Home
Creators
Search Recent Missing Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

A Trend I've Been Seeing (Members Video) (Patreon)

Published:
2024-07-25 18:46:00
Imported:
2026-06
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Downloads

  • 333203496.mp4

Missing 2 full-res photos, 1 video, as this post has not yet been imported.

Content

My thoughts on a conspiratorial trend I've been watching that has come to prominence over the last 6 months or so.

Files

Previews only

Comments

Moritz

Chapman Video? Das wird ein guter Abend!

Nicolas Salliou

I feel I have been seeing that trend since 9/11 and especially since the war in Iraq

Jared Fry

I'm not sure I see particularly good outcomes from the trend as it is.

Tyler

Thank Ryan - I think you're spot on, and the comparison to post modernism is helpful. Many of the folks I have these types of anti-establishment conversations with are also Christians who have been up-in-arms about post modernism for decades (I suppose their concern was more justified than I gave credit, in retrospect)... this may be helpful in those discussions. That said, at least for a lot of folks (older in particular), this idea you're speaking to seems to overlap with general inforamtion fatigue / lack of skills to do any type of analysis on what the algorithms are feeding them. It's just too dificult for them to sort out what's true, so they just become cynical about anything "mainstream." I wonder how to connect the dots conversationaly, to equate the latter problem with the adoption of a post modern truth-is-relative mindset... which per your good point, is the ultimate outcome.

Kaerakh

Hey Ryan, I think what you've stumbled across are people who are downstream of pundits pushing ideas from a guy named Curtis Yarvin. This is fairly fringe, but I think it's picking up steam. He posits that the left/right distinction should be set at the enlightenment and that all ideas related to and downstream from the enlightenment are left wing and everything from before or downstream from before are right wing. I may be getting some details wrong as I'm consumed this second hand, but some examples of this kind of gnawing away at the fringes of media today are pundits like Michael Knowles suggesting we need to go back to monarchy and before the enlightenment and Carl Benjamin in the UK with his Lotus Eaters outlet pushing stuff like his "Five False Assumptions of Liberalism" or what one his writers wrote "The Universal Acid of Liberalism". I'll DM you some links you can choose to read or not read on your own prerogative, but I'm very certain you'll be seeing more Neoreactionary thoughts like these as you're the third person I've heard come to the same conclusion that it's isomorphic to postmodernism.

rchapman
>>144659790

Thanks! I think this is a case of horseshoe theorem, where an extreme on one end ends up resembling the extreme on the other much more than they realize or are comfortable with. I also think you have a point with information fatigue, and that does make sense to be more relevant as you get older (or for those who are quite young and new to politics). It's easier, and the path of least resistance, just to wave the whole thing away. For your last point, this does seem hard to make work conversationally. I basically tried to hammer out a raw theory here, and perhaps some workshopping would help it. Focusing on the concept of the relativity of truth might be it. Do we have standards or not?

Shelden

Ryan, I have to admit, I haven't seen your last couple of videos. I know you said you worked really hard on that WW II video, but I just haven’t taken the time to see it or the previous couple of videos. My small Patreon contribution has continued simply out of appreciation for previous videos that have demonstrated an outstanding level of clarity in thinking. This video vindicates my faith in you as a creator. This is why I am here. I worry, however, that it will cost you some supporters. As I have seen at another outlet that I support, sometimes when a content creator dedicated to empirically supported argumentation, they may initially receive support from partisans who mistake the content creator as a partisan on their own side, instead of a neutral purveyor of facts and analysis. But then, when the same tools of analysis yield results these partisans do not like, these partisans feel betrayed. I cannot imagine what you could have said in a video on WW II that would have raised such comments, but I guess now I need to take the time to watch. All I really want to say here is, keep up the good work.

Kaerakh
>>144662080

Yeah and to be clear, I don't think people are consuming this whole sale, I think bits and pieces make it through. When I first heard of this 4 years ago I thought it was a joke and worth dismissing on the face of it. (I still do)

Kyle Isaac
>>144662080

I'm a part time Knowles enjoyer as I think it lends perspective to some of my more libertarian thinking. While I know he is pretty solidly to the right, I don't recall him advocating going back to monarchy.

