🌟 Internet Famous WhatifAltHist / Rudyard Lynch - History youtuber, galaxy brained, no credentials and no sex

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Is there is a term for someone who enjoys a creator both unironically and as a LOLcow at the same time?

The thing about Rudyard is that I actually think he is indeed very intelligent and could very well be the intellectual he wants to be.

However, he is deeply flawed, insecure, and lacks self-awareness and he will never become truly respectable without overcoming those flaws.

Rudyard is legitimately well-read on a wide variety of topics, but he seems to miss important aspects of the subjects he reads about in favor of overly simplistic explanations. He also has a habit of greatly overestimating his expertise in subjects often referring to himself as historian or anthropologist as if he has a doctorate in those subjects. I've never been one to disparage autodidactism in the slightest and these subjects have a long history of biased professors pushing certain narratives*; the benefits of learning these subjects in an academic setting is that the context of the period(s) and culture(s) are better elaborated on and its hard to get a sense of that greater context by merely picking up a book about a historical period and just reading from there.

There's also hints at a darker element to Rudyard. He seems to enjoy talking about some of the more questionable parts of history a little too much. Like he gets this creepy ass smile when talking about genocide and mass slaughter. He also giggles when he mentions rape.

He'll go, "We arguably live in one of the better times in history. Despite the problems of today, *goofy smile showing off his buck teeth* it's not like you'll have the Mongols rape *nerdy giggle* your wife in front of you making you watch the entire thing. *nerdy giggle*"

I know some people do like to shock people with no other motives and some people just have a nervous laugh when they mention fucked up things.

But taken in context with some of his other statements; I honestly wonder about his true thoughts. He has this weird image of himself that if we were less civilized that he'd be some great warlord. I remember him saying on Twitter/X that if society collapsed that he'd be a warlord leading an army and I just thought he'd more likely end up a sex slave like Channing Tatum in This is The End than Lord Humungus in Mad Max 2.


TL;DR Version: Rudyard is smart and talented, but he overestimates himself and his abilities. A bit of humility and some therapy would do him good.


*For example; a lot of Anthropologists in the late 1800s and early 1900s believed it was their duty to prove the superiority of the white man over the savage and how primitive peoples were destined to be destroyed by a superior race. Needless to say that these views are considered a bit... outdated. Then you had Anthropologists in the 1960s until the late 1980s make claims that cannibalism was merely a myth perpetuated by racists colonialists to just justify expansion or that aboriginal peoples did not engage in warfare and only ceremonial dances representing conflict. These claims have since been proven completely false.
 
Tim Win's Ugly Micropenis said:
Is there is a term for someone who enjoys a creator both unironically and as a LOLcow at the same time?

The thing about Rudyard is that I actually think he is indeed very intelligent and could very well be the intellectual he wants to be.

However, he is deeply flawed, insecure, and lacks self-awareness and he will never become truly respectable without overcoming those flaws.

Rudyard is legitimately well-read on a wide variety of topics, but he seems to miss important aspects of the subjects he reads about in favor of overly simplistic explanations.
Click to expand...
I think you're a retard. A think the term you're looking for is "retard".
 
Tim Win's Ugly Micropenis said:
The thing about Rudyard is that I actually think he is indeed very intelligent and could very well be the intellectual he wants to be.
Click to expand...
No he isn't, and no he couldn't.
Rudy isn't intelligent, let alone "very" intelligent. He's not dumb in the sense that he's (probably) not an actual retard by IQ, but there is very strong evidence that his IQ is average at best. And this is borne out through his behavior. He couldn't finish college, he can't finish books, he demonstrates a surface level understanding of subjects he researches at best. These are all hallmarks of an unintelligent person.
But perhaps most damming, Rudy demonstrates a lack of critical thinking. He does not question his favored sources, and instead treats them as gospel. This is especially embarrassing since most of the sources' theses are in conflict with actual evidence, but even if they weren't, a smart person would still think critically. Rudy doesn't. This is the very reason he dropped out of college, because he's can't put up with conflicting ideas, and lacks the intellectual wherewithal to push through when challenged.

And this leads into the second point, no he couldn't be an intellectual. For one, that's a very nebulous "job," the only clear requirement being that one be "intelligent," which Rudy isn't. So that's out.
But even ignoring that, most definitions also require the person engage in critical thinking, which rudy doesn't. They also require someone do research, which he also doesn't do. He just pretends to read books.
The most I can say is that he does try and make a living off thinking about the world for a living. But as his content shows, he sucks at it. He's trying to be an intellectual, and failing, and we have no reason to think there's some reality where that is different.
 
Rimanah said:
snip
Click to expand...
Hard agree. He's the king of midwits, believing himself to be a modern Socrates or Grünberg because he's read a book or two on the subject matter in question, thus he is now ✨enlightened ✨ on the matter. The illusion is held up mainly by his autistic fixation on lesser known fields of history and his ability to make anyone fuck off or lazily agree with a schizo text wall.
 
He can't absorb the source material he cites (when he actually does) despite his appearance of being highly self educated, because he isn't even capable of introspection without hard drug use. I don't doubt he sits around and reads all day just based on his physical build, but it's clear he never truly digests the information.
 
Nicholas Gur said:
I don't doubt he sits around and reads all day just based on his physical build, but it's clear he never truly digests the information.
Click to expand...
His goodreads confirms that he has not been able to finish a lot of books he claims to read. Now granted, a fair amount of those are pretty old, and maybe things have changed.
But even if he has, he's still spending his time reading almost exclusively pop-history and outdated sources.
 
He brings up the fact that maize was selectively bred by the locals 'thousands of years before Christ' as if that's some incredible fact. I mean it is incredible that humans did this, but the same thing happened in every major region of the world. And then he goes on about how the first people to try to breed grain probably thought it wouldn't be edible for hundreds of years, but did it anyway. There is no way this is true. Primordial grains paled in comparison to what we use in agriculture today (or thousands of years ago), but they were still edible and actively eaten.

He claims that every civilization has some kind of difficult circumstance which led to their 'personalities'. But we can't know what the mesoamerican event was because of the way the conquest went. It suggests he has some ideas about what gave various civilizations their personalities. I hope he'll share some.

Claims their ruins are cursed with black magic, something he's never seen in ruins elsewhere. One gave him a migraine.

Actively encourages people not to read (bad) books. Perhaps Rudy's worst sin.

He believes the Chinese visited Mexico. Not even the 1421 theory, but rather thousands of years ago. Goes on to explain that they're essentially an 'oriental' society.

Really bothers me how he pronounces 'schizo'

Believes the Norse came around the year 1000. Pet theory is that Quetzalcoatl was a viking. Or maybe Odin.

He has things that are just straight up wrong, like that the Maya script wasn't deciphered until the 21st century after Christ's birth (that's how he always says it lol). And that the vast majority of extant texts are about war, as if the codices don't exist.

Here's a great quote:

"I don't really view history in academic terms since that's not how people in history actually lived so it's not true to the nature of history itself. People in history saw the past and their world the way we see the Warhammer fantasy universe. As this beautiful, magical, mythic place with enormous stakes and drama."

On the one hand, he's kind of getting to a useful insight (I think). Historians ought to keep in mind that people in any period are human actors centered on the present. But this isn't even a fleshed-out thought. And it ignores so much about how academic history is actually practiced. Did people in the past not actually live with this or that group controlling the means of production? Obviously they did. And compared to other disciplines, history really isn't that bloated with academic terminology. It's telling that the first term I came up with is actually more associated with economics and sociology.

The last part is hugely suspect as well. Arguably it's broadly true of Mesoamerica and some other, ancient civilizations, but I don't think anyone should take that as a fact. The truth is, we really don't know seriously most people took mythology or spiritualism in most periods. It's always been present, but how much did it affect the average person's day to day or their broad conception of the world? And certainly at other parts of history, even long before modernity, most people did not view the world or history as a magical mythic place. Stakes? Yes, obviously people have always been invested in their world. It's all they have.

He brags about how he can still see the Mesoamericans as people. Despite them being deranged demon-worshipping hyperviolent people. Big empathy win.

On that note, the whole video plays into the idea that Mesoamerican civilization was unprecedentedly brutal. I don't have a strong opinion on that. But it's a good example that there are a lot of things he really doesn't look at things critically. For example, he compares Maya engravings about razing cities to Mesopotamian ones (just think about Sargon's lovely inscriptions). It's a fair parallel. But many historians believe that, when a Mesoamerican or Mesopotamian ruler commissioned a carving about destroying a city, they didn't actually genocide all of the inhabitants. Could very likely be that these are just exaggerations describing the way sacking cities has been through most of history. A short period of more or less unrestricted violence, followed by the return of order. Most people live and maintain at least a portion of their property.

Again, I don't take a strong opinion on this, but it's certainly possible that, while incredibly brutal with their human sacrifices and all that, we shouldn't take texts at face value.

The other big example of this sees Rudyard take the Quetzalcoatl prophecy and its association with Cortes at face value. The lack of writing makes it tough, but I don't think we can trust Spanish sources absolutely. There are very good reasons why a man tasked with facilitating the Christianization of the population would fabricate or totally misrepresent local belief to aid that aim.

Shout out to the old Mesoamerican autist on /his/. If you know, you know.
 
Last edited:
Rimanah said:
No he isn't, and no he couldn't.
Rudy isn't intelligent, let alone "very" intelligent. He's not dumb in the sense that he's (probably) not an actual retard by IQ, but there is very strong evidence that his IQ is average at best. And this is borne out through his behavior. He couldn't finish college, he can't finish books, he demonstrates a surface level understanding of subjects he researches at best. These are all hallmarks of an unintelligent person.
But perhaps most damming, Rudy demonstrates a lack of critical thinking. He does not question his favored sources, and instead treats them as gospel. This is especially embarrassing since most of the sources' theses are in conflict with actual evidence, but even if they weren't, a smart person would still think critically. Rudy doesn't. This is the very reason he dropped out of college, because he's can't put up with conflicting ideas, and lacks the intellectual wherewithal to push through when challenged.

And this leads into the second point, no he couldn't be an intellectual. For one, that's a very nebulous "job," the only clear requirement being that one be "intelligent," which Rudy isn't. So that's out.
But even ignoring that, most definitions also require the person engage in critical thinking, which rudy doesn't. They also require someone do research, which he also doesn't do. He just pretends to read books.
The most I can say is that he does try and make a living off thinking about the world for a living. But as his content shows, he sucks at it. He's trying to be an intellectual, and failing, and we have no reason to think there's some reality where that is different.
Click to expand...

Where I differ from most people in this thread is that I think he's smarter than what most people here give him credit for; I also think his personality is darker than most people here think.

I think in many ways he's a victim of his own success. In the show Bojack Horseman there's a line about how people who get famous usually get emotionally and mentally stuck at the age they became famous. I think that's what happened with Rudyard. Rudyard experienced internet "fame" and success at young age and he's essentially stayed at that age from an intellectual standpoint. Despite being pretty bright; he rarely challenges himself to truly digest the information he absorbed or look at it from different perspectives.

He won't achieve his desired status as a respected intellectual because he's too immature and emotionally stunted to make the effort to take it to the next level(s).

It's sort of like how sometimes there is an athlete in high school who is exceptionally gifted and they barely have to train compared to their competition, but once they get to the collegiate level they get absolutely smoked and cannot adapt to the sacrifices and effort someone at their level should be making. That's kind of like Rudyard; he's the sharp, reasonably well-read 14 year old who thinks he's discovered all of the answers and he probably always will be.

And at the risk of revealing too much about myself; I actually have a good friend who is friends IRL with Rudyard (Rudyard has mentioned my friend in a few of his videos and I've seen photos of them together). I've never met Rudyard personally nor have I ever directly interacted with him online either. I can't and won't reveal anything new on here as that would be a betrayal of trust, but I have my reasons for believing what I do.
 
Rimanah said:
And this leads into the second point, no he couldn't be an intellectual.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Have you seen the current quality of our intellectuals? Rudy could easily slot in, which is probably why he somehow manages to get podcast appearances. Even being a dropout isn't a real bar; the likes of James Lindsay (a math major) and Jordan Peterson (a psychologist) are treated as authorities on political science and theology just because they have a passable verbal IQ, have read a number of obscure books on the topics and have enough people treating them as intellectuals. Rudy is already halfway there; he's read but not actually finished a number of obscure books, is able to regurgitate a sufficiently intelligent-sounding word salad and has some people already treating him as an intellectual. If he had a bit more discipline and waited to become a druggie and the raped until after he got established he probably would already be there.
Rimanah said:
But even if he has, he's still spending his time reading almost exclusively pop-history and outdated sources.
Click to expand...
If you'll pardon the sperging, when it comes to history, specific information - or at least the presentation of it - might be outdated, but it's very rare that an entire source is outdated. E.G. a good bit of Steven Runciman's work is outdated from the perspective of the theses he posited and how some information was presented, but his work is still referenced or used by anyone interested in the history of the Crusades because it still forms the basis of a good bit of the field. Rudy's problem isn't that he's using outdated sources or 'pop history' (which, if I'm being honest, I think is more of a pejorative than a useful category - John Julius Norwich is considered a pop historian for example, but no one would reasonably dismiss him on the basis of that), it's that he just regurgitates the arguments and factoids within. If he drew exclusively from sources used on Wikipedia he wouldn't be any better.
 
Computer God Autism said:
I disagree. Have you seen the current quality of our intellectuals
Click to expand...
Fair point. I think I’d only disagree in that I’d call most of the people grifters rather than intellectuals. I’m not sure there are that many actual notable intellectuals right now though. I guess maybe Nick Land types?

Computer God Autism said:
If you'll pardon the sperging, when it comes to history, specific information - or at least the presentation of it - might be outdated, but it's very rare that an entire source is outdated
Click to expand...
I suppose I should have been clearer, Rudy seems to rely on sources with outdated theses, e.g. the Spenglerian Cyclical history view he loves.
Even then, maybe outdated isn’t the right word. Discredited perhaps? Idk, I’m not formally trained in history so I’ll defer to actual historians on the proper terminology.

That said, your point is much better than mine on this issue, and more clearly cuts to Rudyard problem.
 
Rimanah said:
Fair point. I think I’d only disagree in that I’d call most of the people grifters rather than intellectuals. I’m not sure there are that many actual notable intellectuals right now though. I guess maybe Nick Land types?
Click to expand...
I don't think grifter and intellectual are mutually exclusive, honestly - the way modern academia works practically mandates it for most to be able to earn a decent living. Granted, it encourages a large amount of very sloppy intellectuals who effectively have to justify their credentials by stirring controversy, but before the advent of podcasts most of these people were confined to the journals.
Rimanah said:
Discredited perhaps?
Click to expand...
Contentious is probably the best word. Spengler isn't really discredited in the sense of there being hard and fast refutations of his points because his overall thesis is fundamentally theoretical, so it essentially gets turned into a political litmus test.
 
Computer God Autism said:
Even being a dropout isn't a real bar; the likes of James Lindsay (a math major) and Jordan Peterson (a psychologist) are treated as authorities on political science and theology just because they have a passable verbal IQ, have read a number of obscure books on the topics and have enough people treating them as intellectuals.
Click to expand...
I don't believe the lack of having a certification in a ceartain field bars you from being an authority on it, but I agree many scientists make poor philosophers.
 
GoodWinSon said:
I don't believe the lack of having a certification in a ceartain field bars you from being an authority on it, but I agree many scientists make poor philosophers.
Click to expand...
I'm actually in the camp that credentialism is not only unnecessary but actively harmful, in part because the likes of Peterson and Lindsay wave around their unrelated academic credentials to gatekeep honest discussion or dismiss valid counterarguments and criticism. If we had an academia that was actually elitist then there would be a point to it, but nowadays the overwhelming majority of schools in the west, and especially the traditionally prestigious ones, are degree mills. I can guess that if Rudy weren't a dropout he would have pulled that card by now.
 
Computer God Autism said:
I don't think grifter and intellectual are mutually exclusive, honestly - the way modern academia works practically mandates it for most to be able to earn a decent living. Granted, it encourages a large amount of very sloppy intellectuals who effectively have to justify their credentials by stirring controversy, but before the advent of podcasts most of these people were confined to the journals.
Click to expand...
The Greeks (between bouts of boy fucking) had a term for these people- the Sophist. You need only a passive knowledge of the subject in question but decent skill as an orator to get people to clap like seals. Peterson is a masterclass in this, as not only is he able to come off as more intelligent than he is but able to use language to confound his opponent. Rudy is kinda getting there but his social autism makes him unable to effectively engage another person or crowd into believing him. He never looks them in the eye and comes off as what he is, an airy "thinker" who likes to posit useless points while staring off into the distance as if in thought any deeper than a kiddy pool. When dealing with such individuals, the ideal solution is to press and press and press without relent until the truth is all but obvious, ala Matt Walsh
 
1748804147601.webp
ruh roh
 
I’ve been seeing Elon signal boost chudyard’s content recently. I’m fascinated at how we live in a timeline where the world’s wealthiest man enjoys the content of a schizophrenic autist with mommy issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom