to find examples in history where an autistic ideologue has gained power- particularly over any sort of sustained period. Moustache man, for example, was famously NOT autistic- however he inspired and propped up a number of ideological copycat leaders in other European nations who quite possibly were- and you can see how weak and unstable those “leaders” were. So moustache man is an example of an ideological ruler who was not autistic- but he would be the exception that proves the rule. What you do tend to see, where power is sustained is pragmatism above all- Harold Wilson, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair… all ultimately pragmatic leaders. Reagan, Bush, Clinton same… no matter their personal ideology they often spouted a certain rhetoric whilst behind the scenes enacted counter acting policies. It’s a hugely nuanced subject- ultimately AA is correct but the autistic ideologue cannot be accounted for- because they are more or less impervious to the self justifying thought processes that the rest of us are. They are also seldom power hungry, therefore rarely seek or find it- and when they do, cannot sustain it because they don’t understand the nature of power or the fluid pragmatism which is required for sustain it.
Once again, nothing I’ve said here disproves anything AA says- but it explains why the autistic mind can’t accept the idea that ideology is basically redundant in the question of power. Where autism can approximate power would be in things like very singular fields of success- computer coders who can obsess to the point that no one can follow their work, market traders who can build complex algorithms to “beat the market” etc. it’s not really power though, it’s obsession and ultra narrow, pioneering success- they can make a fortune and appear powerful- they cannot however, usually convert this to political power- not in the ideological sense. It’s a very hard thing to keep all the relevant concepts in your mind whilst thinking about this because a simpler mind would just say- “well Elon Musk is powerful” ok… but I refer you back to the original question- is he ideological? No. You have to find someone who is autistic, ideological, and in power for a sustained period, to prove that ideology is central. Understanding why autism is relevant to this is equally going to be hard for most people to understand- autistic people will be too focused on something else to see it, people who are entirely not autistic won’t understand the nature of autism in order to understand the relevance of it. To understand this you have to be “a bit” autistic- not a lot- just a bit.
AA possibly is that sort of autist, as am I.
People think you're trying to argue for a methodology and don't consider you're trying to generalize a reality. I notice people do this with Nietzsche a lot.
It seems to me that “truth” would have to include the reality of power mechanics
Me ne frego
AA have you come a across David Goldmans book why civilisations die and why Islam is dying too
So your argument boils down to “if Keith disagrees with me, he’s just having an emotional hissy-fit”?
0:44 Noun
theorycel (plural theorycels)
(Internet slang, derogatory) Someone (not necessarily an incel) interested in extremely academic and abstract ideas, but having little to no practical skills.
You should have called the video “Against Keith Woods”.
People with good intuition but poor post hoc rationalisation are a poor fit with our hyper communicative society. I wonder if the marginalisation of these people is behind our decline.
The thing is these two models need not be mutually exclusive; the mechanism for attaining power and building consensus is the same, regardless of whether the individual is a true believer or not. I think Keith is putting the carriage before the horse on this one.
I bet Keith would have joined the Cult of Reason after the french revolution
So happy that you actually displayed this procedure.
I appreciate your contnent AA and I don't completely disagree, but you are missing something crucial when it comes to ideology.
What you are describing (in this video at least) is the psychological mechanism of rationalization that is suffused with a ton of propagada, rather then ideology. You are missing the social aspect here (of wich power plays a crucial role) and the necessity of a stable hierarchical organisation for any tribe that desires and acts for longevity. Remember, there was a long time before we considered ourselves individuals and we spent a long time trying to figure out how to make such longevity possible.
This is healthy for the right wing, unlike what Mark Collett is currently spouting ( I had lots of faith in PA ). Things need more Keith Woods and AA’s.
We also need powerful leaders too, to put these ideas into action.
In other words, in politics things don’t happen for a reason-reasons happen for a thing.
This didn’t appear in my feed at all, doesn’t usually happen!
The problem with having powerful positions is people who want power will try to gain them.
There will always be powerful positions, people who seek them and a far larger number of followers who will go out of their way to push those people. It's as natural to us a species as taking a crap. All you can do is push the people you believe are closest to your thinking or will push your interests.
Superb. A total demolition of technocracy.
While I think it was fair for you to be suspicious of Keith (I still am, personally), and he is a bit cringey, on the other hand, I don't think he's worth a lot of drama about either. If he has something interesting to say, I can listen to him and form my own opinion. It's just important to analyse it more deeply than normal, especially when he makes certain calls to action, just to be on the safe side.
So ideas ultimately have no importance? Would AA dismiss the major societal damage Marx ideas did throughout modern history? So... If the then communists were followers of Ayn Rand, instead would the outcome of their revolutions had been the same?
Your final paragraph sounds like some sort of anthropic principle for power.
Extraordinarily persuasive, well done boy-o!
Excellent.
Very mellow. Quite centrist and sensible.
Men pursuing high ideals is a product of a culture-nation that produces such men. Power is always gained by conflict and cunning and conflict and cunning historically used to select for good natured and intelligent people. You can’t be myopic in the jungle.
After watching 1000s of hours of Dissident thought and reading 100s of books trying to understand "current year reality". Im always going back to my Gamergate studies, Haidt(happiness, righteous and codding trilogy) as a keystone in understanding virtually everything. Elephant and the rider and basic brain chemistry. I Really need to read Mcgilchrist "the master and his emissary". Only other content creators that seem to operate at this level are Eric striker( watch Warstrike people, its ......perfect), 1 of the blood satellite guys and maybe ryan dawson.
can someone tl;dr the reason why AA and Keith are beefing all this time?
@8:40 i value your opinion more AA due to your mostly rational analytical analysis and predictive abilities.
8:45 I will not argue that my thoughts about this were mostly rational. They were a mix of rationality with an admittedly larger part of emotion, or personal preference. Not because I like you or him more but because of who I'm. I consider myself an intellectual and yes, I recognize I would like to believe our work, be that whatever media or writing or form of creative expression we produce has a purpose. The argument that you seem to be making here is that, it's all irrelevant, because what really matter is how some dimwit popular leader swings his club. Which I will admit, has some truth to it. But it would be very nihilistic, in my view and to who I'm, to think that is all there is to it.
Why does it matter?
I don't know who this Woods guy is, so he's wrong.
22.02.2024 Magic day, good message. Thank you.
This seems like a long and round about way of saying yes they are motivated by their beliefs and not raw power for powers sake lmao
Because an ayatollah claims to be a man of god don't you believe it
I 'feel' your assessment is more correct AA😂
A Beautiful piece AA well done and keep em coming
I think Keith gets lost in his books. He is a fanatic. Doubles the effort, forgets the objective.
Keith Woods probably doesn't understand metaphysics.
Hit like before you watch it. This is not a request.
FU
Drama Drama Drama lol
Smellin me own furts.