America s 21st century
video description
There's no sudden ascendency of social justice that came out of the blue. What there is is anti-whitism that has been growing and embedding itself in the power structure for decades seeming to come out of nowhere because that's the nature of exponential growth, but this is an illusion. Imagine somebody who has had largely asymptomatic HIV for four years, symptoms start appearing in the fifth, and by the sixth he gets full-blown AIDs suddenly. The virus was there for a long time, it just wasn't noticed. The way to win isn't to fantasize about some kind of war that you would lose anyway, but to change the discourse by countering one narrative with another. Call out anti-whitism for what it is.
Date: 2022-10-12
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 14
Herald
Your view on India is partially correct - while its quite true that their industrialization is remarkably slow, it has begun to pick up. Their services and technology sector development is quite lopsided, though they're more likely to become the world's back offices than anything else.
That said, they're not the type to go imperial. They've got no interest in being an imperial power (not even a reluctant one, like their former masters the British) and are very likely to remain as they've always been - a relatively isolationist economic power with substantial cultural and economic capital, but with little or no ambitions of conquest outside of their immediate neighborhood (and in all likelihood, they'll probably do that just to ensure their regional security after a millennium of being invaded from beyond.
They will almost certainly be a fairly valuable partner (though largely self-interested) to the Anglosphere - despite the hyper-nationalist types who bug you, most Indians tend to be fairly friendly towards the Anglosphere, and have a great deal of respect and admiration for its achievements while trying to adopt what made the Anglosphere successful.
China - well, they've not gotten out of their habit of exploding into gigadeath civil wars every few centuries. They're never going to be a great power. Regionally influential, but not much more than that.
Or, to quote Samuel Huntington, Asia's Past shall be its Future.
reply
Your view on India is partially correct - while its quite true that their industrialization is remarkably slow, it has begun to pick up. Their services and technology sector development is quite lopsided, though they're more likely to become the world's back offices than anything else.
That said, they're not the type to go imperial. They've got no interest in being an imperial power (not even a reluctant one, like their former masters the British) and are very likely to remain as they've always been - a relatively isolationist economic power with substantial cultural and economic capital, but with little or no ambitions of conquest outside of their immediate neighborhood (and in all likelihood, they'll probably do that just to ensure their regional security after a millennium of being invaded from beyond.
They will almost certainly be a fairly valuable partner (though largely self-interested) to the Anglosphere - despite the hyper-nationalist types who bug you, most Indians tend to be fairly friendly towards the Anglosphere, and have a great deal of respect and admiration for its achievements while trying to adopt what made the Anglosphere successful.
China - well, they've not gotten out of their habit of exploding into gigadeath civil wars every few centuries. They're never going to be a great power. Regionally influential, but not much more than that.
Or, to quote Samuel Huntington, Asia's Past shall be its Future.
reply
Steven
I consider anyone who places their opinion regarding the future prospects to be reckless and/or irresponsible. Climate scientists are continually reassessing the calamitous impact of the industrial revolution and it tailwinds. The terrifying collision of conservatism in the face of Future Shock will lead to directly to irrational solutions and insanity. We are already experiencing this response. Social media has destroyed consensus. The likelihood of nuclear war is extraordinarily high. In short, space colonies are completely bonkers. They will never happen and any attempt will be thwarted by some social predilection. Most human beings are divorced from the reality that sensitive ecosystems are already at their tipping point.
reply
I consider anyone who places their opinion regarding the future prospects to be reckless and/or irresponsible. Climate scientists are continually reassessing the calamitous impact of the industrial revolution and it tailwinds. The terrifying collision of conservatism in the face of Future Shock will lead to directly to irrational solutions and insanity. We are already experiencing this response. Social media has destroyed consensus. The likelihood of nuclear war is extraordinarily high. In short, space colonies are completely bonkers. They will never happen and any attempt will be thwarted by some social predilection. Most human beings are divorced from the reality that sensitive ecosystems are already at their tipping point.
reply
Bill
First, the radical Jacobins under Robes Pierre only controlled France for about six months during the winter of 1793-94 known as the Reign of Terror. Up until that time only the King had been killed. The Girondins, who ruled before and after the Jacobins were simply republicans, followed by Napoleon, who was not terribly religious or dictatorial. Second, in the English Civil War, the London merchants who were the basis of the Parliamentary faction allowed Cromwell to form the New Model Army after they bungled things for several years. He won the war, then brought order but as soon as he died, they brought the King back in the Restoration. The real change in England occurred in the 1690s in the Glorious Revolution.
