Copied and pasted a long thread about the 2020s (part 2)
I have found a very interesting thread in a forum, I decided to copy and paste all the comments that the author of the post had made. The author posted this in 2019, the author also posted another in the past in 2018 about the same subject. But this will be about the 2019 post (part 2) I won't be sharing the link to the website because I want to protect the identity of the users since it is a mental health forum. But here is the link to part 1: https://www.reddit.com/The2020s/comments/dzpb6l/copied_and_pasted_a_long_thread_about_the_2020s/ --------------- Here we are! Today it is the year 2019, the near end of the 2010s.The 2010s was an interesting decade to say the least, internet use continued to spread like wildfire worldwide with more and more people becoming dependent on the internet. When I was a kid in the 2000s I felt like the odd one out because I was addicted to the desktop and I didn't know many other people who were addicted to computers, but today in the 2010s this seems like the new normal except now most people are carrying desktops in their own pockets (cellphones). In the 2000s politics was very moderate and there was much less polarization, now polarization is pretty much a growing trend with many people sharing very strong political believes on the internet. The internet became a political tool and metaphorically a source of political fuel in the 2010s, everyone can now share their believes on the internet and inspire a new group of followers, something that the world didn't have or realized it had until the 2010s and we are still getting used to this. In 2010 there were 6.9 billion people and 1.9 billion internet users, in 2019 there are about 7.8 billion people and about 4.5 billion internet users. Which means that internet use has increased by 237% while the world population has increased by at least 12%.By 2030 the world population is expected to reach 8.5 billion people and more than 7.5 billion people are expected to be internet users, that could very well be 90% of the worlds population. This means that the internet will truly begin to take over the world during the 2020s, it will continue to make big changes on how we will live and how we will communicate, it may become almost impossible to live in the western world without being online. Climate change is a big issue, in 2010 the global average temperature was 0.62 Celsius above 20th century average, in 2018 it was 0.79 Celsius above 20th century average. The 2018 temperatures may not seem like much but everyone who is informed about the summer of 2018 will agree that it was a very hot year, so hot that record wildfires within the arctic circle happened.By 2030 we could potentially reach 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming since pre-industrial times, again the number does not seem much but the consequences are huge. Mudslides from melting soil will turn mountains in death zones, lower food harvests and nutritional value will increase risks of starvation, loss of fresh water will result in wars over water, the Maldives will be flooded as well as Bangladesh which will cause huge mass migrations, the ice will melt even faster which are increasing sea levels, you get the idea.In the 2020s global warming will become a much bigger problem, but there is no guarantee that enough will be done to cut emissions. Developing countries such as India want nothing more than to have the same quality of life as the western world does, not much can be done to dissuade India until the country suffers greatly from global warming and the potential for growth seems impossible. As long as developing countries believe that growth is possible they will contribute massively to global emissions just as soon as the developed world begin to cut their emissions, and worse yet developing countries often have very high populations which will contribute to global warming even more than it could have done. In the 2020s there will be a new global superpower which would be decided by 2030, it is unlikely that America will remain the superpower due to its stagnant economy and the potential loss of trade partners in the near future. The most likely contenders for being the next global superpower is Russia and China, this struggle for power could potentially trigger a 2nd cold war. Global relations will change, there has been a growing loss of trust in the 2010s between nations and that trend will continue to escalate during the 2020s while new crises emerge.This loss of trust could result in balkanization in some parts of the world, particularly in ethnically diverse countries such as Papua New Guinea and Tanzania. Countries will begin to do their own thing and ignore international agreements as trust disintegrates, the Paris Agreement and the United Nations might be abandoned in the 2020s.To put it shortly, the world power will likely shift from Anglo-America to Asio-China/Russia, international co-operation and aid may regress into nationalistic autonomy, and from democracy to populism. Technologically, most breakthroughs will be related to the huge spread of the internet in some way, in other words most technological advances will be adaptations to the way we live with the internet and learning the full capability and power of it. 5g will be adopted reluctantly due to health concerns, but it will be adopted anyway at some point in the 2020s quickly