Heidi Victoria Saglund

Thank you for this very important summary of your always well formulated thoughts. It's always baffled me how some will rebuke truth with no hesitation, but I guess a part of it is perhaps fright of change and the continuous evolution of human kind. Some timeframes involve so much change that it truly scares some who wishes for status quo to stay as is a bit longer, even when they may be otherwise intelligent, especially the exodus of religion as we've seen in the last decades. That's my two cents at least. I guess to follow all these changes of continuous science improvements, you have to have a certain level of, if not intelligence, at least a sence of great intellectual abilities.

Dallas Johnson

Ryan. At this moment. I want you to know that I hope I see every video you make for the rest of my life.

rchapman
>>144666960

I think that's the nicest thing I've seen someone say about my work. Thank you! Stick around, and I hope I won't disappoint.

Kaerakh
>>144662080

Dailywire Backstage May 22, 2024 and he also said so on his own personal show.

Justin

I guess I’m going to be the one who believes that you have some flaws with your analysis here. So I’m going to list them. 1. You speak about academia is somehow modernist in its thinking (e.g. methodical, scientific almost, and careful). Are you speaking about academia in a previous period? I’ve taught at several universities across the country, and most academics are post-modernist. I’m just thinking about one conversation where a colleague told me, “not everyone believes the Culture Revolution in China was a bad thing.” He is a co-author of a million dollar NSF grant for math education. The only departments that have a majority of faculty with modernist philosophies seem to be mathematics and physical science departments. But that’s changing too. In one email at a prestigious university, the mathematics chair sent out an email skewering an Oregon State math initiative where the pamphlet says, among other things, “Mathematics is not objective”. It got scorn from the professors. The graduate students were angry at the professors for lampooning it. What island in academia are you living on that still has illusions for chasing after “objective truth”? 2. Have you read Jacques Ellul’s “Propaganda”? I think that this text would be worth your time to create a video on. I know people, like the commenter you mentioned in this video, conflate propaganda with lies. Ellul pushes back on this idea. Even Goebbels knew not to tell lies; it would only lead people to distrust you once they found out. Propaganda is about creating the environment for which the beliefs you’ve instilled into the population are never wrong. This procedure is done by spinning facts, “educating” people, and setting up a meta narrative. It’s worth a read. 3. You use the word “they” a lot in this video to correspond to supposed right-wing conspiracy believers. You seem to attack the premises of weakest conspiracy believers to generalize to a wider population. Is there nothing that the right-wing is correct about? Have you read John Perkins’ “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man”? Have you read John Burnham’s “The Managerial Revolution”? I could go into more detail, but Perkins clearly shows where our government has used convert ways to manipulate other countries to do the United States’ interests abroad. Burnham show the mechanism for which power moves from elected officials to the bureaucrats in all forms of government. 4. Jean-François Lyotard’s definition of post-modernism seems to be primarily taking a skeptical view on everything. However, he isn’t telling the other half of this story, otherwise he would just have the mindset of ancient skeptics like Pyrrho. After skepticism, the post-modernist re-order their world usually with a radically different perspective. Look at Marx, Feminism Critical Race Theory, or Queer Theory, You can see this circumstance play out in Paul Ernest et al, “Philosophy of Mathematics Education.” The first chapter lays out a very skeptical viewpoint, which is followed by chapter after chapter of philosophy informed by Paulo Freire’s “The Pedagogy of the Oppressed”. Lastly, you conclude as empiricist with your claim that science is the only way to “know” something. Do you not think that rationalism has a valid way to “know” something? However both of these -isms are modernist in some way. It seems to make out that you are modernist and empiricist. Even if you can conclude all knowledge can be derived through experiments and reason, it still doesn’t inform a person on what to study. Is it better to find the number of grains of sand on a beach or cure a particular type of cancer? Modernism had its massive faults because it doesn’t tell us where to find the Truth. It only claims “to know it when it sees it”.

