The Populist Delusion by Parvini

>Yeah, that's obvious. Why read a whole book about it.
Me with 80% of books.

Hello my fellow AA appreciators

>What populist delusion does he attack?
The delusion of going on a march/protest to the capital and changing policy because you've just shown that many people are angry, more or less.
I'm waiting for it to come by mail to read, then I'll decide if I want to convince a friend of a friend who runs a publishing house to get in touch with the publisher/author and get a translation locally.

The American Extremist is very interesting in a way. When I've read it I kind of thought of it as psychobabble which I didn't like but some of the recent events have made me come back to the idea of the author with extremists being essentially apolitical with their preformative political acts being more of a therapy than anything else.

That might be part of why some people become glowniggers. They have this realization and think that having fed backing can help them achieve their goals for society, which obviously never works out in their favor.

Why did such an obvious thing escape Americans on 6th of January 2021?

I can see that. I mean Hinckley comes to mind. so surreal he's now a rising youtube music star. what universe is this?

I actually knew people involved (don't ask)

I watched it live in a livestream and it was clear in an instant that was a set-up. The cops all ran back from the crowd all at once for no reason and the crowd was just standing there for like a minute. After a while the people gradually all started moving toward the building. They let them in.

some girl I know has been offline for awhile now since that day

Most current academic history focuses on masses. I think most people need to know that both "great man theory" and the extreme focus on collectives are both just theories and methodologies that shoudn't be absolute.

Some people who read military history really do need to read something else imo. Vise-verse also. People who think trade-union history is just as important as what Napoleon did on personal intuition alone are also retards.

just tranny seethe

I read it. Eases you into elite theory, which I had been wanting to read for a while. It's solid. Nothing amazing though. Sorry AA but I didn't purchase it.

Shit theory.

cope

Read Ellul.

Attached: 518zCnExGjL.jpg (295x500, 36.41K)

I'm going to need an epub.

Because the masses are retarded, hence they believe in the populist delusion.

This is retarded. All the elite theory stuff is vague and vacuous. How do large movements of the public, as in for example the beginnings of unrest during the Great Depression or the Civil Rights Movement, not cause substantial political change?

Reminds me of Ellul. He misses the forest for the trees.

most Elite theorist would chalk them up to having some element of government involvement, hence astroturf. of course they're not completely 100% correct as anyone else would be on the subject. not all theories about the social realm are without its exceptions.

>elite theory
>elites control things
WOAH

>example the beginnings of unrest during the Great Depression or the Civil Rights Movement, not cause substantial political change?
There's one thing you're missing. There was a great unrest due to forced racial integration after civil rights was passed and yet it didn't reverse the course - the only way to resolve it was to run away. If the all powerful state decided your neighbourhood needed dem projects you could only move out.
Unrest without elite approval does nothing, it ends up like the mentioned 6th of January 2021, antilockdown protests or yellow vests. The fact of the matter was that when CRM became a thing, the judicial elites(which have the most inertia of them all) already thought in terms of what we could call disparate impact, there existed many foundations which funded all sorts of pro-integration activism dating back decades before and so on and so on. The unrest was just an impulse for the machine to act.

the leftists that supported lockdowns have a special place in hell reserved for them.

Civil Rights Movement was the crowning march of juridical decisions and widespread elite sentiment. What it was not was the people magically coming together and finally realizing what they wanted.

Another example of this is that is often used is the march on London. Largest anti-war protest in Britain ever. What did it achieve? Nothing. The UK government still went to war in Iraq.

You think those bills would have been legislated, passed, and upheld without the demonstrations by the public? Do you think FDR would have implemented the New Deal if the citizenry wasn't increasingly susceptible to desparate outbursts of violence? Would the US have exited the Vietnam War without such widespread disapproval? Did Occupy Wall Street have any implications? We were in Afghanistan for 20 years. I don't doubt that the upper class has immense political capital to go along with their wealth, nor that they often use it to to the detriment of the middle or lower class, but to say the lower classes are the powerless pawns of the elites is so reductive, and it devolves so often into unverifiable conspiracy theories when a reasonable explanation is right in front of you.

What are the politics of the elite? Why not colonize Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam? It would make it much easier to allow them to immigrate here and bastardize our population, not to mention allow the firms of the elite to exploit the resources there.

>You think those bills would have been legislated, passed, and upheld without the demonstrations by the public?
Schools were desegregated despite the public protesting it in 1950's.

>NOOOO YOU'RE ONLY SUPPOSED TO TALK ABOUT BOOKS THAT ARE FROM MY HECKIN FAVORITE MARXIST HIPSTER COFFEEHOUSE PUBLISHER

And a larger group was protesting for it. Anyway, segregation continued pretty much unbothered in states like Mississippi for long after Brown v Board. Throughout the 1960s Mississippi governors won on platforms of segregation (stated as such). Hardly the will of the elites.

Regardless, and as much sympathy as I have for the Southern whites, their political exclusion of blacks was pretty blatantly anti-Constitutional.