and this will cause even more dramatic changes within our society. If you think our world has changed drastically so far just wait until 5g comes! By 2030 we could have fridges that are connected to the internet, many other inanimate objects would also be connected to the internet and whatever information is processed will be used to benefit companies as well as sniffing out bad behavior. Because of 5g, the 2020s may be the last decade when privacy is possible in society. Lastly, I am going to talk about generations and their role in the 2020s. Pretty much all Baby Boomers are going to retire in this decade to have their previous role as leaders replaced by Gen X, Gen Y will all be adults and will be trying to make big changes in the world, Gen Z will begin to grow into adults, there will be a new generation in the 2020s (generation beta). What do you think will happen in the 2020s? Very keen to read your thoughts about this topic!Have a good day. ------------------------- reply to user: Honestly I will never be able to answer with confidence about Brexit! I think many people in the parliament don't seem to know what to do, I think most likely Brexit will be on hold until the EU itself fails. Today the EU is already struggling to survive.How will the EU fail? When its financial situation gives European nations the incentive to leave so they can grow their economies by themselves without restrictions, the Syrian refugee crisis (5 million people) destabilized the EU to its core and it was the refugee crisis that started Brexit in the first place.Imagine what would happen to global politics if 20 million migrants went into Europe, it would certainly change a lot of things. reply to user:Religion could make a comeback in the 2020s, particularly in a scenario where climate change pushes people to turn to religion for comfort. Islam is on a sharp rise due to the fact that they have a lot of children, it will also become the biggest religion in the world in the near future, at that point most people on Earth will be Muslim.I think ISIS largely happened because of food shortages in Syria which resulted in civil war, if a similar thing happened in another vulnerable Muslim country then you can expect another wave of suicidal radicals wrecking havoc and forming another radical group.I have once predicted a similar uprising in North Africa resulting in a mass Christian migration into Europe, the number of Christian migrants could exceed 20 million. ----------------------- reply to user: Yeah the idea of the European Union has been a flawed and overly ambitious project right from the start, Europe is quite a divided continent with many countries having a strong sense of identity, trying to make Europe into one country will inevitably backfire. Without much doubt the EU will collapse, however it will live on under a different name by one or a few countries that still cling onto the vision.After EU falls there is a chance that a few more so-called unions may form, these unions may be alliances that share the same political views which could result in a polarization.Germany had a good shot at attempting to rule Europe again though, we tried it and probably won't do it again for a while. ----------------------- reply to user: Funny enough I have just very recently found out that the UK is going to have another general election, so far at the moment it looks like Labour is doing well with public approval, it is a likely possibility that Jeremy Corbyn may become the next prime minister.If Jeremy Corbyn becomes the next prime minister that would mean that Brexit will be cancelled, this could cause major polarization and unrest if there are still people who really want Brexit. Who knows what would happen if the majority of pro-Brexiteers protest in the streets because they didn't get what was promised to them? A British revolution is another real possibility. reply to user:Predicting elections will always be difficult for me because of how uncertain and at times random they all are, who would of thought that Trump would win in 2016? Would Trump win again in 2020? I mean it sounds crazy but if it happened in 2016 then it can certainly happen again in 2020. Although I do think that Trump has less of a chance of winning in 2020.A good thing to take note of is when Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement much of America didn't follow suite, there are many American companies who still follow the Paris Agreement guidelines because they don't agree with Trump, there are many Americans who have not been implementing Trumps policies.Elections can never be predicted with 100% confidence, but Trump is more likely to lose in 2020 than 2016. ------------------------------- Thank you all for your replies, they have been smart and intuitive contributions. :-D Last night I just began researching about the 1920s out of interest (I think I might have mentioned the 1920s in the old 2020s thread). I have just started learning about the 1920s so there is a lot that I don't know about it but there are a few themes that resonates with today trends, which I will mention below.And because I am not well informed about the 1920s the below information would be hypothetical and open to speculation. The 1920s was an economically prosperous time for the Western World, but the economic prosperity abruptly ended with the Stock Market Crash in 1929 and resulted in the Great Depression in the 1930s. A very similar situation is happening today but is happening much slower and at the moment is less severe, the Stock Market Crash in 2007-2008 resulted in an economic crawl that is still persisting to this day. I have a feeling however that the full effect of the 2007-2008 economic crisis is yet to be felt in full force. Political movements such as Socialism and Fascism were on the rise in the 1920s-1930s partly because of the economic situation, those parties believed that capitalism is out of control and needs intervention to prevent the degeneration of society. The term supercapitalism was created by Fascists, it pretty much means a degenerated form of capitalism that is doing more harm than good to society. The blame of the 1929 Stock Market Crash was placed on Capitalism by both Socialists and Fascists, anti-capitalism exploded in the 1930s which resulted in far-left/far-right nations fighting one another by the end of that decade. Lets say that the next Great Depression is to start in the early 2020s, we already have a lot of young people who have a favorable view on Socialism, on some level there are many people who are blaming Capitalism for the economic crisis. Nations have already been polarizing in the 2010s, so what would happen if we enter the next Great Depression and then a massive surge of Socialism/Fascism happens straight after? The world would be in a very similar situation as the world in pre-WWII. If the 2020s Great Depression happens then Capitalism in the Western World could end, the more young people has power over America the more likely that the nation will transition into a Socialist state. Kinda ironic because in the 20th century Anglo-America fought against Socialist Russia and in the end capitalism unexpectantly won as the leading world policy, but in the 2020s Russia may abandon their socialist past and turn to capitalism as they take advantage of the new resources revealed by global warming, just as Anglo-America turns Socialist Asio-Russia will turn Capitalist (I'm not sure about China, but I'm pretty sure that India is taking the capitalist route too). The Arctic will melt a lot during the 2020s, Russia may likely claim most of the new oil reserves which will cause worldwide tension as oil will be running out, America will be stuck with the last remaining reserves of oil in Alaska and Canada which may result in poor relations between Canada and America, eventually China may have most of the oil reserves in the Middle East because I believe that the Middle East will turn to China for economic interests as America begins to lose its grip on the region. Nothing is forever, everything changes.To those who fear for the future of America I just want to say this, even if America loses influence on the world America will still cling onto their core values in their own home and I can't see America giving up on the American dream, I think that the American dream is redefined by each of its passing generations. ------------------------------ This is probably the last comment I will post in this thread so I'll be sure to write out anything else I can predict or think about the 2020s, again I may be repeating things but at this point its hard to avoid because I posted quite alot about the 2020s at this point. I definitely agree with :user: that if WW3 were to happen in the 2020s it would be similar to how WW1 started, everything was fine then suddenly everything wasn't and the world fell into further chaos resulting in a world war. Currently I believe that the 2020s will start off with a cautious optimism, the decade where Gen X and Gen Y fully realises that the world is in their hands and they will bring about changes. If I could name a main theme of the end of the 2010s I would say 'youth in protest'. A growing number of young people believe that civilization won't be there when they grow up, they see no point in taking part in a society that they believe will inevitably fail due to climate change. In the 2020s the 'youth in protest' will grow to such a degree that societal values of the 20th century will be rendered obsolete. But where does the cautious optimism comes in? I believe the optimism is the result of hope of a better future as the youth wields more power to make changes. We will likely see a big wave of new famous Gen Z's and who knows what they could contribute to this world? Today(Nov,2019) we can all sense that things are changing but what if the changes of the 2010s are volcanic rumbles compared to the eruption of the 2020s? The 2020s will likely be a social and societal fragmentation, the crossroads of a post-consumerist world. Baby Boomers are largely responsible for the world we live in today, very soon Baby Boomers will lose their power over the world and that power will be passed onto the younger generations who have different values. Most Baby Boomers favor capitalism, a growing number of younger generations favor socialism. Conspiracy theories are a growing trend, due to the upheaval of technology it has become easier to believe in conspiracy theories because what was crazy 10 years ago seems feasible today. I think if everyone starts to believe in conspiracy theories then a lack of trust would become so hard to overcome that the government would have no choice but to allow a degree of autonomy. Allowing autonomy would cause more and more lands to demand independence, most of them will be city states like Hong Kong