reply
First, the radical Jacobins under Robes Pierre only controlled France for about six months during the winter of 1793-94 known as the Reign of Terror. Up until that time only the King had been killed. The Girondins, who ruled before and after the Jacobins were simply republicans, followed by Napoleon, who was not terribly religious or dictatorial. Second, in the English Civil War, the London merchants who were the basis of the Parliamentary faction allowed Cromwell to form the New Model Army after they bungled things for several years. He won the war, then brought order but as soon as he died, they brought the King back in the Restoration. The real change in England occurred in the 1690s in the Glorious Revolution.
reply
Voryn
This sounds like an incredibly positive vision of the future, we just have to ensure that Christianity is the winning ideology and that the defeated are totally and systematically eradicated so that you don't just have them make a comeback after a few decades like happened in Spain and Chile.
This makes it seem a shame to be British were the leftist plan to infiltrate all sectors of life to the point of making fightback impossible is much further along, both our countries however suffer from a lack of an organisational skeleton for the resistance to form around.
Also if a secular explanation of Christianity is needed then I'm your man.
reply
This sounds like an incredibly positive vision of the future, we just have to ensure that Christianity is the winning ideology and that the defeated are totally and systematically eradicated so that you don't just have them make a comeback after a few decades like happened in Spain and Chile.
This makes it seem a shame to be British were the leftist plan to infiltrate all sectors of life to the point of making fightback impossible is much further along, both our countries however suffer from a lack of an organisational skeleton for the resistance to form around.
Also if a secular explanation of Christianity is needed then I'm your man.
reply
EmptyMan
I still say a civil war will not happen. What might happen is an overthrow of the executive branch, like a coup, by the extreme right. It will start with a monopoly on the legislative and judicial (which has already happened) branches along with the military who will follow. Then at some point, leftist politicians will simply no longer win elections for the WH or have a majority in the legislature. and if one does, that's when the coup will take place to keep the rightist leader in power (as we already saw an attempt at. I predict the Biden administration will be the last leftist leaders in the WH for a very long time.
reply
I still say a civil war will not happen. What might happen is an overthrow of the executive branch, like a coup, by the extreme right. It will start with a monopoly on the legislative and judicial (which has already happened) branches along with the military who will follow. Then at some point, leftist politicians will simply no longer win elections for the WH or have a majority in the legislature. and if one does, that's when the coup will take place to keep the rightist leader in power (as we already saw an attempt at. I predict the Biden administration will be the last leftist leaders in the WH for a very long time.
reply
Duck
People tend to confuse rigt wing/conservative/libertarian/populist.
Most Extreme rigth movement are actually economically left wing. When people talk about Extreme rigth they are talking about conservative populism.
Conservative economics is just not popular. Promissing free stuff to everybody with the money of Bezzos is much more popular than austerity and fiscal responsability. That's why most fascist movements in europe were born with socialist economic promisses. That is why Trump is left of the Democrats in economic terms, because he is a populist that sees what the people want and promisses then that.
reply
People tend to confuse rigt wing/conservative/libertarian/populist.
Most Extreme rigth movement are actually economically left wing. When people talk about Extreme rigth they are talking about conservative populism.
Conservative economics is just not popular. Promissing free stuff to everybody with the money of Bezzos is much more popular than austerity and fiscal responsability. That's why most fascist movements in europe were born with socialist economic promisses. That is why Trump is left of the Democrats in economic terms, because he is a populist that sees what the people want and promisses then that.
reply
shekelgangiv
It's painfully obvious that Marxian economics will take over while woke politics will be discarded. Capitalism and social darwinism created so much suffering, should a civil war breakout with a victorious right, the people will quickly see that having based nationalist policies while keeping the same economic system will solve none of their previous grievances. Woke politics has already gone through this treatment, no-one wants it because its bad for the majority of the population (stright, white males, capitalism is up next. Sorry, I know materialists like you won't like this, but it's inevitable!
reply
It's painfully obvious that Marxian economics will take over while woke politics will be discarded. Capitalism and social darwinism created so much suffering, should a civil war breakout with a victorious right, the people will quickly see that having based nationalist policies while keeping the same economic system will solve none of their previous grievances. Woke politics has already gone through this treatment, no-one wants it because its bad for the majority of the population (stright, white males, capitalism is up next. Sorry, I know materialists like you won't like this, but it's inevitable!
reply
SonicProductions
I don t think any Canadian provinces would join the US a lot of Canadians do have pride in their country and probably separate from Ontario and claim to be the legitimate Canada. And a lot of people in the US doesn t want more states. 50 is a nice round even number. I do also see the possibility of Canada decentralizing itself and becoming more like the EU with each province behaving as its own country but still have a federal entity for defense and as a stage on the international community
reply
I don t think any Canadian provinces would join the US a lot of Canadians do have pride in their country and probably separate from Ontario and claim to be the legitimate Canada. And a lot of people in the US doesn t want more states. 50 is a nice round even number. I do also see the possibility of Canada decentralizing itself and becoming more like the EU with each province behaving as its own country but still have a federal entity for defense and as a stage on the international community
reply
NORM!
