Clueless in Washington: “Crippled Epistemology” of the Mainstream Academic Research on Alt Media

You may also like...

8 Responses

  1. simon says:

    To the point. Mirrors my perception of > 90 % of psychology articles I had to read during my studies. Seems like common, intuitive knowledge is to be desperately dug up from an overconceptualized mind…and the spades don’t go deep enough.

    Maybe somewhat besides the point: I keep wondering about the ‘scientific dictatorship’ that is often invoked as a menace that will put us all under the yoke (not referrng to engineering and biotechnology of course, but the social sciences). Given the flawed methodology (arbitrary polls/questionnaires, no truly qualitative analysis), do you think any of the truy effective strategies that are used in advertising, opinion-forming or what may be subsumed under ‘social engineering’ in general truly emerged from academia? Sometimes I cannot but think that the latter only serves as a front (and of course indoctrination machinery) and that truly world-shaking ‘knowledge’ in this regard is either more ancient or developed outside of anything resembling a public or private university. Then again, maybe it’s just that the social research is so incredibly dumb these days because they’re desperately trying to come up with something new to keep all those departments going…

    • Malić says:

      Sometimes I cannot but think that the latter only serves as a front (and of course indoctrination machinery) and that truly world-shaking ‘knowledge’ in this regard is either more ancient or developed outside of anything resembling a public or private university. Then again, maybe it’s just that the social research is so incredibly dumb these days because they’re desperately trying to come up with something new to keep all those departments going…

      More or less what I think, too. I see no definite answer is it all by design or by accident.

    • Ante says:

      ” Seems like common, intuitive knowledge is to be desperately dug up from an overconceptualized mind…”

      Funny how at the same time opposite is true as well: Common and obvious is being desperately “debunked”, people coming up with convoluted explanations why what is happening in front of our eyes for all the world to see is in fact not happening at all.

  2. Coco C. says:

    Regarding Dugin, Russian globalism/nationalism, Eurasianism (…) in context of current political affairs, I am not fully sure on your position regarding role that Russia and Putin play on the geopolitical “stage” versus the role played by American/Atlantist’s (…) imperialism.
    I would say there are 3 distinct schools of thought or positions on “Russian question”: one is Western liberalism etc, is not perfect but far the best system and anyone questioning it better look at North Korea cause everything else leads straight to communist hell etc etc.
    Second is: they are all the same, all superpowers are just that- they only look for power and in their schemes they crush everyone else that stands in the way etc etc.
    The third is: neocons/globalists’/imperialist (…) hold the power in the USA and have operative plans to take full control over the world, to put puppet governments in every place where there any prospect of misalignment of lines of power and in that way create unipolar world with all beautiful post-humanist, world government agendas etc. etc. Russia and China or any other country is attacked not because of their lack of regard for human rights, expansionism or any other official reason, but purely because any independent and strong country is seen as threat *as such*.
    There is of course Russian imperialism but it is primarily put in check by Putin, since he is able to control extremist tendencies in Russia, but he himself *is not* such extremist and doesn’t hold Duginsit view´s, on contrary, most probably Putin and most around him recognize him as dangerous lunatic and extremist.
    I believe there are sufficient reasons to believe that the 3rd one is the most accurate one, while “leveling up” current official Russian policy (i.e. Putin) with the neocon ideology put in operation on so many levels is not true and is injustice to role that Putin plays.
    Of course Putin is not perfect and bla bla but role that plays his “assertive patriotism” defending legitimate goals from legitimate “sphere of influence” is in no way comparable to neocon/imperial agenda that is current mainstream in west.
    The moment Dugin really takes hold of Kremlin, that moment we could say there is no difference between USA/Russia, maybe Russia even worse (under Duginism). But for now, it seems Putin is the agent that holds balance since he cannot openly attack or ban extremists in his yard. Hence, he tolerates them and maybe allows them also to serve some purposes, but well, that´s pragmatism that cannot be avoided.
    So basically, by equalizing assertiveness of Russian geo-politics under Putin with exceptionalism of neocon/imperialistic kind, we claim there is no legitimate sphere of interests that any nation, big or small should hold.
    I think a lot depends on the above 3 options, since many narratives are just variation of them,
    just as an example, this guy, many seemingly good points but whole story revolves around proving his view on the one of above 3 options (guess which one..):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdkfEKOVaFc

    • Malić says:

      There’ll be a full analysis of Dugin’s “Foundations of Geopolitics” and I’ll address some of those issues there.

      Inače, upravo sam slušao Valsana kad sam vidio komentar. Mislim da bi bilo dobro da pročitaš “Osnove geopolitike” (ima na Scribdu) i raspitaš se o popularnosti te knjige u ruskoj javnosti. Jednom kad pročitaš knjigu sa svješću da je ona ne samo još uvijek jedan od standardnih udžbenika ruske vojske nego i apsolutni bestseler iz devedesetih, dakle standardno štivo u ruskom narodu, bojim se da ćeš morati malo revidirati svoje stavove.