Jerame

You draw an interesting parallel between post modernism and modern conspiracy theories. You failed to mention one key difference, and it ties back to your previous video a bit. Western culture seems to be on a decline in terms of general effectiveness. It is emotionally easier to fall into the traps of conspiracy then it is to accept the level of incompetence we have seen in recent years. This is best illustrated with what has recently happened with the attempted assassination off Trump. You basically have to accept one of three broad categories. 1. What is supposed to be the best law enforcement agency in the country failed to secure an obvious vantage point less then 200 yards from where Trump would be speaking. 2. The deep state wants Trump dead and the gunman was inteiniontally allowed to shoot at Trump. 3. The Trump campaign faked an assignation attempt to improve Trump's popularity. Now 1. Is the most logical and seems obvious to people who have been paying attention to modern trends. 1. is also the most terrifying. If 2 and 3 are true most people aren't in danger. Only those who pose a threat to the conspiracy. That puts us in control. With 1 being true, that level of incompetence puts us all at danger. As you pointed out these arguments are anti-intellectual. That is because they aren't cognitive in nature at all. They are emotionally based. That is why it's so hard to change the minds of conspiracy theorist. They don't think the theory is true they FEEL that it is. No matter how well prepared you are you can't logic someone out of their emotions. I leave you with my all time favorite quote. "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -Isaac Asimov

rchapman
>>144669993

Hey, I appreciate your response, and here's my response to your notes. 1) I think you're describing a wing of academia that is not the wing I dealt with in my video (except for the part where I talked about postmodernism spreading after the French wave). If you're saying modernism and the pursuit of objective truth doesn't exist anymore, then I think you're being too cynical. Which, for example, of my sources in my WWII piece were not modernist? Who were the postmodernist writers there? Take John Toland's biography on Hitler - how do you not call that a modernist text? So, if you're asking what island of academia I live on, that's the island. It's a good one! I'd also add that from my experience it's larger than you might think. 2) I have not read Ellul's book, but it sounds like a good one if I were to research propaganda more. The idea that lies and propaganda are conflated is something that the commentors that I cited seemed to believe, but it's not something I believe myself and isn't crucial to the main points made in my video here. 3) I'm not saying conspiracy theorists on the right are all in one basket, or that they don't have nuanced arguments, or that they aren't right on some points. This video was dealing with a specific trend in right-wing populist thought that I think these comments did a good job exemplifying. It's a trend of thought that discards anything it doesn't like with simple labeling and posits its own truth without modernist rigor. It's a specific type of conspiracy theorist. I know I may not have picked the most eloquent of them, but I'm picking from YouTube comments and did not want to highlight real life figures for the sake of minimizing drama. I also said at the end that the lack of modernism in their thinking meant they couldn't establish whether or not what they were saying was actually true (is there actually a conspiracy?). Of course, it's possible there actually is one, they just have methodology that inhibits their investigation of it. 4) In my experience the French postmodernists were primarily skeptical. They weren't constructive themselves. It's even in his own definition, which I highlighted. People inspired by them afterwords were more constructivist, but I considered that outside the scope of this video. After all, I explained postmodernism in something like 2 or 3 minutes. 5) I think rationalism and empiricism come together in modernism, as a broad label. You observe and reason as a modernist, and don't just purely do one or the other. I think that's what makes them modernist in a way, as you said. I'm not sure I see your point about modernism not helping you find what to study. I think I could make the argument that it does and could. You could look for subjects at random, or you could use your experience to guide you, and reason, and bounce your reasoning and experience against that of others. I'm also not sure I get your last sentence about modernism not knowing where to find the truth. The truth about what? If you answer that, as I just was saying you could with modernism (say you decide to learn whether or not the world is getting warmer on average) then you could again use modernism as a method to try to ascertain that truth.

Jerame
>>144669993

I had to double check that this was a member only video. Point 3 would make me think you haven't watched many of Ryan Chapman's videos. He has actually been very meticulous in his work about keeping his personal political ideology out of the discussion. Watch his first video on post-modernism for instance. That video sounds very much "right winged" while this video feels more left. So, it feels odd to me that you would ask "Is there nothing that the right-wing is correct about?". While this video focuses on a particular segment of right leaning conspiracy theories, most of the analysis applies well across the spectrum. On a side note, there seems to be an accusation of straw manning here as well. I'd be curious to know what you think about as the steel man of conspiracy theories? He didn't even bring up reptilians once. (This was much to my disappointment. I love me some David Icke.)

Jordan Friendshuh

So I'm confused what they have objections to in your video on world war II. I watched it and it was amazing and very clear cut and it didn't seem to have any obviously political triggers in it. What am I missing here?

