"whereas the real task of the social sciences is to explain those things which nobody wants – such as, for example, a war,"
I can't believe Popper actually said that. No one ever wants war? Ever?!
I can't believe that's just stupidity. I'm not a smart person and even I know that's nonsense; and i don't doubt Karl Popper was more intelligent than I am. I know he wasn't even the main subject of the article but holy cow. The differentiation between ideologue and polemicist was spot on.
The perifidiousness on that yid must've been staggering.
I'm excited for your new book. I'll have to finish reading Conspiracy Theories once intolerant interpretations comes out. Great article.
If only you got rewarded in this life for being the smartest. No such luck. The title of Elite Human Capital is a consolation prize for being unlikeable.
Overwhelmingly, leftists still believe the Russian spy story of Trump. They also believe deracinated dorky conservatives are nazi white supremacists.
He does what he can to tailor the definition so ‘conspiracy theory’ doesn’t apply to his side, to obfuscate the reality that the left does not hold to truth concerning their enemies; then claims victory: the left is more truthful.
Regime polemics, is correct. The generic ruling formula is “this is why we deserve to be in charge”. That’s all this is. Just another endorsement for “the adults in the room”.
Areas for Improvement or Clarification (from deepseek)
Overuse of Jargon:
While your definitions are clear, the essay occasionally relies heavily on specialized terminology (e.g., "paralogical," "schizoidal disintegration," "agnotology"). While this demonstrates your depth of knowledge, it may alienate readers who are less familiar with these concepts. Consider simplifying or providing additional context for these terms.
Length and Digressions:
The essay is quite long and occasionally digresses into tangential points. For example, the discussion of "magical" or "mythical" conspiracy theories, while interesting, feels somewhat disconnected from the main argument. Streamlining these sections could make your critique more focused and impactful.
Tone and Rhetoric:
At times, your tone veers into ad hominem territory, particularly when you describe Hanania as "deeply cynical and perverse." While your critique of his arguments is robust, personal attacks can undermine your credibility. Focusing on the substance of his ideas rather than his character would strengthen your essay.
Empirical Evidence:
While your theoretical framework is strong, the essay could benefit from more empirical evidence to support your claims. For instance, when you argue that left-wing conspiracy theories are marginalized, providing specific examples or data would bolster your argument. Similarly, when you critique Hanania's characterization of the "Dale Gribble voter," citing polling data or other evidence would make your rebuttal more persuasive.
Balanced Perspective:
Your essay is highly critical of Hanania and regime polemics, but it could benefit from a more balanced perspective. Acknowledging potential strengths or valid points in Hanania's arguments (even if only to refute them more effectively) would demonstrate intellectual rigor and fairness.
Conclusion:
The conclusion feels somewhat abrupt. While you effectively summarize your critique of Hanania, you could end on a more forward-looking note. For example, you might suggest how a more constructive dialogue about conspiracy theories could be fostered or how your framework for understanding conspiracy theories could be applied to other contexts.
Great read. I would agree with Hanania that the right is more "conspiratorial" than the left currently, but as you have implied (and I would assume you elaborate on in your book) this is largely a function of the American political structure. I would also add that the most ridiculous and stupid conspiracy theories are usually believed in by right-wingers. Things like Q anon, flat earth, pedophilic cabal elites, Bill Gates 5g microchip vaccines, etc. have virtually no left-wing adherents.
However, I agree with you that it is ridiculous of Hanania to claim that leftists don't believe in conspiracy theories but are merely "ideologues" who believe in wrong things.
Your argument about how "regime polemicists" like Hanania (and Popper) mistify the relationship between institutions and the people that run them in a way that makes it seem like "things just kind of happen" is also spot on.
Excellent article but I strongly disagree. This isn't a perfect example, but let's take DEI. Conspiracy theory is hyperfocusing on whether this is the Frankfurt school or gnosticism. Non-Conspiracy theory is the actual politics of taking power and stopping dei and putting into institutional power regulations that prevent it from happening and hopefully in the future prosecuting violators. RFK will hopefully be another example of non-conspiracy thinking where instead of a hyper focus on data and theory he will have to come up with concrete standards of action. He will move from conspiracy theorist to politician/regulator.
I respect your disgust of regime polemicists. But one thing I do respect them for is that many actually believe that the current system is the best system possible. And some are honest that that their system requires anti white and man policies.
In the case of RFK we have a guy going from “conspiracy theorist” to political actor. Not sure that really invalidates my argument. I do appreciate the comment and the disagreement though, thanks for reading
Sorry my intention was not to invalidate your argument. My point was to say that often it is better to engage in more political action and less theorizing where you don't get to the legally binding trials and punishments that you mention. In fact, that might be another decent definition for conspiracy theory. It's what people do when they don't have political power
He’s like the irrelevant conservatives, who thought they could afford to sneer at culture and identity, and stick to policy, economics, and the rule of law.
By limiting himself to objectively minded elite human capital, who have no interest in harnessing conspiracy theory, he’s making his imaginary coalition irrelevant. If you can’t deal in the dark arts of superstition, you’re not fit for commanding the nation.
Mere nerds are not fit to lead; they have no mandate. You would think being such a smart objective person would be all the mandate you need, but it isn’t.
Well check out the big brain on Brad! I had to read this twice to fully comprehend all the well analyzed ideas being presented and if I do say myself I am smarter than the average bear. Did you know the founder of the John Birch Society was the inventor of Sugar Daddy and Sugar Babies candied. Watching you and Jeff in bygone days I seem to remember you saying your father was a John Bircher or sympathetic? There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in Richard’s philosophy. You really nailed it in your description of the facile arguments of regime polemicists (shills). I am temporarily impecunious but on plan on buying all your books when I can.
"whereas the real task of the social sciences is to explain those things which nobody wants – such as, for example, a war,"
I can't believe Popper actually said that. No one ever wants war? Ever?!
I can't believe that's just stupidity. I'm not a smart person and even I know that's nonsense; and i don't doubt Karl Popper was more intelligent than I am. I know he wasn't even the main subject of the article but holy cow. The differentiation between ideologue and polemicist was spot on.
The perifidiousness on that yid must've been staggering.
I'm excited for your new book. I'll have to finish reading Conspiracy Theories once intolerant interpretations comes out. Great article.
If only you got rewarded in this life for being the smartest. No such luck. The title of Elite Human Capital is a consolation prize for being unlikeable.
Overwhelmingly, leftists still believe the Russian spy story of Trump. They also believe deracinated dorky conservatives are nazi white supremacists.
He does what he can to tailor the definition so ‘conspiracy theory’ doesn’t apply to his side, to obfuscate the reality that the left does not hold to truth concerning their enemies; then claims victory: the left is more truthful.
Regime polemics, is correct. The generic ruling formula is “this is why we deserve to be in charge”. That’s all this is. Just another endorsement for “the adults in the room”.
Too bad no one believes this anymore.
Areas for Improvement or Clarification (from deepseek)
Overuse of Jargon:
While your definitions are clear, the essay occasionally relies heavily on specialized terminology (e.g., "paralogical," "schizoidal disintegration," "agnotology"). While this demonstrates your depth of knowledge, it may alienate readers who are less familiar with these concepts. Consider simplifying or providing additional context for these terms.
Length and Digressions:
The essay is quite long and occasionally digresses into tangential points. For example, the discussion of "magical" or "mythical" conspiracy theories, while interesting, feels somewhat disconnected from the main argument. Streamlining these sections could make your critique more focused and impactful.
Tone and Rhetoric:
At times, your tone veers into ad hominem territory, particularly when you describe Hanania as "deeply cynical and perverse." While your critique of his arguments is robust, personal attacks can undermine your credibility. Focusing on the substance of his ideas rather than his character would strengthen your essay.
Empirical Evidence:
While your theoretical framework is strong, the essay could benefit from more empirical evidence to support your claims. For instance, when you argue that left-wing conspiracy theories are marginalized, providing specific examples or data would bolster your argument. Similarly, when you critique Hanania's characterization of the "Dale Gribble voter," citing polling data or other evidence would make your rebuttal more persuasive.
Balanced Perspective:
Your essay is highly critical of Hanania and regime polemics, but it could benefit from a more balanced perspective. Acknowledging potential strengths or valid points in Hanania's arguments (even if only to refute them more effectively) would demonstrate intellectual rigor and fairness.
Conclusion:
The conclusion feels somewhat abrupt. While you effectively summarize your critique of Hanania, you could end on a more forward-looking note. For example, you might suggest how a more constructive dialogue about conspiracy theories could be fostered or how your framework for understanding conspiracy theories could be applied to other contexts.
🤓
Hanania is a cockroach. Great essay.
Great read. I would agree with Hanania that the right is more "conspiratorial" than the left currently, but as you have implied (and I would assume you elaborate on in your book) this is largely a function of the American political structure. I would also add that the most ridiculous and stupid conspiracy theories are usually believed in by right-wingers. Things like Q anon, flat earth, pedophilic cabal elites, Bill Gates 5g microchip vaccines, etc. have virtually no left-wing adherents.
However, I agree with you that it is ridiculous of Hanania to claim that leftists don't believe in conspiracy theories but are merely "ideologues" who believe in wrong things.
Your argument about how "regime polemicists" like Hanania (and Popper) mistify the relationship between institutions and the people that run them in a way that makes it seem like "things just kind of happen" is also spot on.
Glad you enjoyed it, thanks for reading
Excellent article but I strongly disagree. This isn't a perfect example, but let's take DEI. Conspiracy theory is hyperfocusing on whether this is the Frankfurt school or gnosticism. Non-Conspiracy theory is the actual politics of taking power and stopping dei and putting into institutional power regulations that prevent it from happening and hopefully in the future prosecuting violators. RFK will hopefully be another example of non-conspiracy thinking where instead of a hyper focus on data and theory he will have to come up with concrete standards of action. He will move from conspiracy theorist to politician/regulator.
I respect your disgust of regime polemicists. But one thing I do respect them for is that many actually believe that the current system is the best system possible. And some are honest that that their system requires anti white and man policies.
That’s a good observation, I’d agree to that definition
In the case of RFK we have a guy going from “conspiracy theorist” to political actor. Not sure that really invalidates my argument. I do appreciate the comment and the disagreement though, thanks for reading
Sorry my intention was not to invalidate your argument. My point was to say that often it is better to engage in more political action and less theorizing where you don't get to the legally binding trials and punishments that you mention. In fact, that might be another decent definition for conspiracy theory. It's what people do when they don't have political power
He’s like the irrelevant conservatives, who thought they could afford to sneer at culture and identity, and stick to policy, economics, and the rule of law.
By limiting himself to objectively minded elite human capital, who have no interest in harnessing conspiracy theory, he’s making his imaginary coalition irrelevant. If you can’t deal in the dark arts of superstition, you’re not fit for commanding the nation.
Mere nerds are not fit to lead; they have no mandate. You would think being such a smart objective person would be all the mandate you need, but it isn’t.
Fantastic analysis. I wish I could see the Banania response (I am blocked.)
Well check out the big brain on Brad! I had to read this twice to fully comprehend all the well analyzed ideas being presented and if I do say myself I am smarter than the average bear. Did you know the founder of the John Birch Society was the inventor of Sugar Daddy and Sugar Babies candied. Watching you and Jeff in bygone days I seem to remember you saying your father was a John Bircher or sympathetic? There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in Richard’s philosophy. You really nailed it in your description of the facile arguments of regime polemicists (shills). I am temporarily impecunious but on plan on buying all your books when I can.
Lol, Richard Banania is a Semitic Woke-Scold.