History Western Civilization, Rome and Cyclical History

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
Well,here you have good,but weird anime about AI god scenario.If you have time,watch it:

No, Serial Experiments Lain isn't meant to be a serious anime about an AI God scenario. The creator of Lain was a Japanese creator who hated that Anime was becoming popular outside of Japan thinking that us Westerners didn't understand it due to how different our cultural contexts were. Thus he went and wrote Lain to explicitly be something he thought would be interpreted differently in the West than in Japan in order to prove his point...

...It didn't work, the Western anime audience interpreted it just like the Japanese audience... and while it is about an AI God scenario, it's not meant as a serious take on it from a technological standpoint.

Also of hilarious note: one of the lead writers on Lain later worked on another anime regarding digital worlds an AI: Digimon Tamers. You know, the one that everyone goes "this show was for kids?!" to.

I am not sure,if i choosed right tread - but,i read about fall of "New Atheism" which main prophet was Richard Dawkins.
He once claimed that religion is bad,and atheism good for people - but since 2019 agree,that people who belive in God are bettter then those who do not belive.
And end of Chystianity would lead to people doing "really bad things"
I've mentioned this before, the "New Atheists" were nothing more than tool for the leftists to attack Christianity in the West. None of the arguments they brought up were new in the grand scheme of things, they just managed to hit an audience that was woefully under educated in Christian apologetics due to centuries of dominance in the West that much of the Church had grown complacent. They were then purposefully amplified by a complicit media but as soon as they become... inconvenient (either for turning on Islam as a greater danger than Christianity or when they refused to accept the upcoming Social Justice) they were so quickly done away with and thrown to the curb many of them were caught off guard. It's why many of the old New Atheists have turned into rising right wingers and have buried the hatchet with Christianity.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
No, Serial Experiments Lain isn't meant to be a serious anime about an AI God scenario. The creator of Lain was a Japanese creator who hated that Anime was becoming popular outside of Japan thinking that us Westerners didn't understand it due to how different our cultural contexts were. Thus he went and wrote Lain to explicitly be something he thought would be interpreted differently in the West than in Japan in order to prove his point...

...It didn't work, the Western anime audience interpreted it just like the Japanese audience... and while it is about an AI God scenario, it's not meant as a serious take on it from a technological standpoint.

Also of hilarious note: one of the lead writers on Lain later worked on another anime regarding digital worlds an AI: Digimon Tamers. You know, the one that everyone goes "this show was for kids?!" to.


I've mentioned this before, the "New Atheists" were nothing more than tool for the leftists to attack Christianity in the West. None of the arguments they brought up were new in the grand scheme of things, they just managed to hit an audience that was woefully under educated in Christian apologetics due to centuries of dominance in the West that much of the Church had grown complacent. They were then purposefully amplified by a complicit media but as soon as they become... inconvenient (either for turning on Islam as a greater danger than Christianity or when they refused to accept the upcoming Social Justice) they were so quickly done away with and thrown to the curb many of them were caught off guard. It's why many of the old New Atheists have turned into rising right wingers and have buried the hatchet with Christianity.

there is nothing quite as motivated then an ally who became such due to being betrayed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Poe

LordDemiurge

Well-known member
ally who became such due to being betrayed.
This is actually pretty similar to what happened to the Tech Scene awhile back.

Scott Alexander in his 'paranoid rant' article basically detailed how Silicon Valley lost the favor of the American Left.

STEM culture and nerd culture is (was?) this weird alternative domain that had Blue Tribe advantages like education and wealth, but also wasn't drinking their Kool-Aid – they took pride in being meritocratic, they didn't care what college you went to as long as you were smart, and they were okay enjoying their own weird culture instead of following sophisticated trend-setters. The Blue Tribe was spooked, so they called in their attack arm, and soon enough we started hearing these constant calls in Blue-affiliated media and circles to destroy nerd culture (2, 3, etc, etc) because it is inherently misogynistic, racist, etc.
It's why we're told that Silicon Valley is full of "brogrammers" and "techbros" (compare "Berniebro", which everyone now agrees was a Hillarysphere attempt to smear Sanders supporters). It's why we're told that tech is "incredibly white and male" and "needs to get less white" and just generally has this huge and unique diversity problem – even though in reality it's possibly the most racially diverse industry in the country, at a full 60% non-white. It's why we're told that there is terrible bias against women in science academia, when in fact anyone can read the studies showing that controlling for all other factors, women are twice as likely to be hired for tenure-track STEM positions as men and academic science is not sexist at all. It's why we're told women fear for their lives in Silicon Valley because of endemic sexual harassment, even though nobody's ever formally investigated if it's worse than anywhere else, and the only informal survey I've ever seen shows harrassment in STEM to be well-below the average harrassment rate.