Lina

I don't remember whether I commented on your video about the beginnings of WW2 or not, but I was a little let down by it I must admit. I have researched the topic quite heavily myself over many years. I am German and what I learnt in school didn't quite match what I was told by my grandparents. Interestingly one side of my grandparents was Jewish Germany and the other "regular" Germans, one living in a large city that was heavily bombed, one side living very rural. I have read a lot of German newspapers and magazines from the 1910s to 1940s both from left and right wing oriented sources and drew a lot of my conclusions from those, combined with what my grandparents told me about those times. The reason why your perception of the origins of WW2 seems to differ so much from mine, I assume might be because of your research being (probably) limited to resources in English. Now the topic of this video becomes interesting. Personally, I agree with parts of both the modernist approach as well as the post-modernist critique of the modernist approach. I do believe that we as humans are always at least a little biased. But at the same time, I think it is in our best interest to reflect on an try to overcome that bias as much as we can. However, I also believe that governments, activists, companies etc don't usually have that goal but rather seek to sell us a certain product, opinion or narrative. I mean, the Nazis themselves were incredibly successful with their propaganda. And so were the Sovjets and all other parties involved. I also believe that the winner strongly frames history. So my point is, that even if you as an individual seek out to research an impartial, unbiased view on the origins of WW2, you can only do as good of a job with that as the authors of your source material succeeded as being impartial and unbiased themselves. But this is the very point that I personally see the issue with. Since the first and second WW both were full of propaganda from all sides, there is such a lack in good material to base anything on. Anyways, I still really appreciate your attempt as I find this topic to be one of the most emotionally loaded ones in history.

rchapman
>>144682402

Hey Lina, thanks for the thoughtful writeup. It's definitely a controversial subject, and that's probably more true in Germany than anywhere. Can you tell me specifically what you think I got wrong about it?

Justin
>>144669993

Hi Ryan! Thank you for your time. I appreciate your response. I didn’t realize that this particular video was just a response to comments from your World War II video only. John Toland’s biography was written nearly 50 years ago. I was commenting more on the current state of academia. I’m sorry I haven’t watched your World War II video. Mostly it’s because I have been focused on the history of philosophy. Lastly, I wish we could have a beer and discuss the issues I see in a purely modernist perspective with you. I enjoy your videos.

Justin
>>144669993

Hi Jerame. I am a member. I have watched the Post-Modernism video. I’m sorry if you don’t feel like that comes off, but pure modernism has its flaws too. Let’s do a right-wing strawman argument. Let’s talk about the suppression of the NY Post Hunter Biden laptop story. It is clear that all major social media platforms (Twitter and Facebook) blocked it from going to the public before 2020 election. After Elon Musk took over Twitter, Matt Taibbi went through their internal documents. It was found that the Twitter staff discussed this laptop story. They were fed a scenario from federal intelligence officials that there may be a Russian disinformation campaign regarding Hunter Biden’s laptop months before the story broke. Later, after the story finally grew some legs, an October 2020 Politico story summarize it best, “More than 50 former senior intelligence officials have signed on to a letter outlining their belief that the recent disclosure of emails allegedly belonging to Joe Biden’s son ‘has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation’”. To this day, the FBI has not denied that the reported contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop were false. In fact, in the recent cases against Hunter Biden, the FBI has confirmed some of the content. This story came out days before the election, but it was spun by the media, suppressed by social media, and its validity was put into question by dozens of former government experts. I would consider it election manipulation. However, talking about strawman, the media consistently conflates someone this story with other stories about ballot boxes being stuffed or going missing. It makes you look like a January 6th rioter. In another comment, you mentioned that America is in an age of decline. I think you are right. So I don’t know whether we are seeing the “chinks in the armor” because of the decline, or because people with integrity and honesty don’t find their way to positions of power in our country.

Tanner Hagen

My brother is starting to believe every conspiracy under the sun (911, JFK assignation, deep state altered election, moon landing, ect.). I think it’s more of I’m going to uncritically digest every anti-establishment narrative. It works like a cult where they have mental shortcuts to dismiss opposition releasing themselves of the burden of engagement. Scientology use SP (suppressive person) to categorically dismiss anything outside itself (radical left call you fascist, radical right TDS, fake news, deep state, ect.). David Irving has the same modality of thought if you read his trial when confronted by historians where he tried to rewrite history on WW2 . It’s cult brain that posses fanaticism on both sides of the spectrum. What’s most baffling to me is why someone who possesses that kind of mentality even watch your well thought out videos when that’s not their bag? People are interesting.

Tyler
>>144672493

I'm not sure this negates the point of Ryan's video... but this is a really good point that's 100% part of the equation on conspiracy theories. The truth of the conspiracies is almost always pure incompetence on the part of the government... but even while both sides can bash government performance on particular issues, they put these blinders up when it comes to ackowledging the broadscale incompetence. I think you're right that fear is the main factor here. It's just too scary to admit that the whole system is so fragile, and easier/somewhow comforting(?) to imagine a competent bad guy.

The Man

God Ryan, this video dropped at the perfect time. I wish I could yap forever in this comment sections but I'll give you a couple of my own. I will be drawing a lot from author Anne Applebaume, of Autocracy INC. As I think it's an amazing read, and has inspired me (alongside all of your content) to start making informative video essays myself. (Research takes forever!) 1) To directly address the quote cited at the end, this movement is not one that appeals to people who can't tell truth from fiction, it's one specifically made to obfuscate the political landscape into such a fashion 2) While the sentiment in your comments shared are definitely real, the actual comments themselves cannot be trusted. I tried to not take the conspiratorial angle on this, just because I know how bad it looks when tankies on the left and all the maga party on the right do it, but russian bot comments look exactly like the ones you posted. Call something out as misinformation (regardless of being pro or anti russia) and/or in anyway undermine the viewers confidence in the content they just watched 3) Humans just aren't tailored for truth and critical thinking, while we are capable of it. IT IS AN IMPOSsIBLE ASK of people to fact check, or even think through the content they watch. We watch what makes us feel good, and for a lot of us, people who present themselves as truthful or factual is all we need considering we're not going to fact check them. 4) FInal point all though I could yap all day: Pessimism, apathy, the feeling that you can't do anything about corrupt media and corrupt institutions and corrupt elites is a sentiment, HEAVILY CURATED by the ongoing cyber attack happening against US and democracies. Ideally, President's and all elected officials would concern themselves not just with current culture war issues, but protecting and re inforcing the cheques and balances in governments. While the media and even us government are going to need heavy overhauling and re in-forcing of institutions to be able to provide quality information to the public, I think a lot of this could've been avoided had people actually known how they're own government even works. IF there's anything that should be established into a federal curriculim, it the roles and responsibilities of government. I'm talking 3 years of middle school

Lee-Larsen

Hi Ryan, thank for the quick thought. I think this topic deserves much more attention. It is both extremely interesting and important... and also really complicated when you dig a little deeper. How come that more and more people claim things are fake (fake news, staged videos, content must be AI-generated and stated motivations must be false)? Linked, I believe, is the question of trust on a larger scale. Why are we losing trust in each other and to an even larger degree our institutions? I think a good, well-researched video on this topic could get a lot of traction, as many of us are struggling with these questions.

michael lemos

Wow…everyone here is so articulate. I am center right and those responses are an embarrassment. But truthfully most of “us” think there is a definite slant in academia and our mainstream news organizations. But i love your videos!! Thank you! WWii was excellent

Michael Bracey

Not sure if it’s already been posted here, but I think people are right to criticize anything they perceive as propaganda. Freedom of expression, even if as seen as wrong challenge the current narrative and follows the scientific method. During the Vietnam war, The US government really did conspire against the Vietnamese people and there’s a similar situation with the Israel attack on the USS liberty. There was no evidence people could present at the time even though a conspiracy really did occur

Moritz

On some reflection. I think this video being public and sharable would be a boon.

Tim Elston

Some of my conservative family is conspiratorial like that, and I was reminded recently how progressives can be given to conspiracy theories, too, when it suits their anti-conservative agenda. A friend recently said she thinks the Trump campaign faked the assassination attempt on Trump. Biting my tongue from saying more, I simply said, "I would have to see evidence to believe that." The problem you describe in this video, Ryan, is a serious one. When anti-post-modernists show themselves to be nearly as post-modernist, or more, than their antagonists, it's clear we've had a cultural shift. It reminds me of how modernist the Pentecostal literalism of my upbringing was, even as they railed against "the wisdom of men." These days, those same Christians are more likely to counter scientific knowledge that shows their beliefs to be false, by appealing to the bias of science rather than to the objectivity of scripture.

