MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
No bio...
User ID: 1783
I don’t think a distributed conspiracy is all that weird. The machinations around power and the seeking of power have not really ever changed, except that they’ve become more sophisticated as knowledge of psychology and technology has allowed for greater social engineering capabilities. In the bad old days of feudal societies, thing we’re done fairly openly because there really wasn’t much knowledge about how to do so quietly. You’d openly scheme that you and your faction want power, find Allies whose wealth, power and influence you could use to take power, and off you go, sitting a Lannister on the throne of Westeros. Not everyone involved would be part of a conspiracy. Maybe you stood to gain a trade deal if you had someone on the throne who shared your interests. In that instance you might well support the movement even if you’re not in on the conspiracy. You might well jump on social trends that increase your power. This is how power always works.
I think the failure is the point. If you want to restructure a society, job #1 is to make the society that you want to restructure not work anymore. The shittier it gets, the more people call for radical changes that would have been unthinkable in traditional, functional, societies. When politics in the current system can no longer fix potholes, crime, or other problems, it’s easier to sell people on radical changes. When churches are weakened into social clubs, you either get Christian fundamentalism or people abandoning faith in favor of either atheism or other religions. And thus a group that would have been able to resist is neutered again allowing the changes and setting the stage for the end game radical transformation of society.
The more Western, capitalist, Christian society breaks down, the easier it gets to say “the reason that everything is terrible and you can’t walk down the street at night is because of patriarchal oppression and capitalism. That’s why you can’t afford groceries. That’s why your kids know every gender and sexuality but can’t read a book. That’s why you have to leave your car unlocked to get looted, and why there are open air drug markets selling fentanyl in most major cities. Give the government more control, especially the liberal government. We will save you.
I think it should also include education and the media promoting those kinds of things. Tell people that marriage is cool and that motherhood is beautiful and being a dad is good.
I think the absurd level of skill in a lot of those things do tend to serve as effective barriers to entry as well. I’ll use youth sports as an example. We have a system in youth sports that’s absolutely insane. If you want to play sports, you have to put in an insane amount of time, energy and effort to make the team — and select teams often begin at 8 years old. If you make it to the place where you can expect to play high school sports, you’ve likely been playing on select and traveling teams from second grade onward. And aside from the games, tournaments, and team practices, you’ve likely been taking lessons as well. Which means that you have to have the time and money to put 20 hours a week into that one sport.
But suppose you’re a kid of middling talent. Well, basically, 99% of team sports are closed off to you. Sorry champ, too bad you’re not super talented. And the predictable result of this is… either you’re a stand out superstar player of your chosen sport, or you might as well quit. Did they stop desiring to play baseball, or is it so insanely difficult for kids to make the team that they end up playing baseball on their Xbox One instead of with friends outdoors. And then you end up with the twin crises of obesity (because only the top 10% of kids actually get to play any team sports) and loneliness (because team sports turns out to be an easy way for boys to make friends) and can’t quite understand why.
I think even for other things, participation goes down when people are led to believe that they need to be good at something or do it seriously if you want to participate. You feel pressure to find deeper meanings for the books you read, or the shows you watch. You have to read tge stuff on booktok or some other curated list. If you happen to like a nerd-coded show or movie series, you have to learn the lore and follow fan theories and there are often things to collect or whatever. I think for me I almost don’t want to get into those kinds of series because of the absurd competition to know all the stuff to feel comfortable talking to other fans because they’ll have learned all the lore. It’s almost like all hobbies have become competitive in a sense, you can’t just do the thing you have to do it to a social media friendly level.
I think honestly that the standards of 1962 were better for the country because at some point, good enough is good enough and you gain more social health by letting average people participate in those kinds of activities instead of limiting those social opportunities t9 just the hyper competitive people.
At current at least, the identitarianist view is true. People of various racial, religious, and social groups do band together, and it’s only the Americaner whites who are being told that for them to do likewise is racist Or bigotry or whatever sneer you can insert. Likewise, any move of Christianity to have any say over the morals of the country is met with cries of Christian Nationalism, often for doing similar things to what Islam is doing. I as a Christian am shamed for public prayers, Muslims get to block roads all over Europe at prayer time, or in Deerborn, have their call to prayer broadcast loudly so everyone can hear it. Muslims can tell us not to violate Sharia around them, invade the German Christmas Market, etc. Christians are not allowed to do that, and in fact are often told by the state that their religious beliefs take a distant second place to secular rules. Make that gay wedding cake, sell that abortive agent, be invisible. Whites similarly are told to sit down and shut up while their opportunities are taken away, their culture is called bigoted, etc.
I can tell you that the identity politics view works, because nothing gets the ire of the elites like the prospect of whites and Christians banding together to stand their ground. I’ve never seen anyone beyond a few cranks who want to reimpose segregated society, or impose a state church. What they want is essentially the same seat at the table that everyone else has. That’s mostly what I want. Not to be the only group that matters, but to have my concerns matter.
I mean the alternative to defending yourself and your interests is … not defending them. If your tribe (in whatever form) is being threatened or their interests are threatened, it’s perfectly reasonable to band together to stop that. Is it toxoplasmic? Maybe so. I’m just not convinced that unilaterally deciding not to engage is tge best response. In my opinion if you do so, it’s not being “the good one”, it’s being a doormat. And especially in politics where the goal is to distribute power among factions, the surest way to be the victim is to refuse to engage in the quest for power.
To some degree, being “right woke” is a necessary defensive measure to protect themselves from the predation of the “left woke”. When you’re being attacked for tribe membership, noticing that, talking about it, and banding together to do something about it is just good tribal politics. The alternative is that collitions of other tribes simply take from you while you don’t even bother to talk about it happening let alone doing anything about it. DEI is basically “take good jobs away from white men and hand them to minorities.” Racial quotas in universities do much the same — shutting whites out of good opportunities because someone with the right skin tone wants that slot. Flooding the West with migrants to suppress wages something that should be noticed.
I think liberalism has two main discomforts: Impositions of will or power, and hard natural limits. It’s not like they won’t ever impose, but they do so with reluctance, and further are often deeply suspicious of anyone who would use power to impose limits on others’ behavior. Saying that a behavior is “bad” is seen as a denial of autonomy and integrity. I should be able to do anything I want to, especially things that are seen as integral to one’s view of himself. If I see myself as a man I am one and you must treat me as one. If I want to get a tattoo or dye my hair, you thinking less of me, or not hiring me, or saying it’s a bad idea is oppressive.
Now the other thing I notice is the temptation to “snowplow” life. To remove the negative consequences of choices made, to make life less demanding, to lower and weaken standards that keep those who cannot meet them from sharing the resulting benefits that come with success. If someone has more, it’s unfair.
It’s kinda both though. Just being the owner of land with resources doesn’t make you a rich country. And being on land that doesn’t have those resources doesn’t make you poor. Russia has a lot of oil and mineral wealth. Nobody wants to live there. Hong Kong and Taiwan are both pretty small countries, but they’re wealthy. Thus I submit to you that America is not successful just because of our land. A good bit of our success is due to our people and the values they hold. Things like productivity and meritocracy, traditional morality, innovation and adoption of technology, freedom from government interference.
80 years of peace is actually bull. Look at the history and there are lots of wars. The reason they’re not happening to you isn’t “liberal democracy’s boon” it’s geography. If you’re American, you basically live in a fortress — friendly governments on our two land borders and two entire oceans between America and the rest of the world.
And there have been wars. They’ve just happening in Africa, MENA, or South America. We’ve blown up lots of real estate during the Great Liberal Peace. Further, I have long suspected that the intervention of international organizations has made wars worse rather than better. In the bad old days, you’d fight until victory or defeat. Once the other side knuckles under, the thing is done, and you accept whatever the results were. If you fought beyond the point of futility, that’s on you. Now wars are more common because nobody is decisively defeated. The international community sees to it by putting in peace keepers or demanding ceasefires when they decide that the weaker side is losing too badly. This not only delays surrender, but because the weaker side never loses badly enough, the war flares up again as soon as the losing side can rearm.
I think honestly there is a lost art of didactic fiction aimed at adult readers. The current fashion of grey morality and grim dark gets a bit tiresome simply because you have so much of it made. Even when a character is supposed to be the hero, he’s almost never earnest about believing anything. It’s all cynical. I don’t think heroes need to be goody-goods all the time, but I want to read about worlds in which people actually believe in being good as possible and trying to do the right thing. They can (and frankly should, at times) fail. They should wonder how to be good, or have to choose between two good or two bad choices.
Even this would be fairly dangerous, because you essentially have to curb free speech during an election, as it’s unlikely that you’re going to be dealing with a manipulation scheme that is stupid enough to not VPN at minimum and probably at least be able to spoof IPs in the country if not create a network of servers in the country to post from. It’s unlikely that you can thus tell the difference between native crime-thinkers and a network of agents from Kazakhstan trying to influence the election. And even if you could, again the temptation to simply label messages that go against the doctrine of the cathedral as “interference”, “misinformation”, or “disinformation”, not because they’re false, but because it’s an easy win. You get to hobble your opponent by blocking messages in his favor while you can get your message out easily.
Again, these types of decisions are effectively attacks on democratic principles because it allows for the ruling party to simply declare the other side to be cheating, and thus put a strong thumb on the scale in favor of the ruling party.
The problem of course being that modern Global Liberals have long since lost the will to do what was done in Japan even if it would work. The project was basically taking a feudalist society turned Empire with no real history of democratic institutions and zero concept of the idea of human rights and rebirth a new country and a nearly completely new culture from the ashes of what the culture of Japan was before Nagasaki.
They took over everything, confiscated weapons larger than a kitchen knife, banned large swathes of Japanese culture (shogi was nearly banned because it was a war-game. It survived because those defending it managed to convince the occupation forces that Shogi is democratic because even a pawn can become a king). The school system was fully controlled for a generation.
Compare that to the occupation of Afghanistan. We didn’t even try to curb the worst parts of Islam, we didn’t ban weapons. We certainly didn’t impose a modern, Western educational system on Afghanistan. Basically, they could keep everything backwards about Islamic culture.
It’s not a line that should be drawn. Theres no way any government should be allowed to simply set aside election results. It just opens the door to a government deciding that Theres interference any time that they don’t happen to like the results. And given that such things would be hard to prove or prevent, there’s no way to 100% defend a fair election from those kinds of accusations. Maybe people wanted Trump, or maybe it was secretly Russia! And since it was secretly Russians the vote would be set aside.
I’m not talking about his plotting. His stories are honestly fairly predictable from my point of view. But he does create worlds that don’t feel like they’re transposed versions of medieval Europe. Martin doesn’t do that part well at all. The Religion of the Seven is a reskin of Christianity more or less. The plot is pretty much War of the Roses. It’s just like if you’re creating a fantasy world, I think you should put a little effort into making the world something other than our world.
I think the critique is pretty spot on. To me his issue is that he’s so busy commenting he’s forgetting to tell a story. And I do think part of it is actually that most of his stuff seems to be a reskinned version of something that already exists. In short his world-building sucks. Theres just nothing unique and interesting about the story. It’s basically the trope of feudal society with lords fighting for power, set in I can’t believe it’s not England, and filled with the fashion for grey morality even when it hurts the story.
Honestly, that’s why I like Sanderson a bit better. He’s not the best at plotting, but when he creates a world, he doesn’t just plunk a bit of magic into a setting. The entire world is alien and works off of completely alien physics and biology. His world likewise seems to flow from those assumptions. The shards can bend matter, and thus people use them to make buildings.
I mean it was real enough that an occupation government thought it would be politically useful. I mean there are living descendants of Tsar Nicholas II who might be plausible heads of the Russian Empire. Whether or not they’re actually related is not nearly as important as that they’d be acceptable to the people of Russia and whatever power decides to put them on the throne. Claims to royal lineage are political claims and are thus vetted less through factual evidence than through the lens of acceptable political reality. If the Kong family were not seen as reliably pliant, the line would have been publicly discredited even if true.
Even if the environment itself weren’t secular, I think it would still happen for the same reason that Pride parades happen. These people want to be seen, they have a need to reclaim the idea that it’s okay to be a loud and proud Christian and to reject the implication that there’s something shameful about having an actual belief in Christ and Christianity. I don’t even think it’s about them not understanding it, it’s about being in the faces of secular culture and saying that we are Christians and we’re not ashamed of it, and we’re not going anywhere.
The reverse memes are everywhere. Christianity is seen as backwards, bigoted, and something that only uneducated rubes take seriously. You’d rarely, if ever, see the religion itself portrayed positively in media that isn’t explicitly Christian. The best you can hope for is that the media ignores religion, but often there’s a hostility to it. The Cathedral hates believing Christians, most likely because they represent a stronghold they don’t have control over. The school system (unless it’s explicitly a Christian school) teaches secular atheism at every opportunity. TV and movies do the same, with a healthy dollop of “look at how stupid Christianity is, they’re hateful bigots, they’re Christian Nationalists, they’re kind of fascist and want to force everyone to live like them.” This doesn’t happen as much to other religions. Muslims are expected to secularize a bit, but nobody will shame a Muslim for being a Muslim. Jews get a complete pass — wearing a yarmulke doesn’t really bother the Cathedral so much. Buddhists get no pushback, in fact if a white person becomes Buddhist, it’s considered a good thing, and anyway meditation is popular as stress relief.
I find myself wanting to be more loud and proud in such an environment. Maybe not on Twitter, but I find myself wanting to buy and wear Christian clothing just to sort of show that I am one and we exist whether or not the rest of you like it. I’ve return to high church Christianity, and I think I’m getting tired of everything not explicitly made by and for Christians being outright hostile towards Christianity. Is such a thing a version of a Deus Vult edit? I don’t know, but I think it’s where a lot of people are right now.
I think most such claims should be taken with a large dose of salt, and I regard anything older than about 200 years so easy to fake that it’s not worth taking seriously. I’ve done my own tree and while the charts would allow me to “claim” William the Conqueror, there’s absolutely no way to prove the entire lineage. And the reason is that it’s easy enough to make mistakes and motivated changes in a genealogy before the widespread use of birth certificates and other documents. Even with them, there’s a fair chance that someone in your family was unfaithful and that ancestor is actually the child of a servant or some random person. It’s just silly on some level for people to take seriously the claims that they’re related to ancient people.
I don’t think for a second that this is something that only happens in China, the bias, I think, comes from growing up in a world where everything is documented by printed documents stored in safes or on a server somewhere. For most of history, that wasn’t true at all. The documents were written by scribes hired by people or organizations rich enough to afford to hire them. Inserting a famous ancestor into your family tree is easy to do when you’re the only people with that record and you want to be related to some great historical figure. The other thing is that because the documents are hand copied, barring a historical accident, most of the stuff that survives to this day is there because it supports those who eventually won. That’s not “a different kind of lying” it’s just history being history at a time when records were kept by hand.
Not him, but from my point of view:
1). That the nature of man is basically good, altruistic, and cooperative.
2). That the people as a whole are capable of understanding an issue and studying it objectively.
3). That manipulation of culture would not happen even though the legitimacy of any position depends on public approval.
4). That the government would not use the cover of protecting the public to appropriate itself powers undreamed of in ages past.
5). That any institution would be permitted to exist untouched by the manipulation of public opinion.
The biggest controllers of culture are education and the media. Both have been captured by blues for decades, and thus the average American is inundated with blue cultural messaging from the time they enter school, and the media is available to people 24 hours a day, every day. So the culture is constantly pushed in those directions: statism, atheism, pro-LGBTQ, DEI/woke. In other countries, you’ll find these same institutions pointing in other directions. In places like Iran, it pushes religion, which is why that news media seems so weird to us. We generally don’t see religion displayed as a prominent part of people’s lives, people making references to holy books, praying, etc. religion isn’t taught as true in public schools, at best you’ll find them having passages from different holy books in a literature class and taught as literature.
Actually it wouldn’t. One reason that admitting thousands upon thousands of people into institutions of higher education is that no matter how poorly they do, the college gets paid. If that were no longer true, if students were no longer money buckets, then they’d either have to do without students or retool to provide value to their students. That means more practical education and lower costs. And obviously no bank is going to back a dischargable loan for “activism studies” because the student won’t be able to pay for it.
I think the Cthulhu meme only really works short term. He seems to be pretty cyclical over longer periods of time. In times and places where this are stable and prosperous, he goes culturally left and economically right. In bad times, he reverses course moving right culturally and left economically as people seek relief in traditional beliefs and habits while demanding economic relief from the wider society. Current trends only really apply to the relative quite of the 1990s to 2010s or so when outside of 9/11 really most of our society is pretty stable. There wasn’t a huge war like WW2, there wasn’t a huge Great Depression that lasted for years, it was pretty much a time when it became possible to allow greater social freedom because why not?
My thoughts are that this stems directly from their view of the world. To them America and the West are a dystopian nightmare.
White Guilt, and present militarism
In Liberal circles, white people, and particularly white Americans, are racist, militaristic, and colonial. They also perceive that none of it is changing even a little bit. We support Israel which is racist and genocidal, we hold down minorities, and enrich ourselves at the expense of the non-whites of the world. And they see it as nobody aside from them actually caring.
Environment
Liberals believe that Earth will be literally uninhabitable within their lifetime. The air will be choked with pollution, the rivers poisoned, global warming creating deserts and rain forests and making things too hot. Nobody wants to do enough to fix it, and quite often want to go in the other direction. They see that nobody aside from them cares.
Capitalism
The rich run the world for the rich and everyone else suffers. Poverty is common, and all the things that should be free are instead not free. College costs too much. Health care costs too much. And again, none of this is noticed by anyone else, so nothing will change.
Trump
You might not notice, but we elected Literally Hitler in November. He’s going to build work camps. He’s going to round people up and either imprison them or deport them. The Handmaid’s Tale is going to happen. Again, nobody notices or cares and worse, half the country likes it. Which proves that white people are evil.
All of this is a profoundly negative world view. Dystopian even. Everything is terrible, and at best going to stay terrible forever, and very likely to get worse. If this is how you really see the world, obviously that’s going to give you anxiety and depression, especially if you’re hanging around others who share this view, and have few or no outside interests.
Collition is a distributed conspiracy. Lobbying is a distributed conspiracy. I’ve never really noted that the NRx groups would not have considered a rightward leaning lobby or collition as not being a distributed conspiracy. Distributed conspiracies are simply the building and wielding of a power base. And really the biggest difference in modern times is how the influence peddling works due to how we perceive the legitimacy of a power base. In modern liberal democracy, legitimacy flows from the deimos— all of us, so power is wielded by creating the appearance of the public being for something and creating propaganda networks.
More options
Context Copy link