I think one of the possibilities worth exploring. Is the Federal government simply loosing relevance. The various states simply ignoring the Federal government. You can see the pattern in state laws that are contravention to Federal law. For example marijuana, immigration, gun laws. The Federal government will attempt to re-establish it's rule but just doesn't have the teeth to do so. A possible convention of states that simply does away with the current government in DC.
reply
I think one of the possibilities worth exploring. Is the Federal government simply loosing relevance. The various states simply ignoring the Federal government. You can see the pattern in state laws that are contravention to Federal law. For example marijuana, immigration, gun laws. The Federal government will attempt to re-establish it's rule but just doesn't have the teeth to do so. A possible convention of states that simply does away with the current government in DC.
reply
thelred
To your point about harnessing the internet to build a platform at 31 minutes, you wholly deserve it. I greatly admire how you've carved your own occupational niche and managed to make your intellectual passions profitable. You ventured outside of institutional structures whereas those history professors stayed within the ivory tower. Seems you've got a much wider network than they might as well. You've made good choices, and your success is warranted.
reply
To your point about harnessing the internet to build a platform at 31 minutes, you wholly deserve it. I greatly admire how you've carved your own occupational niche and managed to make your intellectual passions profitable. You ventured outside of institutional structures whereas those history professors stayed within the ivory tower. Seems you've got a much wider network than they might as well. You've made good choices, and your success is warranted.
reply
sturdyindustries
19: 11 it's not that they're more dangerous to you it's that they're more dangerous to you, your enemies and any person that would threaten their families. this is why patriarchy was the default, why give authority to a group that is not only not a threat to you or the enemy but is an asset to that enemy and the only thing they can do with that authority is debase their use for reproducing a good society? literal smooth brain tactics
reply
19: 11 it's not that they're more dangerous to you it's that they're more dangerous to you, your enemies and any person that would threaten their families. this is why patriarchy was the default, why give authority to a group that is not only not a threat to you or the enemy but is an asset to that enemy and the only thing they can do with that authority is debase their use for reproducing a good society? literal smooth brain tactics
reply
James
Left wing purity spiraling isn't a bug, it's a feature. It's in no way a hinderance to power, but rather the source of it. First, within your own faction people can gain status only by pushing things further, which incentivizes constant advancement, then once several new things are solidified, your opposition, in order to look moderate, needs to start making concessions in order to stay in the middle and therefore not extreme.
reply
Left wing purity spiraling isn't a bug, it's a feature. It's in no way a hinderance to power, but rather the source of it. First, within your own faction people can gain status only by pushing things further, which incentivizes constant advancement, then once several new things are solidified, your opposition, in order to look moderate, needs to start making concessions in order to stay in the middle and therefore not extreme.
reply
Big
I don't think Pentecostal would be the main sort of Christianity. Basing this strictly on the adherents to each denomination and assuming the right is in control in the 2040s, it's probably gonna be Baptist and Catholic. While they're very different theologically and structurally, they are the most traditional mainstream denominations that appeal to the sort of right that would hypothetically be in control.
reply
I don't think Pentecostal would be the main sort of Christianity. Basing this strictly on the adherents to each denomination and assuming the right is in control in the 2040s, it's probably gonna be Baptist and Catholic. While they're very different theologically and structurally, they are the most traditional mainstream denominations that appeal to the sort of right that would hypothetically be in control.
reply
Knutted
Jordan Peterson has been in front of a camera too many times. He didn't say anything new.
I think he accidentally thrusted himself into the social conscious and didnt know what to do with it.
He said the SJW movement was bad and you should take care of yourself.
I don't think his talks are good. I think he fools you into thinking he's saying some deep introspective stuff.
reply
Jordan Peterson has been in front of a camera too many times. He didn't say anything new.
I think he accidentally thrusted himself into the social conscious and didnt know what to do with it.
He said the SJW movement was bad and you should take care of yourself.
I don't think his talks are good. I think he fools you into thinking he's saying some deep introspective stuff.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
