Identification of a false alarm in a crowded theater, and also the provision of a sociopolitical/biological model consistent with Desmet’s psychological observations of mass formation events...
Super well written and interesting! And your on to something with the "prey" and "predator" labeling. Regarding Peter Turchin, there is a glaring error in Turchin's recent book that also, in a way, presents a potential logical contradiction within the book, and outside of that, also has great potential meaning for the broader related discussions. On page 8 he writes: "At the end of the first age of discord in the US, the governing elites, frightened by the levels of political violence that it wrought, managed to pull together and agree on a set of reforms that brought the first age of discord to an end. These reforms were initiated during the Progressive Era, starting around 1900, and finalized during the New Deal of the 1930s."
The error, and is demonstrably an error, is that the Progressive Era was NOT an project driven by a string national center, like its predecessor era, the Populist Era, almost all of what occurred was done at the local and state levels. The Progressives, most of whom did not refer to themselves as that at the time, were not a movement per se, at least not in the sense of being organizational involved, but rather a great many (hundreds, at least) of small groups across the country who formed, deliberated, and acted independently of each other. He may be mistaken because of observing them being common members of the same political parties, typically the Democratic Party, but this is in error because our two parties used to be fundamentally completely different. The Republican and Democratic parties of old were decentralized and publicly accessible mass-member parties that were much of the basis of the democratic governance structures of a semi-populist, semi-politically decentralized, semi-economically decentralize, semi-culturally decentralized, and semi-scientifically decentralized system where local areas not only had far more controls over their local resources (because federal revenue collection was so much smaller, among other things), they also had the power to engage in policy spheres, such as the key economic ones, that we have long since now foolishly consigned to being the sole purview of the National government (and capital "G" Globalism tried to bring some of them even farther away than that!). To a lesser but still quit substantial extent, this also holds for the 1930s New Deal Era, which I believe he falsely believes, and again, that he would be in error here can clearly demonstrated, to have been a centralized technocratic dictatorship
Well, Turchin was raised in the Soviet Union where top down centralized technocratic management was the usual thing (rather than the original bottom-up decentralized management of former days in America.) Turchin may have gotten his thinking about such things strongly conditioned from being raised there.
🤔 I’m not moderate really for years. I don’t put much stock in modeling people or people’s either, I do value history above all in any predictive way.
The Turks for instance took Constantinople and found themselves with the same problems, as they kept Anatolia a different outcome.
I saw Civil War coming in December 2010 when Nancy Pelosi mocked the Crowd gathered with her huge Clown sized gavel. Nothing I’ve seen since points to peace.
I suggest you look at the forest rather than the trees (like the actions of the old Californian Queen Bee). For example, things on the 'right' didn't blow up earlier in the decade, despite considerable provocation. Politically, it appears that the Dems have pretty much blown their wad and are becalmed and milling around in a very confused fashion, and that the non-Dems are now responding -- locally and nationally -- in a controlled and measured fashion to the nation's hystericals. This all points to eventual resolution and continued peace in the forest.
Super well written and interesting! And your on to something with the "prey" and "predator" labeling. Regarding Peter Turchin, there is a glaring error in Turchin's recent book that also, in a way, presents a potential logical contradiction within the book, and outside of that, also has great potential meaning for the broader related discussions. On page 8 he writes: "At the end of the first age of discord in the US, the governing elites, frightened by the levels of political violence that it wrought, managed to pull together and agree on a set of reforms that brought the first age of discord to an end. These reforms were initiated during the Progressive Era, starting around 1900, and finalized during the New Deal of the 1930s."
The error, and is demonstrably an error, is that the Progressive Era was NOT an project driven by a string national center, like its predecessor era, the Populist Era, almost all of what occurred was done at the local and state levels. The Progressives, most of whom did not refer to themselves as that at the time, were not a movement per se, at least not in the sense of being organizational involved, but rather a great many (hundreds, at least) of small groups across the country who formed, deliberated, and acted independently of each other. He may be mistaken because of observing them being common members of the same political parties, typically the Democratic Party, but this is in error because our two parties used to be fundamentally completely different. The Republican and Democratic parties of old were decentralized and publicly accessible mass-member parties that were much of the basis of the democratic governance structures of a semi-populist, semi-politically decentralized, semi-economically decentralize, semi-culturally decentralized, and semi-scientifically decentralized system where local areas not only had far more controls over their local resources (because federal revenue collection was so much smaller, among other things), they also had the power to engage in policy spheres, such as the key economic ones, that we have long since now foolishly consigned to being the sole purview of the National government (and capital "G" Globalism tried to bring some of them even farther away than that!). To a lesser but still quit substantial extent, this also holds for the 1930s New Deal Era, which I believe he falsely believes, and again, that he would be in error here can clearly demonstrated, to have been a centralized technocratic dictatorship
Well, Turchin was raised in the Soviet Union where top down centralized technocratic management was the usual thing (rather than the original bottom-up decentralized management of former days in America.) Turchin may have gotten his thinking about such things strongly conditioned from being raised there.
I think you may be overestimating the moderates, then again you may be one.
Statistically speaking, you are probably right (bit of an accidental double entendre there).
🤔 I’m not moderate really for years. I don’t put much stock in modeling people or people’s either, I do value history above all in any predictive way.
The Turks for instance took Constantinople and found themselves with the same problems, as they kept Anatolia a different outcome.
I saw Civil War coming in December 2010 when Nancy Pelosi mocked the Crowd gathered with her huge Clown sized gavel. Nothing I’ve seen since points to peace.
I suggest you look at the forest rather than the trees (like the actions of the old Californian Queen Bee). For example, things on the 'right' didn't blow up earlier in the decade, despite considerable provocation. Politically, it appears that the Dems have pretty much blown their wad and are becalmed and milling around in a very confused fashion, and that the non-Dems are now responding -- locally and nationally -- in a controlled and measured fashion to the nation's hystericals. This all points to eventual resolution and continued peace in the forest.