[This is the 5th video in the T&T series from The Occidental Observer contributor and scholar Andrew Joyce on the “jewish problem/question“, available at his newly created BitChute channel.
Here Joyce revisits a previous topic and ponders the usefulness of engaging in philosophical musings, while discussing again his differences with Tyler, aka, Thamster.
T & T No 5:
The Return of the
Aug 5, 2020
Click here for the video:
Published on Aug 5, 2020
First published at 19:02 UTC on August 5th, 2020.
My reply to Thamster’s reply. This will be my final comment on the subject.
Please support via BitCoin:
Donate to theoccidentalobserver.net
Hello and welcome to another episode of Talmud and Taboo. This episode is going to be quite brief. It is a reply to a reply.
Tyler, aka, Thamster has replied to Episode 3 of Talmud and Taboo, “Kicking over the Bucket”. The episode that I recorded was quite brief, it was 10 minutes long. It’s difficult to say, because of the simplicity of its message, how it could be misconstrued, but I think it has been misconstrued.
The only criticism that I made against Thamster in that Episode was that he had presented Adorno briefly, as a throw away comment, as a reactionary in music. I produced a few pieces of information which clearly demonstrated that that wasn’t the case. I think that that information is valid and I think that the argument that I made is inarguable. It still stands.
In the broader terms of the Episode the point being made is that you can engage in abstraction, but all you are going to be doing is playing with abstraction, it’s not going to advance much in the political world, or in the real world of action, of improving demographics, of improving culture at large.
Philosophy is a fascinating subject. I have a lot of respect for it. I have a lot of respect for Thamster’s productions in the realm of philosophy. But I do think it has its limits. I think it has its limits with common man. That doesn’t mean that it is utterly pointless, it just means it’s not going to rescue us from this situation.
And in fact in one of Thamaster’s comments, beneath one of my videos, he said that his goal was to advance philosophy. I think that is a noble goal. But that goal ends with that goal. You can advance philosophy all you want, but that is not going to create some kind of revolution in society. That is not how it works.
And ironically enough I think if you look at philosophers, like Nietzsche, this point was made very very explicitly by them. Nietzsche, for example chided the kicking over the bucket philosophy of Zen when he said that man of action of the future will be someone who engages in a woeful forgetfulness. Nietzsche envisaged a man who could empty his mind first in order to act!
And I think while ideas are fascinating and certainly Thamster seems to have taken a very brief 10 minute video with a very simple message in it, it seems like, I hope I’m not being unfair to him here, but it seems that rather than simply see the bucket, he has looked at it in terms of what he can break down and what he can, how he can basically scoop out the intellectual potential of what was a very, very basic podcast.
And perhaps something that you outgrow with age. I went through a phase like that when I was younger, but it has its limits. And I hope that all of you listening to this will understand that an element of action requires an element of forgetfulness, of disentangling yourself from second thoughts, from doubts, you may have.
And when we engage with certain topics, and cultural marxism is one of those topics, they do present a kind of intellectual thicket. And as I said in the first episode it’s not really a matter of intelligence.
When I am asking someone, or when I’m suggesting that in order to act there requires an emptying of the mind to some extent, that is not an anti-intellectual attitude. In fact, you can think intellectually in a “no-think” way, if that makes sense. You can have a structure to your plan of action without over indulging in abstraction.
I hope what I’m saying there is clear. I certainly don’t find the subject of cultural marxism, it’s finer points of theory, to be so interesting that I want to devote a large number of podcast episodes to it, or to speak for one, or two hours, on the subject. It simply doesn’t interest me enough. And also I don’t want to engage in an endless series of exchanges on the subject with someone on my own side. I don’t see the point in needless factionalism over this.
To come back the reason for Episode 3, I had noticed fractions and divisions within the movement with one section of the movement looking at the, I suppose, philosophical Third Positionists, and disdaining them for snobbishness, or a certain level of intellectual conceit.
And on the other side, the intellectual Third Positionists were looking at others as grugg tier wignats who have nothing really valuable to contribute and who should shut up and listen to their intellectual betters!
Both of those sides have a point! But both of them need to just shut up and work together. And when I suggest “kicking over the bucket”, it’s not a condemnation of either side. It’s a call to reconciliation and seeing things for how they are.
And yes, there is room for philosophers in a movement. But the movement should not be a movement of philosophers. And there is room for activists and foot soldiers, and people who are men of action in the movement. But at the same time we should not have a movement consisting solely of such men. We are all part of the same body and until can work together and come together in a positive sense, with a positive vision, we really aren’t going to make any kind of progress, whatsoever.
Which brings me on to a question. And that question has bothered me for, I don’t know, five, six years. Probably ever since the birth of what became known as the “Alt-Right”. The Alt-Right initiated a new departure in our politics because it developed a side to our politics that was based on entertainment.
So we saw a flourishing of podcasts, of memes, of audio-visual products. And the reason for all of this is of course was to create a culture, a White nationalist, Third Positionist, or Alt-Right culture. And that needed cultural expression. So we had music, and as I say, we had even art works and things were being produced. All this is fantastic!
But I have always had the reservation where I wondered if it was not the case that we were degrading somewhat into an entertainment business, or a sphere of the “Entertainment Complex” albeit a niche element within that broader complex. And I’ve always had reservations especially some of the more intellectual content.
And this is an indictment of myself here! I’ve written over 300 essays. Some of them are very, very intellectual, and very, very academic and have all of the apparatus of academic essays, with heavy footnotes and references to multiple texts and what have you.
So I’m not presenting myself, please do not make the mistake of thinking I’m presenting myself as either above all this or outside of it, but looking on and criticizing everyone. That is not the case. If anything it’s an attempt at self critique. I’m trying to examine what I’m doing and asking myself:
“Am I’m doing something wrong here?”
But I’ve been worried that some of this is nothing more than distraction, that we are confusing entertainment with action. That in producing a podcast that is listened to by a few thousand people, that that in itself is a form of achievement, or productive action. And I’ve always been apprehensive in terms of answering that question. I’m still not convinced either way. And perhaps you could let me know in the comments, how you feel, or if you have had similar feeling.
But, for Tyler to have highlighted the fact at the end of my episode “Kicking over the Bucket” that pointed to Heidegger and Schmidt, … Again I think he is making connections that weren’t there, and he is mis-interpreting the very simple message of the podcast. When I’m saying that there are limits to a conference on Heidegger, or a podcast on Schmidt, I think that point is simply inarguable!
There is a limit to the usefulness of such activity. There is a point at which that could be argued to be nothing more than an intellectual entertainment. It doesn’t mean it has no value, but it does mean the in the broader path of progress, those kinds of activities don’t kick over the bucket! They just don’t advance things. They take off to another intellectual cul-de-sac where we can feel comfortable, and feel entertained and feel like we are doing something, but in fact we aren’t, we are just again hitting the brick wall. We are trying to develop, or embellish, or reinterpret what are essentially abstract theories. And actually all of these theories when you break them down are actually quite simple in the end. And anyway they are just loaded with jargon a lot of them.
And I include Heidegger in that. I think Heidegger relies a lot on jargon to embellish what were often very, very simple points, whether it is about technology, or whether it’s about the nature of being. And I suppose their is an argument to be made that philosophy as a whole is about inventing and then breaking down and re-examining jargon. There’s an argument to be made there, that that is the case.
But, that is the point that was being made! It’s no more complex than that. It’s no more controversial than that. And I don’t think that the very simple points that I made which really only two points. One of which was Adorno was not a reactionary in music. The other point is that we shouldn’t confuse entertaining and lively discussions about philosophy for political progress, and nor should we ever do that.
Those points are inarguable! They speak for themselves. So as much as I appreciate Tyler’s reply, that is all I have to say on it. I won’t be engaging in any further discussion. And I think that my points still stand, like concrete! Undisturbed and monolithic and unchanged. And that is just how I see it. But I wish Tyler all the best.
And certainly I encourage everyone to consume his content and I think he is a very intelligent guy with lots of worthwhile [things] to say. And I respect him and will continue to listen to him. I just think that in the broader scheme of things with the debates that have been ongoing, and some of the divisions that are there, that my approach is best. And I’ll stick by that.
Anyway, thanks for listening! I hope that clarifies a few things. And the next episode I think we will return to some history and politics, because I think that is where everyone who is following me really wants to go with this thing.
Anyway, that is all I have to say on the matter!
Thanks for listening, and good bye.
- Total words = xxx
- Total images = xx
- Total A4 pages = xxx
Click to download a PDF of this post (1.0 MB):
Version 1: Aug 6, 2020 — Published post.