      Inače, taj “legitimni utjecaj” čini Rusiju “regionalnom državom” što Dugin definira kao “državu koja ima ograničeni utjecaj u određenoj regiji”, za razliku od prculjak države kao, primjerice, Hr koja nema nikakav utjecaj. Po njegovom mišljenju, Rusija ne smije to postati niti u jednom trenutku, jer će na taj način izgubiti šansu da postane središte globalnog Eurazijskog carstva. Tu je potpuno beskompromisan i da misli o Putinu što i ti, bio bi mu smrtni neprijatelj. Stoga on očigledno pretpostavlja da je “legitimni utjecaj” (što god to značilo) samo prijelazna faza prema Carstvu, a ne ozbiljna politika. To je, dakle, u njegovim očima samo varka prema Zapadu.

      Naravno, možemo ga otpisati kao radikala kojeg vlast ne shvaća preozbiljno. Ali ne zaboravi da ga ne možemo otpisati kao budalu. Stoga mi je sve upitnija ta priča o “Rusiji kao faktoru stabilnosti”.

      • coco chanel says:

        Ako uzmem samo svoj primjer, kad sam prvi puta cuo Dugina njegova kritika liberalizma i opcenito danasnjeg Zapada i projekta Atlantisa, to mi je zvucalo kao da je upravo sisao sa svemirskog broda, praciznost, originalnost i svjezina koja se tesko moze naci u vec podosta ofucanim ljevicarskim kuloarima koji se odavno utapaju u vlastitoj impotentnosti. Medjutim, na srecu ili na zalost, prerano sam naisao negdje, ne znam vise tocno od kuda je bio taj clanak prenesen na fejs, sa nekog od portala halter ili tako neki, prikaz 4. teorije kao recenzija knjige, Odmah sam prepoznao da je njegova 4. teorija zapravo samo varijacija na temu sotonjarskog “puta prociscenja” od “ljudskih slabosti” i to mi je bilo veliko razocarenje. Primarno zato jer, kao i mnogi drugi, nakon vrlo kvalitetne kritike svih izama 20 stoljeca, nije uspio iznjedrit nista drugo nego tu kvazi misticnu papazjaniju umotanu u celofan “nove politicke teorije”. Dakle, Dugin je prvenstveno primjer “prokockane sanse” jer ima nevejerojatan kapacitet koji se iskazuje u vrlo kvalitenim observacijama o liberalizmu i, takodjer, o atlanticizmu koji je itekako stvaran. Medjutim, kao i kod svakog ultra-kontaminirajuceg otrova za infiltraciju umova, u tu potentnu smjesu vrsnih sadrzaja ubacen je virus pan-slavizma i cijeli pazljivo konstruirani spin prema izazivanju kaosa. Tako on efektivno prelazi na tu tamnu stranu, bez obzira tj, usprkos ogromnom potencijalu. Sve u svemu steta i zalosno sve skupa,
        Koliko ce sve to zahvatiti ili vec je zahvatilo kao sastavni dio ruskog establishemnta ostaje da se vidi, u svakom slucaju sam Zapad cini sve da, sto svjesno sto nesvjesno, gurne Rusiju sto dalje od sebe i sto blize bezdanu istocne verzije exceptionalizma.

        • Malić says:

          Stvar je u tome što je negdje od 2005. Putin prihvatio eurazijanističku retoriku i što se, okvirno, drži nekih načela te doktrine kada govori o ulozi Rusije u svjetskoj politici. Kad pročitaš Duginove “Osnove geopolitike” postane ti jasno koliko je to zlokobno. Mesijanska geopolitika se razvila u dijalektici anglosaksonskih i kontinentalnih “geografskih proroka” i Dugin se 100% uklapa u Huntingtonov sukob civilizacija. Kako H. želi ujediniti Zapad protiv “ostalih”, tako neo-eurazijci žele ujediniti “ostale” protiv Zapada. To su dva pogleda na globalni svjetski poredak od kojih je jedan “manifest destiny” dok je drugi “ideokracija” za koju Dugin kaže da je imala prve, na žalost nepotpune, korake u pokušaju “svjetske revolucije” (Trocki) i “globalnog Reicha” (zna se tko). Ako moram birati između to dvoje, onda nema Boga. A budući da Ga ima … srednji prst i jednima i drugima.

  3. Jeanette says:

    Information processing is not the only or the highest function of the mind. Simple minded data collection and arrangement could even be construed as a mental illness, unless of course an academic does it while indoctrinating a group of I phone users.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *