71–80 of 203 posts
Palladium magazine was founded by Wolf Tivy and Jonah Bennett. It is funded by Peter Thiel. Jonah Bennett previously worked at The Daily Caller and he resigned from Palladium when it was discovered he had authored some racist messages and was friends with various white nationalists. Samo Burja, the author, is undoubtedly a more serious and educated person. However, he promotes a “Great Founder Theory” which is not so…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea of those who favor "kings and aristocracy" is more that we'll always have people around with more power than others (elites), and that formal transparency about who these people are ultimately improves accountability. Would you work for a faux "anarcho-tyrannyist" firm where you have no idea who the CEO is and who the managers are that can fire you or cut your salary?
Who guarantees the "kings and aristocrats" are really the ones pulling the strings? They are frequently just puppets.
> If this is correct, then post-industrial society isn’t our name for the next stage of civilizational progress. Instead, the term is true in its most literal and pessimistic interpretation: a society after and without industrial civilization. Such a society doesn’t even have the social infrastructure of agricultural civilizations. This means it cannot even mint the preliminary social capital needed to reindustrializ…
The cause isn't adequately explained, but it's hard not to see the ramifications of the outcome everywhere you look. We live in a society that couldn't rebuild, if it had to, the New York City subway, or the Interstate Highway System, or the national electric grid, or numerous other features of industrialized 20th century America.
We live in a society which lacks the collective will to do such things. It's only after the knowledge required to do so is lost that it can't be done again.
Unlike after the fall of Rome, there are machine tools all over this country that make it possible. We don't have to rely on manpower, or beasts to do the work. Sitting in basements, garages, barns, forests. We've got the natural resources. We also have a widely distributed archive of machinists books, literacy, and the hacker ethos on our side.
Mostly it's the financial distortions of the price of money, and tax policy, that have moved our manufacturing offshore, for now.
> These social technology cores decay with time as they obsolete their own foundations, and as errors and parasitism build up A lot to explain there. > Yet even in the case of Britain, the key social technologies failed after the Second World War, as the latitude afforded to aristocratic scientists and industrialists was replaced by a system of bureaucratic processes. And there. I found this unreadable, sorry. Lots o…
And also nutty statements like this: > Americans and Europeans may at that point be de-facto barred from visiting China by their own governments ...which seems to indicate a lack of familiarity with the relationship between American+European governments and their citizens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
As noted above their notion is not great man theory. It’s that elites exist and hide and we should make their power structures more legible. It’s a solid concept imo. But also nothing about their podcasts seem so bad as to wash them away with one flippant comment.
Palladium magazine was founded by Wolf Tivy and Jonah Bennett. It is funded by Peter Thiel. Jonah Bennett previously worked at The Daily Caller and he resigned from Palladium when it was discovered he had authored some racist messages and was friends with various white nationalists. Samo Burja, the author, is undoubtedly a more serious and educated person. However, he promotes a “Great Founder Theory” which is not so…
All that can be true while palladium can also be one of the only publications that grapples with big theories and forecasts of geo politics and social shifts. Are there many others? FP seems more focused on essays targeted at an audience of one written for ver specific inside baseball reasons. HBR and the likes have become laughable top 10 lists and passing superficial junk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have to remember the basic idea behind a lot of these word salads is that "We need to return to kings and aristocracy" and that "Of course I am a high iq intellectual who will be the nobility and not a feudal worker, why is there any doubt?". Everything starts making sense then.
The idea of those who favor "kings and aristocracy" is more that we'll always have people around with more power than others (elites), and that formal transparency about who these people are ultimately improves accountability. Would you work for a faux "anarcho-tyrannyist" firm where you have no idea who the CEO is and who the managers are that can fire you or cut your salary?
One of the things the right wing (especially the religious right) in the US does far better than any other groups is to claim lofty egalitarian or noble-minded principals while not applying them to themselves.
But if we throw that out, and want to embrace the cynicism, why lean to "let's just anoint the rich" over "let's more aggressively limit them"?
After all, we know disruption and innovation rarely comes from big incumbents. Tax the shit out of them and turn that into funding and options for the rest.
EDIT: there's a good tie-in there, actually - make it legible, that makes it easier to regulate and tax! ... Except I'm struggling to see why the elites would actually want that if it's not about formalizing and ENHANCING their power. So that seems like the real motive, here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And also nutty statements like this: > Americans and Europeans may at that point be de-facto barred from visiting China by their own governments ...which seems to indicate a lack of familiarity with the relationship between American+European governments and their citizens.
Americans have been de facto banned from visiting Cuba as long as I’ve been alive. I can totally imagine similar policies for Russia and China in the not too distant future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea of those who favor "kings and aristocracy" is more that we'll always have people around with more power than others (elites), and that formal transparency about who these people are ultimately improves accountability. Would you work for a faux "anarcho-tyrannyist" firm where you have no idea who the CEO is and who the managers are that can fire you or cut your salary?
That, of course, is ultimately extremely defeatist compared to the ideals that the USA claims (the practice and history, on the other hand, would be another discussion). One of the things the right wing (especially the religious right) in the US does far better than any other groups is to claim lofty egalitarian or noble-minded principals while not applying them to themselves. But if we throw that out, and want to em…
> why lean to "let's just anoint the rich" over "let's more aggressively limit them"?
The two can easily go hand in hand. In Classical Greece, being publicly acknowledged as "rich" meant that you would be forced to pay for public works. (And the public valuation of your assets was backed by an offer to exchange them for cash! So if you thought that the valuation was too high, you could take the offer and be better off in the end. How much is a Harvard tenured professor position worth, in the modern day and age?)
> Except I'm struggling to see why the elites would actually want that if it's not about formalizing and ENHANCING their power.
Because trust is a positive sum game. Lack of transparency is only an advantage to those who plan to take advantage of it. This is how more limited and legible ("formalized") power can translate to enhanced power.
Palladium magazine was founded by Wolf Tivy and Jonah Bennett. It is funded by Peter Thiel. Jonah Bennett previously worked at The Daily Caller and he resigned from Palladium when it was discovered he had authored some racist messages and was friends with various white nationalists. Samo Burja, the author, is undoubtedly a more serious and educated person. However, he promotes a “Great Founder Theory” which is not so…