This is a many headed beast. To kill it, every head has to be severed at once. Good luck with that.
Your quote summarizes my view.
“Who stops revolutions in mid-course? The bourgeoisie.
Why?
Because the bourgeoisie is satisfied self-interest…
I see the issues, and can even suggest ways to improve things. It will never happen, because almost everyone I know sees no reason to support change, as they are doing just fine right now. Unfortunately the only way I see change happening is when every thing collapses, which will be very ugly for everyone.
It seems to me that DEI is just the latest divide and conquer scam perpetrated by the oligarchs upon the lower orders to prevent the latter from noticing their true material interest in unity against their exploiters.
I understand that, but its not really a reformable system. The war Rufo is waging is unwinnable. But to shit on Biden's arsenal of democracy spiel, or the pabulum that is repeated about democracy and vs autocracy. Reading Henry Luce in the FT, or Academy authors writing in CFR rag Foreign Affairs in the current environment (its been a shocker how quickly that thing turned into what it has become) isn't helpful. My interest grand strategy. I find reading academic lit useful (I have no pretenses about being anything more than a midwit hack). There's also great work in history etc being done outside the academy free from ideology and presentism on Substack and Ghost, History Reclaimed has some interesting accessible content, Podcasts are a great source for book recommendations. Evil Poli Sci talks whack sometimes. My next door is a retired Phycsist. So long as he can walk he going to keep working. His research very esoteric and its not going to move the needle in advancing sciences very far, but it will add too material sciences, in however small a way that it does, leading to technological innovation. Context is everything. Generalizations I think should be avoided. If I were Sachs I would have written that most research is only read by a few people has very little benefit, but if we bin it, we have no real criteria (sorry read a piece on the butchering of English and the word criteria is not allowed apparently) to say whats useful and whats not until the work is finished. If that makes sense. Aside from all the usual suspects that got us into the mess we in.
Its interesting to note Adam Smith outlined many of the problems that still exist at universities, so these are not new, their social science theories just got more zany
Science in , there's been work done way ahead of its time, that sits there for years doing nothing, and suddenly someone rediscovers it, and uses it to make big advances. Same with math, Nash Equillibrium is used in a practice in many areas. How does one judge well what science is a waste of time or isn't. Its contingent on what happens in the future.
Sachs I thought threw the baby out of with the bath water with that comment about papers. Depends on discipline imo and within discipline interest. I find theory useful for my interest (Not sociology) Given I am soon to become a paid up sub off yours, you can wager a good guess what my interests are. Often a paper is the backbone of the book (current "must read book" "Underground Empire" an extension Farrell & Newman paper) Its a missable read FWIW. I knew that having read the paper, and even the review of the book was good enough to get a sense of it. Missable but interesting nevertheless. But the paper good enough and saved me time. Often there's debate going on, granted I don't pay for journals, so I only read well after the debate has played out when stuff becomes open access. Following those debates has been to my great benefit I believe.
And certainly academia produces some good things but it is few and far between, and the dominant theories in the humanities are nonsensical and not good for much at all, whereas in science far too many are not at all replicable.
A most excellent piece.
Thanks!
Truly great writing. You have your finger on the pulse of our times and you articulate truths I had glimpsed only dimly. Thank-you.
Thanks!
This is a many headed beast. To kill it, every head has to be severed at once. Good luck with that.
Your quote summarizes my view.
“Who stops revolutions in mid-course? The bourgeoisie.
Why?
Because the bourgeoisie is satisfied self-interest…
I see the issues, and can even suggest ways to improve things. It will never happen, because almost everyone I know sees no reason to support change, as they are doing just fine right now. Unfortunately the only way I see change happening is when every thing collapses, which will be very ugly for everyone.
That is a challenge, is we are more able to stop these lunatics mid course than reverse what they have done
It seems to me that DEI is just the latest divide and conquer scam perpetrated by the oligarchs upon the lower orders to prevent the latter from noticing their true material interest in unity against their exploiters.
Indeed. A tale as old as time.
"Gay was hired for the color of her skin, and fired for the content of their character."
I saw whoever say that too, its a good summary
I understand that, but its not really a reformable system. The war Rufo is waging is unwinnable. But to shit on Biden's arsenal of democracy spiel, or the pabulum that is repeated about democracy and vs autocracy. Reading Henry Luce in the FT, or Academy authors writing in CFR rag Foreign Affairs in the current environment (its been a shocker how quickly that thing turned into what it has become) isn't helpful. My interest grand strategy. I find reading academic lit useful (I have no pretenses about being anything more than a midwit hack). There's also great work in history etc being done outside the academy free from ideology and presentism on Substack and Ghost, History Reclaimed has some interesting accessible content, Podcasts are a great source for book recommendations. Evil Poli Sci talks whack sometimes. My next door is a retired Phycsist. So long as he can walk he going to keep working. His research very esoteric and its not going to move the needle in advancing sciences very far, but it will add too material sciences, in however small a way that it does, leading to technological innovation. Context is everything. Generalizations I think should be avoided. If I were Sachs I would have written that most research is only read by a few people has very little benefit, but if we bin it, we have no real criteria (sorry read a piece on the butchering of English and the word criteria is not allowed apparently) to say whats useful and whats not until the work is finished. If that makes sense. Aside from all the usual suspects that got us into the mess we in.
Its interesting to note Adam Smith outlined many of the problems that still exist at universities, so these are not new, their social science theories just got more zany
Science in , there's been work done way ahead of its time, that sits there for years doing nothing, and suddenly someone rediscovers it, and uses it to make big advances. Same with math, Nash Equillibrium is used in a practice in many areas. How does one judge well what science is a waste of time or isn't. Its contingent on what happens in the future.
Sachs I thought threw the baby out of with the bath water with that comment about papers. Depends on discipline imo and within discipline interest. I find theory useful for my interest (Not sociology) Given I am soon to become a paid up sub off yours, you can wager a good guess what my interests are. Often a paper is the backbone of the book (current "must read book" "Underground Empire" an extension Farrell & Newman paper) Its a missable read FWIW. I knew that having read the paper, and even the review of the book was good enough to get a sense of it. Missable but interesting nevertheless. But the paper good enough and saved me time. Often there's debate going on, granted I don't pay for journals, so I only read well after the debate has played out when stuff becomes open access. Following those debates has been to my great benefit I believe.
Thank you for your interest in my work!
And certainly academia produces some good things but it is few and far between, and the dominant theories in the humanities are nonsensical and not good for much at all, whereas in science far too many are not at all replicable.