I used and still am to an extent a fan of Slate Star Codex. But the site is just piteous in that Scott has basically spent years trying to defend and justify his view points and to articulate criticisms of the current progressive regime not realizing that he's fighting against a religion that has deemed him a heretic.
 

Lord Sovereign

The resident Britbong
I have often disagreed with Skallagrim about the longevity of the “optimates”, yet I am starting to become a touch more pessimistic. Although it is not so much to do with the strength of the elites and more the populist lack of discipline.

The populists/Marians, as evidenced by the reaction to the Russo-Ukrainian War, have proven themselves incapable of good statesmanship and statecraft. They are angry and bitter to the point of spite (for understandable reasons admittedly) and I worry about such people gaining power. They’ve the energy but not the direction, and their rocketing about all over the place may do more harm than good, their reason utterly clouded by rage.

It’s gotten to the point where I’ve somewhat fallen out of love with it all. Even worse, I’m unsure whether or not i have “Sullan” inclinations nowadays.

I must ask, was something like this happening during the time of the Gracchi Brothers and later Marius?
 

Blasterbot

Well-known member
and alternately the so called optimates have such potential leaders as Nikki Haley and Gavin Newsome. they only have energy for corrupt ends. their goals and policies actively hurt the nation, their constituents, and the world. they push for war to distract the mob than completely fuck it up. meaning we actively harm whatever interests we have during our interventions. they actively sabotage themselves and their proclaimed allies while handing win after win to those they call enemies.

I don't think we are in for a very stable decade. in fact if it clears up in the decade I would be surprised. Trump probably represents the closest thing to a compromise between the two in terms of positions. The optimates cannot tolerate a compromise. that would mean they were wrong. so they will double and triple down and make whatever questionable alliances they can to stave it off. even if it would be more damaging in the long run then actually compromising.

All it would take is just stop fucking the economy over and actually control our borders and you would have the populists going along with the optimates at least grudgingly. Dems can't do it because they spent the last decade saying it would be rascism to do it. Reps could do it but the establishment wing has been benefiting from being corrupt and taking advantage of either cheap migrant labor or outsourcing American jobs to foreign countries to save money on labor costs and environmental regulations.

the populists are anti-interventionist because they have been burned too often. you could probably convince them to fight Russia. if it invaded America. you might manage that if it invaded a NATO country. a bit diceier considering that for the past decade or 2 they have been working cross purpose with us trying to establish the EU as a 3rd pole and not meeting the bare minimum like 2% GDP military spending we asked. thinking that as long as they are in an alliance with us we can shoulder the whole burden of the alliance.

then you get to Ukraine. at best a neutral buffer state between our allies and a regional power. at worst a bunch of very corrupt people use it for a variety of money laundering and other criminal acts. something that the average american sees little benefit from and in fact is related to a lot of things that make their lives actively worse. at this point I have heard that the Russians are armed only with broomsticks and viagra pills, have to bring their own boots, have tanks armored with cardboard, have nonfunctioning nukes, have planes that literally fall out of the sky on their own, are run by a syphylitic AIDS patient with super cancer who is surrounded by chronic backstabbers. so they aren't really a threat. and the only Reason I've heard that was even mildly persuasive to me was that it degrades the Russian military. well fine. they've been degraded.

while hypothetically it is possible to engage with the rest of the world while solving the internal issues america has the foreign wars and interventions are used as a distraction to avoid addressing the problems we have. If we don't have the ability to solve multiple problems at the same time then we must solve the pressing issues at home.
 

Crom's Black Blade

Well-known member
and alternately the so called optimates have such potential leaders as Nikki Haley and Gavin Newsome. they only have energy for corrupt ends. their goals and policies actively hurt the nation, their constituents, and the world. they push for war to distract the mob than completely fuck it up. meaning we actively harm whatever interests we have during our interventions. they actively sabotage themselves and their proclaimed allies while handing win after win to those they call enemies.

I don't think we are in for a very stable decade. in fact if it clears up in the decade I would be surprised. Trump probably represents the closest thing to a compromise between the two in terms of positions. The optimates cannot tolerate a compromise. that would mean they were wrong. so they will double and triple down and make whatever questionable alliances they can to stave it off. even if it would be more damaging in the long run then actually compromising.

All it would take is just stop fucking the economy over and actually control our borders and you would have the populists going along with the optimates at least grudgingly. Dems can't do it because they spent the last decade saying it would be rascism to do it. Reps could do it but the establishment wing has been benefiting from being corrupt and taking advantage of either cheap migrant labor or outsourcing American jobs to foreign countries to save money on labor costs and environmental regulations.

the populists are anti-interventionist because they have been burned too often. you could probably convince them to fight Russia. if it invaded America. you might manage that if it invaded a NATO country. a bit diceier considering that for the past decade or 2 they have been working cross purpose with us trying to establish the EU as a 3rd pole and not meeting the bare minimum like 2% GDP military spending we asked. thinking that as long as they are in an alliance with us we can shoulder the whole burden of the alliance.

then you get to Ukraine. at best a neutral buffer state between our allies and a regional power. at worst a bunch of very corrupt people use it for a variety of money laundering and other criminal acts. something that the average american sees little benefit from and in fact is related to a lot of things that make their lives actively worse. at this point I have heard that the Russians are armed only with broomsticks and viagra pills, have to bring their own boots, have tanks armored with cardboard, have nonfunctioning nukes, have planes that literally fall out of the sky on their own, are run by a syphylitic AIDS patient with super cancer who is surrounded by chronic backstabbers. so they aren't really a threat. and the only Reason I've heard that was even mildly persuasive to me was that it degrades the Russian military. well fine. they've been degraded.

while hypothetically it is possible to engage with the rest of the world while solving the internal issues america has the foreign wars and interventions are used as a distraction to avoid addressing the problems we have. If we don't have the ability to solve multiple problems at the same time then we must solve the pressing issues at home.
Well populists are, by their nature, mercurial following what is the zeitgeist of the era. I would agree with @Skallagrim that is as much a product of the Neocon/Liberal Left's strategy of invade the world/invite the world. Changing circumstances will produce changing priorities.

Really I think the populists are less anti-interventionist and more Pro-American having seen the bitter fruit our toil of blood and treasure produced underwritting the security and prosperity of the post-WWII world. Military alliances that are little more than one-sided assurances the US will bail out it's "allies", third-world shitholes who can't build skyscrappers or airliners but can and will send the latter flying into the former, a largely purposeless NATO expanding to counter the increasingly sick Russian bear, exporting manufacturing to Chinese slave labor camps and importing a peasant under-class to perform what jobs can't be outsourced.

Even if our rulers were saints and weren't corrupt pieces of shit the situation would still be intolerable because the underlying premise or ideology is focused on bettering everyone else at America's expense. Its like some weird ass martyr syndrome transplanted on the national level.

I think, going forward, to get any traction foreign adventurism is going to have to be expressed purely in a more imperialistic manner of what benefits do we gain versus cost. I think the days of fighting for Democracy or other nebulous concepts are in their Twilight.
 

Blasterbot

Well-known member
I agree. foreign entanglements are going to need to be put in terms of how does this benefit America and the American citizen. arguing for infinite $ to be poured into a pit and burned to spread DEMOCRACY or some other bullshit is not gonna fly for a while. at least while your trying to recruit Millennials and Gen Z. they've been burned too much by the boomer's playing in the sandbox.
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
the populists are anti-interventionist because they have been burned too often. you could probably convince them to fight Russia. if it invaded America. you might manage that if it invaded a NATO country. a bit diceier considering that for the past decade or 2 they have been working cross purpose with us trying to establish the EU as a 3rd pole and not meeting the bare minimum like 2% GDP military spending we asked. thinking that as long as they are in an alliance with us we can shoulder the whole burden of the alliance.
I actually think the populists would be more willing to intervene in East Asia to protect Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, or Australia than they are concerning Europe. Firstly, unlike the NATO alliance, the Pacific allied nations have consistently worked to pull their weight in military matters and haven't tried to set up an opposing pole like the Europeans have. Further the primary antagonist in East Asia has been China who has long been opposed by populist politicians going back to the 90s, while China has been strongly embraced by the Elites, so that anti-Elite attitude actually would work in favor of intervening against China in the region.
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
I have often disagreed with Skallagrim

I, too, have often disagreed with Skallagrim. :p


I am starting to become a touch more pessimistic. Although it is not so much to do with the strength of the elites and more the populist lack of discipline.

The populists/Marians, as evidenced by the reaction to the Russo-Ukrainian War, have proven themselves incapable of good statesmanship and statecraft. They are angry and bitter to the point of spite (for understandable reasons admittedly) and I worry about such people gaining power. They’ve the energy but not the direction, and their rocketing about all over the place may do more harm than good, their reason utterly clouded by rage.

It’s gotten to the point where I’ve somewhat fallen out of love with it all. Even worse, I’m unsure whether or not i have “Sullan” inclinations nowadays.

Populism, almost by definition, is lacking in organisational and governmental-administrative experience. The other side has that in abundance, but that's part of the problem. I think this is why populist movements rarely succeed all at once ("on the first try"), and when they do, they generally disappoint.

As an aside, I've observed that in a certain sense, the Principate owes as much to the Sullans as it does to the Marians. The division ceases to be very meaningful once the societal order that produced (i.e. the currently existing order) crumbles away and is replaced.

To offer some perspective on the subjectivism of one's position--

Most macro-historians, if asked a few decades ago, would have expected the Democrats to become the Populists. The Clinton-esque managerialism would be perceived as a temporary thing, whereas the Republicans showed no real signs of being something other than the locus of the "business party" (which is essentially, in our society, the "elite party", too). I've actually read some observations from back then which assumed that the Buchanan wing of the GOP was actually economically in line with the labour-minded Democrats, just culturally conservative. And the resulting expectation was that the GOP would become a more elitist/managerial business party, while the Democrats would grow disillusioned with Clintonism and go to the labour-oriented left. Basically, the expectation was that Bernie (or someone like him) would ultimately steer the Democrats, and that the Buchananites and Perotistas, fed up with globalist managerialism, would in the end fuse with the labour Democrats...

This didn't happens, as we all know. Things went the other way, and my own expectation now (as I've said before) is that it's much more plausible that the labour-minded Democrats will eventually join the successors of MAGA in opposing an elite faction that's instead mostly centred on the Democratic establishment. So things still go as they've been long expected to go, but some of the name tags have been unexpectedly switched!

The salient point is that it could easily have gone as some then predicted, in which case Bernie Sanders might have been the controversial maverick president, opposed by establishment front-man Mitt Romney, while getting condemned and betrayed by establishment agents in his own party (such as the Clintons). Hilariously, on the economic level, the policies of President Sanders would not be very much unlike those of President Trump.

Because of the deep associations and loyalties we have when it comes to pre-existing factions, some people who hate populism under Trump might be populists in that scenario. And some who love Trump might be establishment loyalists if Sanders were to stand in his place! But macro-historically, it would change very little. The long-term outcome would be very much the same.

What I'm trying to say is: what we "are" right now (or "how we identify", at any rate) isn't really all that important. The real key question is what you want for the future.


I must ask, was something like this happening during the time of the Gracchi Brothers and later Marius?

The Gracchi were certainly not saints, and got their fair share of deserved criticism. Look no further than Scipio Aemilianus, who was not only the brother-in-law of Tiberius Gracchus, but also ultimately his political enemy. And he was no fool. Specifically, he turned against the reformers when their movement turned violent, even though he was himself also a critic of the self-indulgent elite. Certain comparisons to more recent political events are almost too easy...
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
Most macro-historians, if asked a few decades ago, would have expected the Democrats to become the Populists. The Clinton-esque managerialism would be perceived as a temporary thing, whereas the Republicans showed no real signs of being something other than the locus of the "business party" (which is essentially, in our society, the "elite party", too). I've actually read some observations from back then which assumed that the Buchanan wing of the GOP was actually economically in line with the labour-minded Democrats, just culturally conservative. And the resulting expectation was that the GOP would become a more elitist/managerial business party, while the Democrats would grow disillusioned with Clintonism and go to the labour-oriented left. Basically, the expectation was that Bernie (or someone like him) would ultimately steer the Democrats, and that the Buchananites and Perotistas, fed up with globalist managerialism, would in the end fuse with the labour Democrats...
This viewpoint betrays as fundamental misunderstanding of the internal Republican dynamics and frankly speaks ill of Macro-historians being able to see the bigger picture. Either that or a fundamental misunderstanding of the core conflict within American politics. This may be because Macro-historians refuse to see the US AS the outlier country it is and insist it must be beholden to the patterns of Western Europe rather than having it's own macro-historical trajectory.

Bear in mind, from their inception to the present day, the Republican party is the party of the Middle Class. Within the US, unlike many countries of the world, the Middle class IS the majority, not the lower class or the upper class. This was the case at the founding of the Country, continued through the 19th century and the industrial revolution, and generally is the case even today, though it is reduced in relative size.

The salient point is that it could easily have gone as some then predicted, in which case Bernie Sanders might have been the controversial maverick president, opposed by establishment front-man Mitt Romney, while getting condemned and betrayed by establishment agents in his own party (such as the Clintons). Hilariously, on the economic level, the policies of President Sanders would not be very much unlike those of President Trump.
No, it couldn't have, because the Republican party has always been an ill fit with the elitist managerial class. The rise of the Managerial class in the US has always, ALWAYS been a part of the Democrat's efforts and opposed by Republicans, from the inception of the "Modern Government" under Woodrow Wilson, to the massive expansion of the Federal Bureaucracy to "combat" the Great Depression and manage WW2 under FDR, to the explosion of the bureaucracy to manage the welfare state under Johnson, to the rise of Federal centralization of Education under Carter the expansion of the Managerial class is directly tied to the Democrats and their government programs.

The tie between Republicans and Business was mainly due not to Republicans being for the Managerial classes, but because up until the 1990s most businesses were not big enough to gain advantage from allying with the Managerial class and instead saw them as a hostile party. The Republicans worked to keep the Managerial class in check, reducing government regulation and claiming they wanted to do things like abolishing the Department of Education. Between Clinton in the 90s and Obama in the late 00s/early 10s, businesses began to see benefits from allying with the managerial class, using government regulations to choke off competition, and gaining major benefits from being able to offshore to places like China (which the Republicans had generally opposed normalizing relations with until the late 90s when the Libertarian and Neocon wings of the Republicans manage to marginalize the Social Conservatives in matters regarding foreign affairs and trade).

If Macro-historians also paid attention to small things like voting demographics of the managerial class they also would have known this. At no point in the last 100 years have members of the managerial class (academics, government bureaucrats, or journalists) voted majority Republican. You could also see this in the immediate region around Washington DC, where the Democrats have controlled DC, Maryland, and the Virginia counties near Washington DC for DECADES going back well into the middle 20th century.

You can even see this in Perot's runs for President in the 90s. It wasn't the Democrat's candidate whom he drew support away from, but the Republicans. Most analysis of the 1992 Presidential election pretty much conclude Perot cost HW Bush the election and gave it to Clinton. Further the Buchannan wing of the Republicans in that period were primarily concerned with Social Issues, not economic or populist ones, which would mean they'd never make common cause with the Democrats who even then were socially progressive to the point of extremism that people only didn't realize due to the systemic cover the media gave them even back then.
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
Eh, they might both be protectionist but I don't think Bernie would kick his redistribution or excessive registration kneecapping the free market.

We must be wary of the implicit assumption that typical populist agenda is, ah... economically sensible. Obviously it has valid points (some very valid), and is by definition rooted in real (and unduly ignored-by-the-elite) grievances, but that does not mean that the populist solutions are uniformly good. Or even uniform at all; a certain degree of ad hoc incoherence is rather typical of truly populist movements.

Take a good look at Trump's ideas. There's some stuff in there that's pretty "un-republican" by traditional standards, too. That's not a fluke. The party that becomes the populist one will cease to be the party that it had been in earlier periods. The triumph of a populist agenda will not be the triumph of the GOP, but rather the culmination of its... evolution... into something else.

(The fact that populism is economically rather "left-wing", if we are to use such an imprecise term, is one reason why it has no real staying power, either. If you want a return to fiscal conservatism and more traditional -- distinctly non- and even anti-modern -- economic appoaches, then you must look beyond the populist phase, and beyond the age of mass democracy itself; towards the Principate...)



This viewpoint betrays as fundamental misunderstanding of the internal Republican dynamics and frankly speaks ill of Macro-historians being able to see the bigger picture. Either that or a fundamental misunderstanding of the core conflict within American politics. This may be because Macro-historians refuse to see the US AS the outlier country it is and insist it must be beholden to the patterns of Western Europe rather than having it's own macro-historical trajectory.

Bear in mind, from their inception to the present day, the Republican party is the party of the Middle Class. Within the US, unlike many countries of the world, the Middle class IS the majority, not the lower class or the upper class. This was the case at the founding of the Country, continued through the 19th century and the industrial revolution, and generally is the case even today, though it is reduced in relative size.

Perhaps my viewpoint is also too detached to see things right -- I can't rule that out -- but my own observation of the political dynamics involved is somewhat different from what you say here; at least in some respects. Or perhaps I should say: I think the focus should be elsewhere. As my response to @Crom's Black Blade (see above) indicates, I operate on the premise that the populist faction will emerge from one of the major parties (essentially co-opting it). This will happen primarily in a reactionary way, in reponse to the other party deciding (insofar as parties "decide") to become the establishment faction. But it's very important to note that this process changes both parties, and that regardless of whether it retains the name-- any "populist party" will no longer be the Republican party as we've known it before.

A key point may be that the erosion of the middle class is central to the macro-historical thesis for the 21st century. It is precisely because of this development that populism is ascending and will continue to ascend. So which party represents the middle class is becoming less relevant. The crucial thing is the emergence of a broad faction that unites the "have-nots", the "stand-to-loses" and "once-had-and-feel-betrayeds". This is not a middle class party.

Middle class is a thing that exists in times of relative comfort; its desires -- as far as I can tell -- are to preserve the state of affairs that led to its creation. The middle class is anti-revolutionary, and the fact that there are so many people with still so much to lose is why things presently still continue as they have.

The fact is that due to their own natural core constituencies, both major US parties -- again, as far as I can tell -- have historically had avenues to potentially become populist parties. At present, I no longer see that avenue as accessible to the Democrats, but I don't think you're correct to rule it out as a possibility that was still there 30 to 40 years ago. I do believe (perhaps with the benefit of hindsight) that it was less likely even then. But I can see where the expectation of the Democrats becoming the Populist faction came from, back then. (Because, again, Populist =/= Republican. Populism may co-opt the GOP, but that's not the same thing, exactly.)


No, it couldn't have, because the Republican party has always been an ill fit with the elitist managerial class. The rise of the Managerial class in the US has always, ALWAYS been a part of the Democrat's efforts and opposed by Republicans, from the inception of the "Modern Government" under Woodrow Wilson, to the massive expansion of the Federal Bureaucracy to "combat" the Great Depression and manage WW2 under FDR, to the explosion of the bureaucracy to manage the welfare state under Johnson, to the rise of Federal centralization of Education under Carter the expansion of the Managerial class is directly tied to the Democrats and their government programs.

The tie between Republicans and Business was mainly due not to Republicans being for the Managerial classes, but because up until the 1990s most businesses were not big enough to gain advantage from allying with the Managerial class and instead saw them as a hostile party. The Republicans worked to keep the Managerial class in check, reducing government regulation and claiming they wanted to do things like abolishing the Department of Education. Between Clinton in the 90s and Obama in the late 00s/early 10s, businesses began to see benefits from allying with the managerial class, using government regulations to choke off competition, and gaining major benefits from being able to offshore to places like China (which the Republicans had generally opposed normalizing relations with until the late 90s when the Libertarian and Neocon wings of the Republicans manage to marginalize the Social Conservatives in matters regarding foreign affairs and trade).

If Macro-historians also paid attention to small things like voting demographics of the managerial class they also would have known this. At no point in the last 100 years have members of the managerial class (academics, government bureaucrats, or journalists) voted majority Republican. You could also see this in the immediate region around Washington DC, where the Democrats have controlled DC, Maryland, and the Virginia counties near Washington DC for DECADES going back well into the middle 20th century.

You can even see this in Perot's runs for President in the 90s. It wasn't the Democrat's candidate whom he drew support away from, but the Republicans. Most analysis of the 1992 Presidential election pretty much conclude Perot cost HW Bush the election and gave it to Clinton. Further the Buchannan wing of the Republicans in that period were primarily concerned with Social Issues, not economic or populist ones, which would mean they'd never make common cause with the Democrats who even then were socially progressive to the point of extremism that people only didn't realize due to the systemic cover the media gave them even back then.

Again, while I broadly agree with the things you say, the implicit assumption here is that Democrats couldn't become the populists because the Republicans have historically been the middle class party. Whereas my point is that populists aren't a middle class faction (in fact, they become... ha... popular when the middle class is getting screwed and the lower strata are over-flowing).

So I don't disagree with what you say. I just feel that it isn't all that relevant to which party can or could become populist.

If we're talking historical context, I'd point out that William Jennings Bryan was not a Republican. In fact, there we also see an example of populist redistributionism married to a socio-culturally very conservative mindset. So that kind of thing isn't exactly unprecedented, either.

Populism isn't the sole territory of one party, and neither is it consistent with the traditional core beliefs of either party. The argument that populism would never properly fit the Democrats is correct. But it doesn't properly fit the Republicans, either. Because it has made its home within the GOP, there is a tendency among Republicans to now retro-actively reconcile the two (at least to an extent), but that's mostly post facto myth-making: stressing the commonalities, downplaying the differences, while in turn accentuating the ways in which the opposite party is "inherently" anti-populist.

But if populism had made its home in the ranks of the Democrats (and I maintain that it could have), then they would be stressing the commonalities, and downplaying the ways in which they'd previously been anti-populists, while accentuating how "inherently" anti-populist the GOP had supposedly "always been". And that, too, would be nothing but the construction of a somewhat self-serving narrative, after the fact...
 

Crom's Black Blade

Well-known member
We must be wary of the implicit assumption that typical populist agenda is, ah...

I feel like you misunderstood me, likely due to the divergence in our political views and outlook.

My objection was to your comparison saying there was no difference between the economic policies of Trump and Bernie because, in your view, they are both populist.

I don't view populism as an inherently good or bad thing. Obviously the Founders inherently knew mob rule was short-sighted and rejected mass democracy for a reason. I am for populism today because it's goals, fair trade and and an end to endless wars among others, is the only sensible course to honor and restore the Founder's Republic.

To put it simply, I expect Bernie polices to be Obama's summer of recovery but worse rather than the meteoric phenomenon that was Trump's economy.

Take a good look at Trump's ideas.
His ideas are, broadly, from the center-right or otherwise compatible with Republican values, his America first wouldn't be out of place in the party pre-cold war, if not ones our elites would wish we would have. So I don't see this interchangeability you apparently do.

If you want a return to fiscal conservatism and more traditional -- distinctly non- and even anti-modern -- economic
I wouldn't call conservatism anti-modern. Indeed it is the Left who wish to turn back the clock. The socialist impulse is the impulse to return to feudalism after all. When managerial elites controlled everything hence why it has always been the most popular with that class.

The worst I want to do is a return to 19th or 20th century concepts like the gold standard.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Since there is no thread for Church problem,here some facts about that:
Catholic Church is falling thanks to masons and modernists - but,it also mean western churches dying.
Now,only continent with strong Church is Africa,and they reject woke bullshit.
Philip Jenkins in 2001 wrote,that church is falling only in western countries.

When Vatican in 2023 in "Fiducia supplicans" agreed to blessing sodomites,Africa mutined - and Vatican must agree,that it do not apply to them.

African Cardinal who lead it in smart way/so it was not open rebellion/,Fridolin Ambonga openly say,that West do not like children,so would vanish - and,that they wish us happy death.

But,to show that not all is good - after 2013 we have another pornocracy in Church,with new pope supporters,like Cardinal Victor Fernandez,jesuit Mark Rupnik,Cardinal Godfried Danneels,prelate Battista Ricco,bishop Gustav Zanchetta,Cardinals Theodore mcCarricks and Cormac Murphy-O,connor from USA - all either partcipated in orgies,or helped hide it.

Bad,but Church survived one pornocracy,so we would survive this one,too.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Not about Rome,but elites.I do not found better thread.

All bigger countries,except Poland,have mean to create lites which would thought about country future.

France have L,Ecole de Guerre Economique/school of economic warfare/ which teach politicians,officers,bussines man to defend France intersts.

USA have Ivy League Universities which seek talented people,and teach them how to work for USA.

Moscov MGIMO and AFSBRF,which teach spies and diplomats - becouse they knew that their state is dysfunctional,do not try help that,but use spies and diplomacy to cover that,

They openly say,that secret agents are "modern gentry" /Nikolaj Patruszew/

So,i think that reason why USA have problems could be effect of Ivy League fucking their work in making new elity numbers.
 

Lord Sovereign

The resident Britbong
Populism, almost by definition, is lacking in organisational and governmental-administrative experience. The other side has that in abundance, but that's part of the problem. I think this is why populist movements rarely succeed all at once ("on the first try"), and when they do, they generally disappoint.
I mean ignorance is one thing, but a few of them do have an understanding of history which doesn't factor into their decision making at all. It's as if they flatly refuse to try to understand how things work and how to play the game, out of spite.

Thus for all the world they appear utterly foolish, if not thuggish, which is a political kiss of death.
 

Bassoe

Well-known member
The whole discussion about AI rather deserves its own thread, and -- I seem to recall -- already has one. (Although I think it was last active a while back.) For the purposes of macro-history, it's essentially pointless to discuss in depth. The existence of 'real' AI would invalidate macro-history, at least in its current form-- because macro-history relies on what we can know about human behaviour on a large scale. If "inhuman minds" of some sort come into existence and start influencing society (and thus history) in a significant way, then the predictive model of macro-history ceases to be valid. Becase there is then a factor at work for which it cannot produce predictions.

Real AI, the arrival of aliens, or significant transhumanism... would all have that effect. So in a macro-historical context, the only answer to questions about that kind of thing is "we have no basis to predict for that". Anyone who tells you otherwise is just making it up. Whatever he says is not actually based on macro-historical analysis, because there's no precedent from which we may derive conclusions.
I'm unsure of what thread you're talking about, but yeah, we could absolutely use a discussion of What Inventions Could Break Marcohistoric Prediction Models and their likely consequences.

I'd argue we've already got one in nuclear weapons and MAD deterrence. A nation can be as decadent and incompetently governed as it likes and still avoid outright invasion and conquest so long as they've got an explicit Sampson Option policy and the Bomb.


I imagine other inventions could be:
  • Centrally monopolized AI rendering human labor worthless and giving the owners of the robot armies an invincible eternal monopoly of force.
  • Open-source AI replacing labor but it doesn't matter if everyone's got their very own von neumann factory and defensive robot armies.
  • Uncontrolled indifferent AI, aka the Paperclip Maximizer and humanity unceremoniously going extinct.
  • Uncontrolled benevolent AI, aka humanity becoming the Omnissiah’s pets.
  • Transhumanism and the removal of free will, aka ketracel white addiction-backed hydraulic empires, subscription service cybernetics and everything *THASF* goes on about in his spartacasts. *
  • Transhumanism and the creation of a genuinely actually biologically superior Master Race.
  • Medical immortality. Empires no longer grow decadent with time when their founders can potentially live forever. Overpopulation and zero-sum competition for resources, jobs and inheritance are now Serious Business.
Another option would be that the caesar figure and reactionary backlash get their start by being explicitly against these sorts of things and it becomes society's new foundational myth. That the technocrats of the 21st century wanted to render everyone obsolete and were willing to risk humanity's extinction for the chance to do so**, whereas modern society, while authoritarian, on some level depends upon consent of the governed, if enough people disliked the status quo, they could overthrow it. ***

*
Foundation and Empire by Isaac Asimov said:
And if the Second Foundation should not beat the Mule, it is bad – ultimately bad. It is the end, may be, of the human race as we know it."

"No.

"Yes. If the Mule's descendants inherit his mental powers – You see? Homo sapiens could not compete. There would be a new dominant race – a new aristocracy – with homo sapiens demoted to slave labor as an inferior race. Isn't that so?"
**
Can Humanity Survive AI? by Garrison Lovely said:
***
Drones will cause an upheaval of society like we haven’t seen in 700 years by Noah Smith said:
 
Last edited:

ATP

Well-known member
About western civilization - leftist accuse us of beliving in conspiracy theories,but in West tradition people ALWAYS had right to doubt authorities - and authorities must prove,that they are honest.

When in East people do not have rights to doubt their god-kings.

In soviet union in Brezniew times those who openly questioned commies were accused of mental illness and imprisoned by doctors.The same could happen to us now,if we question lgbt madness.

Polish forgotten politician,Maurycy Mochnacki in his works do not praised too strong states - becouse,in his opinion,as a result societies was unable to act when state failed.
When in more free states states could fall and still be saved by people.
 
Last edited:

Navarro

Well-known member
How is 'understanding' even defined in this context?

Like in exact terms what does it mean to say that an LLM doesn't or can't 'understand' something?
All "AI" does is generate a statistical average of its training data. That's it.

Which is why when you ask it to write a biology paper it makes stuff with pseudo-biological diagrams of rats with penises bigger than themselves, and why when you ask it to draw a "Where's Wally" picture it makes a bizarre thing with a giant Wally standing front and centre. Because it doesn't understand what it's doing, just generating statistical averages of the data it was trained on. The AI doesn't understand biology or understand the point of one of those pictures.
 
Last edited:

LordDemiurge

Well-known member
The AI doesn't understand biology or understand the point of one of those pictures.
And the same can be said of a child as well.

When I was a toddler I drew people as heads with sticks for legs and hands.

Believe me, none of this really clarifies the difference.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top