James Charnley

"Naughty Wikipedia! A search for “Cultural Marxism” on the online encyclopaedia reveals the term has been amended to: “Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory” and is “Part of a series of articles on anti-Semitism.” This is worrying. Since when did cultural Marxism become an anti-Jewish conspiracy theory? The same thing has happened on YouTube. A well-researched video presentation titled “Cultural Marxism by Ryan Chapman has been taken down since the combination of the two words “cultural” and “Marxism” has become verboten. This is a fairly recent development. As lately as 2021 scholarly articles still used the term and one titled “Cultural Marxism, British cultural studies, and the reconstruction of education was posted on the UCLA website and is regularly cited. Looking into why cultural Marxism has become unacceptable on Wikipedia I found that this is largely based on an article by Joan Braune an academic and social justice warrior from Gonzaga University in Spokane. Her article in the Journal of Social Justice, ‘ Who’s Afraid of the Frankfurt School? “Cultural Marxism” as an Antisemitic Conspiracy Theory’ confidently states; “Cultural Marxism does not exist—not only is the conspiracy theory version false, but there is no intellectual movement by that name.” This is a rather sweeping statement particularly as her essay describes cultural Marxism as a term once used by academics to describe the ideas of the Frankfurt school, of which more later. Meanwhile it should be noted that by abasing the original term it is also possible to dematerialise any critique of Marxism and its effect on Western culture. This has worked rather well. The term has been disgraced and then disappeared in the best Newspeak tradition. As Orwell noted : Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum. Orwell was wrong that there would be less words in circulation in the future but was right about the controls that would be imposed. Any deviation from the proscribed vocabulary is to risk cancellation or career suicide. The area of free speech is contested. These days the direction is to limit what can be expressed. Trigger warnings alert viewers to a potential offence or trauma, sensitivity readers are employed to vet books for suspect words and people have lost their livelihoods for speaking out of place. Word crime does not go unpunished and the fiscal penalties can be severe. These restrictions are presented as progress and often taken as such. I am not so sure. We seem to be in an historical moment which has more in common with puritanism or even a totalitarian state.

James Charnley

Hi Ryan and chums,"Naughty Wikipedia! A search for “Cultural Marxism” on the online encyclopaedia reveals the term has been amended to: “Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory” and is “Part of a series of articles on anti-Semitism.” This is worrying. Since when did cultural Marxism become an anti-Jewish conspiracy theory? The same thing has happened on YouTube. A well-researched video presentation titled “Cultural Marxism” by Ryan Chapman has been taken down since the combination of the two words “cultural” and “Marxism” has become verboten. This is a fairly recent development. As lately as 2021 scholarly articles still used the term and one titled “Cultural Marxism, British cultural studies, and the reconstruction of education was posted on the UCLA website and is regularly cited. Looking into why cultural Marxism has become unacceptable on Wikipedia I found that this is largely based on an article by Joan Braune an academic and social justice warrior from Gonzaga University in Spokane. Her article in the Journal of Social Justice, ‘ Who’s Afraid of the Frankfurt School? “Cultural Marxism” as an Antisemitic Conspiracy Theory’ confidently states; “Cultural Marxism does not exist—not only is the conspiracy theory version false, but there is no intellectual movement by that name.” This is a rather sweeping statement particularly as her essay describes cultural Marxism as a term once used by academics to describe the ideas of the Frankfurt school, of which more later. Meanwhile it should be noted that by abasing the original term it is also possible to dematerialise any critique of Marxism and its effect on Western culture. This has worked rather well. The term has been disgraced and then disappeared in the best Newspeak tradition. As Orwell noted : Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum. Orwell was wrong that there would be less words in circulation in the future but was right about the controls that would be imposed. Any deviation from the proscribed vocabulary is to risk cancellation or career suicide. The area of free speech is contested. These days the direction is to limit what can be expressed. Trigger warnings alert viewers to a potential offence or trauma, sensitivity readers are employed to vet books for suspect words and people have lost their livelihoods for speaking out of place. Word crime does not go unpunished and the fiscal penalties can be severe. These restrictions are presented as progress and often taken as such. I am not so sure. We seem to be in an historical moment which has more in common with puritanism or even a totalitarian state.

James Charnley

Damn, I can't introduce and explain my post above. I think I may have run out of space. Basically, it is the opening paragraphs from a longer article of mine called "Indelible Marx". The article and its conclusions are relevant to some of the points you make. I would not use the term 'populism" quite so readily. There is a cultural hegemony that owns academia and is having a huge influence on our construction of reality. The recognition of this cannot be dismissed as populism. Also, just because something is popular doesn't make it bad.

Nikola Tasev

I believe there is a simpler explanation - basic tribalism. During the bad old times it didn't matter who was right or wrong, the most important thing was who was on your side and people had to support their tribe no matter what. Otherwise they risked losing the protection of the tribe. Joining another tribe was, if not impossible, then difficult and people always remained outsiders. War was the ultimate arbiter, and it did not decide who was right, only who was left. Tribalism was on the decline the last few decades, but with the increasing polarization and radicalization of people, with more armed and political conflicts, with more targeted algorithmic adds and social media, it has seen a resurgence. It has become more natural to reject the statements of the "other side", and support unquestionably their own "side". When people take a look at statements they are less likely to try and discern if the statement is true or false, but if it supports "our side" and thus the person is "one of us". The comments you showed were not pointing out factual errors, they were not debating merits. I've seen more people on all sides outright reject arguments because they were "propaganda" - what the other side was saying. And therefore, they must be false, and opposed. As a result of this I've seen far more obviously false statements from all sides, because otherwise easy corrections were rejected with hostility.

Alfred Jaremko Young

This isn't just on the right by any means! In fact one of the comments you highlighted accused you of being "mainstream western propaganda" - probably this did not come from someone on the western right. Is it even new or just enjoying new popularity? I'm not totally convinced this thing you are describing is in competition with modernism - is it capable of producing knowledge or more just a reflection of western knowledge-producing institutions failing?

Ma

As an artist I have used the fall of modernism as my main source of inspiration. Not that i dislike modernism, but more that it was one of the most vehement movements and yet, in art and design and architecture, now it is as nothing more than an aesthetic. I do however see some value in the post modernist thought. There is a lot of groupthink and mob mentality in much of what we believe to be true. If you keep asking 'why' down through the stack of answers you are given to many things, you often get to something that is just believed. Sometimes a 'best guess' but not objective truth. So I can see where the post modernists 'lived reality' makes at least some sense. Many theories hold what seems to be truths, but when you tie your flag to one theory or ideal, that is when things start to unravel. Life, the physical world and human interactions and thoughts are all more complex than we will ever understand. We need to be open to that. If we are truely scientific (or as Ryan described as modernist thinking) we need to be open to our previous conclusion being wrong when new material is presented. I think that is part of what Ryan is describing, when new thoughts conflict with old thoughts, so some people are comfortable clinging to the old and familiar.

Thaddeus Harvey

I have appreciated all of the videos you have created so far and I have learned a lot so far. I would love to get some more of your take on what effects financial influence has had on politics throughout, both in the contemporary context but also particularly during the times of the robber barons before fair trade ant-trust laws were put into place. I think there is a distrust of “elites” oftentimes because of how far reaching their financial influence certainly was in the past (one could mention the the Rockefeller and Rothschild dynasties to name just a couple of the more obvious family names) and how those sort of factors may have seriously related to outcomes that were not in the the best interests of world citizens at the time…

Gyavira Tuz

Is modernism related to dialectics

PJAD

Hi Ryan, congrats on the huge number of viewings of the WW2 piece on YouTube. :) Regarding this piece, I was surprised. I watched it a few days ago, so I might be mis remembering, but why do you assume the comments saying "lies and propaganda" were from those on the right? Probably more importantly, have a check to see if the posters might be bots. Apart from that, a few of my thoughts on your analysis. Yes it's shocking that if these are people, they have moved to such shifting sand. I believe moral relativism is generally clearly not a good philosophy to build one's life on, let alone families, communities and nations. How can people agree and cooperate if there is not a common understanding of what is right and wrong based on some objective standards. What many call "wokeness" is to me relativism gone further. Although modernism as you've described it is a much better framework, we are still in trouble it appears - academia coming up with obvious nonsense. An example that shocked me and speaks to me about the loss of trust in academia. There was a "monk debate" featuring Jordan Peterson and others. The topic was around "political correctness". It wasn't that much of a "debate" really, but the bit that shocked me most was one of the guys on the opposite team to Jordan. He was an african american academic. He was trying to explain why white people today should be made to suffer for the sins of the whites before them who enslaved and mistreated african americans. It came out as almost unintelligible, and he couldn't practically explain how such a thing might be done - in fact he was kind of stubbornly saying he didn't need to, that we will just sock it to you. At one point just said "you are just an angry white man". Jordan pulled him up about why he inserted "white". No answer. It just demonstrates that academia can get very lost. I'll close my rather unorganised thoughts with a quote from Jesus - "You shall know them by their fruit". That is, you can tell whether something is good or bad by the fruit it produces. Some trees look or sound good, but the fruit isn't peace, community, understanding, humility, forgiveness, cooperation, moving forward, etc. It's division, bitterness, anger, resentment, pride, anger, and so on.

Mathieu St-Louis

Ya.. they’re just anti intellectual’s. Nothing new but with the internet they managed to group together and share information ( or misinformation more accurately) and organize. Making them feel empowered.

TM. Carte

We all hear the media’s narrative over and again. Those who continue to engage consume the information as fact and truth (Arendt), and they (fact and truth) become all the evidence (a passive methodology) needed to know anything on that topic or at all. It’s like their echo chamber is their own (illusion of) personal research center or think tank … they think they have sourced knowledge, evidence that, obliterating their individuality, makes up the totality of their experience. When all the operative vectors of society are control by the tentacles of one political entity, the engaged masses adopt a totality of experience. It’s a view, I’ve also been slowly coming under the Influence.

Adriana Felix

Best of Luck Ryan, thank you for your constant improvement. Excited to hear about France and from you soon.

Mathew Wright

This was very helpful! I love the Hannah Arendt quote!

Elizabeth

Ryan, I'm writing this long after you posted the video - I am a new supporter. Your remarks to some outrageous comments are amazingly careful, balanced and thoughtful - a quality in you I highly admire (I, myself, am far more reactive to truly stupid statements). I have some things to say about your characterization of "modernism," but I really should watch your video on the subject before I make any comments. Basically, though, the philosophical reaction to modernism turns on criticisms of the claim to objectivity in research, and that critique was well-put. We now understand that there is no pure, universal standpoint that a scholar can adopt, and that all learning is necessarily perspectival and embedded in a place, time and particular context. To that extent, what is sometimes called "post-modernist" attempts to improve upon the modern standpoint in the direction of higher accuracy and greater awareness and honesty. But what is going on with the kind of comments you have received has nothing to do with the critique of the claim to objectivity. It is overtly political, and is a blatant attempt, I believe, to intimidate other viewers. It is violent speech, meant to silence thoughtful voices. I think we need to both censure and combat this tendency. It is dangerous, and it is becoming more powerful. From what I have seen of your work so far, you strike me as someone who would be very uncomfortable calling people out, but, personally, I think these people need to be called out. Just how to do that without provoking more of the same is something I haven't yet worked out, but I think it's something we who want sane, thoughtful dialogue need to give some thought to. Anyway, I do appreciate your work, and the gentle, thoughtful approach you take to it. Elizabeth Morton

Vincent Gerochi

It’s very interesting—this Leftist narrative. The Left is the champion of trans/gay, minority, immigrants, the poor, mothers, women, and any marginalized group’s rights. We NEED this counterbalance against the Right’s proclivity to sterilize the political landscape in the name of order. Unfortunately, the Left has used the moral landscape as a sort of *shield* to insulate itself from virtually any criticism, because “they are on the right side of history,” their cause is just. Therefore, whatever they’re doing is justified. This line of reasoning is what makes the Left’s position so powerful, no matter how devoid of logic it may seem—because if you argue against them, you are arguing against morality itself. The most sinister effect of the Left’s abuse of moral superiority is that it has synthesized the opposite extreme, where there was none to begin with. It was almost as if the Left has made their imaginary enemy come to life. The back peddling and removal of trans rights and the way the general public views immigrants are just a few major examples.

k4rrjin
>>183469641

In effect what you are saying is: their ends justify ALL their means to get there. And where they want to get is such an allegedly morally and ethically superior goal, that everyone has to submit or face the wrath of the mob, their psychological and physical violence. I wish humans would have actually learned from history, because this pattern is not new… guess who else was on a mission for a “better world” and was willing to oppress, silence and industrially eradicate human beings for their allegedly “better world”? This similarity is uncanny, the pattern and thought process is exactly the same, as is the self-understanding and self-legitimizing of the heinous acts of violence. The “horseshoe” is complete, the 60s new-left and the radical-postmodernists have completed the philosophical and ideological journey over into the darkest realms of human history. The answer back then was human rights and the untouchable human dignity - in effect, no idea no matter how “worthy” is allowed to be placed above human rights, freedom and liberty. It seems we have forgotten all about that, so we are doomed to live thru it again.