We live in a society

nimrod porcini

They control information and decisions. Most people just feel, follow, and believe what the media says. Simple as.

Demonstration by the public would not happen without that elite sentiment.

This isn't exactly correct in a lot of ways, or at least has some very large and important exceptions. To continue using the same examples, it was not "the media" that led people to initiate Civil Rights protests, and it was not "the media" that led people to sporadically go on hunger marches or riot after the Great Depression. That again is my problem with the elite theories. Yeah, sure, institutions of socialization play a role in what people think. But there are many such institutions (not just "the media," but education, religion, the family, friend circles, etc), and that's to say nothing of material conditions or emotional dispositions that can be taken advantage of (e.g., by MLK or Hitler).

A tiny elite drives social change fowards, but they don't have to be terribly organized or rich. Plenty of Great Men started out as proles

I'd say from there that the term "elite" is probably not appropriate then.

There's two different definitions to the word, and the one you're thinking of is pretty kiked tbqh.

I want to buy this pakistani woman's book but 20eur for a 200 page paperback isn't in anyway charming plus I'd have to get it shipped to the other side of the world, to my shithole.

>Regardless of how many marches you have on Washington or London, it'll achieve nothing unless you have elite backing. The core of democratic idea is that you need to have the backing of the people to get anything done. That's the delusion.

First, that's an obvious logical blunder. Needing elite backing doesn't mean that it's sufficient or that backing of the people is not needed. This is also distinct from the claim that an elite minority drives social change. Which elite minority drives which change, and what is the nature or basis of their respective elite status?

>Demonstration by the public would not happen without that elite sentiment.

This is a pretty much tautological version of the thesis.

I also think we should distinguish astroturfing or instances of an elite taking initiative, from attempts to influence or have a hand in an initiative from outside.

>That again is my problem with the elite theories. Yeah, sure, institutions of socialization play a role in what people think. But there are many such institutions (not just "the media," but education, religion, the family, friend circles, etc),

Very good point.

>And a larger group was protesting for it.
if you think this you're a bona fide moron

I wonder if someone named Parvini has an ulterior motive for discouraging populist movements in English

>consent of the governed is illusory
>popular will and sentiment are things acted upon, not independent forces or actors
>any natural order oriented elite has to contend with this, and the amount of social engineering applied to political subjects
>following from this, the Westphalian Delusion of the geopolitical 'realists' like Mearscheimer cannot model private interests in actual control of states with supposed 'objective' self interest(s) because they are the tools and playthings of elites e.g. American inveiglement into the world wars following elite capture inaugurated by the Federal Reserve Act and cemented by UK rigging of FDR's final election with a Republican patsy in the primaries going both against the popular will, and the 'objective' geopolitical interests of its state, excepting a Pyhrric anti-European colonial gambit that's gifted us the current nuclear proliferated order, compliments of 'Majoritarianism' and its industrial espionage invited by FDR in the '30s

You can’t even drive!

the "populist right" completely failed at accomplishing anything for the past several years, until randomly Elon Musk and possibly the Supreme Court decided to step in and throw some crumbs when they didn't even need to
yeah I'm thinkin elite theory is correct

>There was a great unrest due to forced racial integration after civil rights was passed and yet it didn't reverse the course
The difference is black people had little to lose and everything to gain in the fight for rights, while as you said yourself, whites who disagreed could just move/go to private schools, and they did. I fail to see where the elites factor in.
The civil rights movement lasted for 14 years, and the counterprotests/riots/mob/lynching happened all thought those 14 years. As far as whites (even white southerners), the majority did not care strongly one way or the other about the civil rights question.
The real Populist Delusion is thinking popular means majority. If 51% of the population was strongly in favor of segregation, then the civil rights movement goes nowhere.

Maybe but why do retards get in power in the first place? Surely what's the point of running a country if all you're gonna do is run it into the ground? These people have no self-awareness

the populist right led to the overturning of Roe v. Wade

They lost because they weren’t extreme enough.
Reformists are limp-dicked, people want RADICAL change NOW

I almost guarantee 51% of white Americans were for segregation

white americans aren't the only ones that can vote

>Yeah, sure, institutions of socialization play a role in what people think. But there are many such institutions (not just "the media," but education, religion, the family, friend circles, etc)
Are those things progressive? Do any major universities disagree with each other on a fundamental level? Medias? The very system we live in is progressive. Religion aa you know it does not matter that much anymore, then again an ideology is just an atheistic religion.

Yeah people just gotta vote me in there. Ill make sure segregation makes a comeback

>Needing elite backing doesn't mean that it's sufficient or that backing of the people is not needed.
The problem is that most people don't get their ideas through considerations or thinking. They are taught them by others. Believing in the regime's political formula will automatically grant you the possibility of power as the political formula usually rewards those who reinforce it. They are also always lead by a handful of distinct leaders whose will being done is ultimately theirs alone. Then there's the example of how when people who vote for republicans or something into office their representatives end up having their hands tied as no one who's actually working with them supports them.