The blog to end all blogs. Reviews and comments about all and everything. This blog is NOT affiliated with YouTube, Wikipedia, Microsoft Bing, Gemini, ChatGPT or any commercial vendor! Links don´t imply endorsement. Many posts and comments are ironic. The blogger is not responsible for comments made by others. The languages used are English and Swedish. Content warning: Essentially everything.
A Skeptic (and perhaps atheist) criticism of Jay Dyer, the bad boy of the Orthobro interwebs. "Frat boy brand of Christianity" is a keeper.
TL/DR: Dyer is a young earth creationist and presuppositionalist. He actually references an essay by Traditionalist author Titus Burckhardt against evolution. (Our old friend Huston Smith had a similar argument about Platonic forms manifesting in the material world. Perhaps he got them from Burckhardt.)
More unexpectedly, Dyer sounds agnostic on the existence of dinosaurs and even heliocentrism?! Which I suppose is inevitable if you interpret the Bible too literally. Not sure why Seraphim Rose´s name never comes up in the video. This content seems to be a kind of "parallel plot" to the recent drama between Dyer, Professor Dave et al.
Best (and most edgy) title of a video like...ever? Sheridan wonders aloud about Steve Bannon, the Bannon-Epstein interface, et cetera. Too much conspiracy theory for my tender tastes, but hey what did you expect?
Keith Woods (the Irish Traditionalist) argues that nationalism (or something like it) is as old as the human species. Here, he takes on the claim that the Romans were multi-cultural and/or unusually prone to cultural syncretism.
In reality, Woods argues, ethnic identity based on shared kinship ties and a common culture was the norm in the ancient world, and the Romans (although perhaps somewhat peculiar) were really no different on a deeper level.
He also takes on the claim that ethnonationalism is some kind of elite conspiracy, arguing that it´s really a mass phenomenon and not simply connected to your immidiate family or place of domicile. I have previously linked to another discussion about nationalism from the same content-creator.
And yes, I know that Woods is extremely controversial blah-blah, and I certainly don´t agree with many of his other takes, but I link to his Substack article since I find it to be of general interest.
A somewhat provocative video, this one! It seems ol´king Billy (and Charles III) really were Orange, after all. Could have sworn that at least Charlie was a Muzzie, but naaah, it seems we´re no longer affirming Traditionalism (or Catholicism)...hint, hint, nudge, nudge.
The clip above is a 50-minute lecture by Irish
Traditionalist Keith Woods about democracy (or modern “mass” democracy),
arguing that it´s essentially fake. The presentation is based on the book “Democracy
for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government” by
Christopher H Achen and Larry M Bartels, which I haven´t read. The short story
is that the so-called rational voter doesn´t exist, and neither does his/her
close cousin the rationally ignorant voter. The authors quote various surveys
showing that many voters don´t know the platforms of the political parties they
vote for, nor their actual policies or the outcomes of these. Indeed, many
voters are driven more by base party loyalty, group identities or irrational “values”
rather than ideology or even general political preferences. Many potential
voters are stunningly ignorant of even the most basic political or ideological
issues, or even what parties are on the ballot!
I have several problems with this
presentation. For instance, why should it be a *problem* that voters are group-oriented
rather than individualist? This seems to be a very “American” or “classically
liberal” way of looking at general elections. It´s of course interesting that
not even US democracy works like this! In Sweden, by contrast, it was long
*assumed* that of course most citizens vote according to which special interest
group they happen to belong to. Industrial workers voted Social Democrat,
farmers voted Center Party, other business owners voted Conservative, and so
on. (I suppose skinheads voted Sweden Democrat?) Maybe the real problem with “mass”
democracy is precisely that it claims to be something it really isn´t: a system
in which rational individual voters transcend their group interests? But why is
that taken to be an argument against modern democracy, per se? (In passing,
Woods mentions that he isn´t opposed to local direct democracy, but of course the
same problem applies there, too, unless the community is extremely small and everyone
is equal – hardly likely in a “traditionalist” society!)
At best, democracy does lead to “responsive”
governments by two (similar) routes: either the government arbitrates between
different group interest, or one of the group interests (usually the emerging
middle classes) integrate other groups into its orbits (such as the workers´
movement at one end and the traditional elites on the other). A peaceful
transfer of government power is ensured, but so is a more fundamental
continuity. The loyalty of the individual citizens to the system is assured by
such things as freedom of worship, freedom to start your own business, the
relative lack of corruption, and so on. At least in a 20th century
Western society, no better form of government was ever discovered…
From this, we can also predict what might
destroy a democracy. One obvious factor is that the groups in society become
too incompatible. Mass immigration with attendant failed assimilation is one
such example. Another is a permanent economic decline, in which groups the
interests of which could previously be reconciled start fighting each other
again (workers versus corporations being the most “classical” example). Ironically,
a less group-oriented approach to politics might also undermine really existing
democracy, as the electorate becomes more atomized, especially if the atomization
is coupled with “value”-driven individualism. Indeed, atomization and anomie in
an electorate then leads straight to “value”-driven collectivism instead, as
the populist Great Leader uses his charisma to “unite” the splintered people
again...
But sure, the above might not strictly
speaking be “predictions” at all, but rather statements made after the fact!
Irish
Traditionalist and (perhaps) fascist Keith Woods argues against the idea that
fascism is “capitalism in decay”, an idea usually associated with
Marxism-Leninism. It´s not entirely clear what Woods´ alternative thesis is,
though. It´s also intriguing that he doesn´t mention the Strasser brothers,
instead focusing on Joseph Goebbels (and Mussolini).
Naturally,
the “socialist” rhetoric and populist appeal of both German Nazism and Italian
fascism are mentioned. Woods argues that Mussolini´s regime was independent of
the big business interests. German industrialist support for Hitler and the
Nazis peaked around 1930, and had actually went down by 1933. Many backers of
the Nazis were White Russian émigrés (i.e. White Guards), who were “feudal”
more than capitalist and supported Hitler for ideological and geopolitical
reasons (anti-Semitism, anti-Communism, etc). Woods argues that Henry Ford in
the US (who apparently provided the NSDAP with funding) acted out of
ideological conviction. He actually *lost* money due to a boycott of the Ford company.
That
fascism can´t be an expression of “decaying” capitalism is also shown by the fact
that the fascist movements sought to modernize the economies of their respective
nations, and indeed often did so after taking power. Thus, the German economy experienced
economic growth under Hitler, not “decay”. In general, fascism appealed to groups
inside nations *with* “decaying capitalism” (or semi-feudalism) as a strategy
to *overcome* it.
Despite the
narrators clear pro-fascist (Nazbol-ish) sympathies, still an interesting take on
things.
Keith Woods, an Irish Traditionalist, discusses the connection (if any) between "Woke", capitalism, Christianity and Gnosticism. Note also the interface between trans-genderism and trans-humanism, the latter to be introduced through technology.
"Woke" gives capitalism, technology and fake individualism a quasi-religious veener, while really destroying true spirituality.
Can´t say I vibrate with the collectivist traditionalism of Woods, but he does make some interesting points here. The main take away is that "Woke" is here to stay and will continue to be succesful precisely because of its aggressive quasi-metaphysics and its alliance with global capital.
This seems to be the weakest part of Woods´ analysis, since it´s difficult to see how Woke capitalism, or any capitalism really, can be sustainable in the long run...
Keith Woods discusses a number of sociological studies and meta-studies which strongly suggest that ethnic diversity lowers trust and destroys traditional working class (and perhaps lower middle class) communities in the Western world. Note also that diversity seems to lower political and civic engagement!
One aspect not covered is that immigrants (or native Blacks in the US) often want to live in predominantly immigrant (or native Black) neighborhoods, which of course is further proof that most people most of the time prefer their own kind...
"Bowling alone", the book mentioned, is a classical study of the decline of American working class communities, but weirdly I have never read it!
Keith Woods attacks really existing Green politics from a Traditionalist and far right perspective, under which environmentalism is tied to nationalism, anti-capitalism, anti-immigration stances and "pantheist" religious metaphysics.
Anthropocentrism is rejected in favor of seeing Nature as sacral and the cosmos as hierarchic. At one point, he calls contemporary Green politics "liberalism with carbon taxes"!
Even apart from his *obviously* problematic TOS, Woods is too utopian for my jaded metaphysical tastes. The alternative to eternal "progress" is a myth of eternal return to a traditional past that never really existed, not even during the Satya Yuga...
The Russian secret service FSB claims that a Ukrainian woman with connections to Azov single-handedly carried out the recent assassination of Alexander Dugin´s daughter Darya in Moscow. This is an almost brilliantly incompetent propaganda lie. Or maybe not, since I don´t know how paranoid the average Russian is right now. Or how paranoid the FSB want them to be!
If taken at face value, though, the FSB version is absurd and actually paints Russia in a very bad light. If a single Ukrainian fascist can sneak into Russia, assassinate the daughter of a high profile Putin supporter in Moscow, and sneak out again, *the Putin regime has no control over its own territory*. Maybe Paddington the Bear can travel to Russia on a Peruvian tourist visa and blow some shit up, I don´t know, some Gazprom-associated marmelade store?
The most likely explanation is the conspiracy theory that Putin had Darya Dugina killed as a warning to Dugin, god knows about what. Maybe they are bickering behind the Kremlin walls? Or maybe they just wanted to carry out a really good false flag, the Dugin family being sort-of-innocent victims?
Could it be some Western intelligence agency? I´m not an expert on that particular demimonde, but assassinating Darya Dugina strikes me as very "esoteric" somehow. If Dark Brandon wants to escalate against Russia, wouldn´t a more likely target be Putin himself? Or somebody directly responsible for running the Ukrainian war? Compare the car bombing to covert US-Israeli attacks on Iranian interests. These weren´t directed at some obscure cult leader...
Verdict: Probably Putin. Just another Tuesday! Or in this case, Saturday.
Edward Dutton (the Jolly Heretic) argues against the idea that the far left (or far right, for that matter) is "Gnostic". I tend to agree. The pseudo-Christian meme or metaphor seems more relevant here.
Keith Woods is a Traditionalist who sometimes posts interesting content on his YouTube channel. In this long presentation (one hour and a half), he summarizes a book by Azar Gat, "Nations", which I unfortunately haven´t read. He also mentions a number of other writers.
The main thesis is that nations aren´t a product of modernity or an "imaginary community", but have much deeper roots. This isn´t just a matter of definition, since Woods argues that something we moderns would recognize as nations existed already in pre-modern times. A nation is essentially an ethnic group with a strong sense of political community, cultural identity and historical continuity, often expressed in the form of statehood. Ethnic groups in their turn have even deeper roots, which go all the way back to our evolutionary beginnings. Woods seem to believe that sociobiology in its Wilsonian form (group selection) is largely true, and that this constitutes the ultimate origins of nations and nationalism.
The rest of the presentation is an extended argument against the idea that "nations" didn´t exist before circa 1800. Multi-ethnic empires did of course exist, but they were usually dominated by one specific ethnic group, around which the others tended to cluster. The Habsburg empire (which wasn´t) isn´t the historical norm. One common argument against pre-modern nationalism is that nationalist ideology emerged among the elites, and wasn´t diffused in the general population until modern times. The common people in pre-modern society had, at best, a purely local identity.
Woods points out that this is simply hogwash: there were mechanisms for spreading elite national culture even in pre-literate societies in the form of myths and stories (the wandering Norse bards come to mind here). National and international religions also show that all loyalty or identity can´t have been local. (Once again, I´m reminded of a Scandinavian example: the medieval churches were often financed, controlled and defended by the peasants.)
It´s also interesting to note that the Icelandic sagas, with their all-Icelandic ethnic or "national" identity, were written at an island marked by constant feuds and political instability, yet Icelandic-ness was taken for granted even in this chaotic situation (the opposite of what you except if all identities are local or clan-based). And why do common people react more negatively to foreign conquerors than to native elites? The theory that nationalism didn´t exist during, say, the Middle Ages seem to suggest that the peasantry should hate both elite groups equally.
Woods then points to ancient Greece, Egypt and China as examples of early nationalism. The Egyptian case is interesting, since Egyptian identity remaind firmly in place even when the Pharaonic state had collapsed, suggesting that it wasn´t a purely elite phenomenon entirely dependent on a strong political structure. The common people in Egypt must have had a strong feeling of Egyptian-ness and counterposed it to Semitic, Nubian or Persian identities.
Another obvious example are the Jews - ironically so, since secularized modern Jews often oppose nationalism, fearing its anti-Semitic potential. I agree that there are indeed strong "nationalist" sentiments in the "Old Testament" and the "Apocrypha", certainly from the time of Ezra onwards, including the Maccabean Wars and the forced conversion of the Idumeans.
This is just some of the highlights. Recommended. Then, reflect over what this could mean for the near and far future of humankind...
Is the left a Gnostic death cult? Somewhat surprisingly, Irish Traditionalist Keith Woods answers "no" to the question. Very interesting content!
Apparently, it´s a popular notion in some Christian circles that the contemporary left (including trans-humanists and, judging by context, trans-people) are a "Gnostic death cult". This modern form of Gnosticism is said to resemble the ancient original in its hatred of the material world, with the modern version trying to transcend it through genetic engineering, AI, and the like. This reminds me of the idea that the Axial Age (said to begin perhaps 2,500 years ago) replaced immanent-animistic paganism with religions preaching transcendental salvation from a material world seen as hopelessly flawed or even evil. The Upanishads, Buddhism, Christianity and Gnosticism are seen as examples of this, but so is the modern idea of progress, which also wants to "transcend" an imperfect world.
Woods, by contrast, believes that these resemblances are purely superficial. Trans-humanism isn´t about transcending anything, it´s simply the usual individualist-hedonistic-materialist worldview taken to its logical extreme, where "the freedom of choice" (really the freedom to choose your own hedonistic pleasure) is extended into infinity through science fiction technology. In contrast, Gnosticism was about true transcendence, not just in the (obvious) sense that they wanted to "leave this world", but in the sense that the Gnostics weren´t seeking to satisfy their desires, but reach an entirely different plane of being altogether as pure spirit.
Woods interprets Gnosticism as a hierarchic worldview, in which humanity is seen as forever split into three different classes, with the vast majority of "hylics" being completely mired in matter and beyond redemption. Also, while every human has a telos (goal or purpose), everyone doesn´t have the same telos. Thus, men can´t become women, humans can´t become animals, and so on. The denial of an objectively definable telos leads straight to an anarchic view of "individual rights", where everyone (seemingly) can become everything he wants, and get all his non-teleological desires satisfied.
The clip also contain a discussion on Ascenders and Descenders, Plato and Aristotle, and so on. Surprisingly much material for a relatively short presentation!
Irish Traditionalist Keith Woods is skeptical of recent claims that some engineer managed to create a "sentient computer". Woods believes that there is a qualitative ontological difference between the human mind (think qualia, intentionality and embodiement) and a computational algorithm.
Thus, the claim that AI can be sentient (or "intelligent") is really based on reductionist materialism. It´s also connected to the absurd dreams of trans-humanists. While computers and robots may indeed become even better at computation in the future, sentience or intelligence simply isn´t possible in machines.
To Woods, this is a good thing. Humans are embodied organic beings by nature (and, I presume, in and of Nature), and will remain that way, despite the fevered dreams of trans-humanist cornucopians and believers in a "Singularity"...