or Singapore. I can't think of anything else, going to conclude it here.The 2020s would either be the beginning of a new era or a long-winded dying of the present post-consumerist era. The Baby Boomers will recline on their chairs and leave the whole world to Gen X and Y, Gen Z will become adults. I haven't mentioned robots but they will begin to take some of our jobs, which can possibly trigger a neo-luddite movement. WW3 hopefully won't happen, a 2nd Cold War is more likely to happen though. Hopefully there won't be an epidemic like the Spanish flu, in this case it will most likely evolve from a strain of bird flu. Climate change will trigger protests and changes, some fear that its already too late to stop global warming. Thank you for reading, lets make the 2020s as good of a decade as possible. ---------------------------------- reply to user: Yeah I've been getting a growing sense that a British Civil War might happen, last year I could not see a civil war happening but now it seems like a real possibility, today it is easy to figure out why it would happen. I bet not many people in the 17th century civil war wanted it to happen and didn't think that it would happen but you can learn what ended up happening, Charles I got beheaded and maybe Boris Johnson might meet a similar fate.Not a certainty, I can never be certain but its something worth worrying and preparing for. In the 2020s, I think the U.A.E is a possible candidate for a world power and I can see them cutting deals from America and making deals with China instead 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend.'. Imagine if America-UK runs out of energy and oil resources, in this scenario it is likely that U.A.E+China+Russia will own all the remaining deposits by then and we may have no choice but to give up a degree of independence in exchange for some of their oil and energy.Another scenario is the race for the last of the remaining resources that our society still largely depends on, the nation that has the most resources will have the most power and nations that lack those resources will form alliances with them for resources in return.We may possibly see the first super-corporations being established, a very large and powerful corporation that may be the true power behind everything and maybe even more powerful than political figureheads.Those super-corporations may become independent nations that have their own goals and projects, mostly they involve technologies for either saving our eco-systems or to control us. I have once thought about the year 2075, I imagined a huge city (at that time many countries collapsed, civilization largely being left with city-states ran by trillionaires) the city uses mind control technology to maintain order, the A.I is used to help the elites figure out the next best course of action, human clones are used for labor and war, everyone is constantly being watched due to surveillance that will be almost everywhere.The 2020s will be the start of the new world that future generations will recognized as the true 21st century, 2000-2030 will be seen as a transitional period. ------------------------ We are only 2 days away from the 2020s, I am going to post about the decade predictions to avoid the regret of not posting it before the 2010s ends. I will have a bit of closure about my 2020s threads now that I'm doing this for the last time, I might be a bit risky and do my best to make a scenario story for fun even though about half of it will be inaccurate haha, since accurately predicting the future is like trying to fly without wings. But still, some of the predictions I have thought about have already come true even before the 2020s has started, which makes it clear that the world is changing faster than we thought and will continue to increase the throttle. There is already some tension between America and China over trade, at the moment as I write this they have agreed to a truce after a trade war that not many knew about but there is tension and might escalate in the near future, if America attacks another nation again then half of the world will turn against America and will cut all trade-ties with it which would cause America to descend into chaos. In short, America could get sanctioned but other nations will be at risk of being sanctioned if they commit any future acts of aggression. There would likely be more riots and terrorism, there will likely be a much worse refugee crisis caused both by climate change and acts of aggression by ISIS or a nation. There could be more online communities that provide a source of humanitarian relief and charity, some online communities will run on bitcoin(or other forms of cryptocurrency) so that they can afford more resources to help people with.I have once predicted that there will be a mass migration of Christians from North Africa due to Islamic radicalism, well as of 2019 there already are Christians in Nigeria (North Africa!) being beheaded by ISIS so a mass migration from North Africa is very possible, in fact the whole Arab Spring and its neighbors could produce masses of migrants due to the continuous descent into chaos. Out of all the Muslim nations Turkey-Saudi Arabia-Iran-U.A.E appear to be the most stable while others are highly vulnerable, I have a good feeling about U.A.E solely because it has many long-term goals to ensure economic security so I can see them having a good influence on Iran and Saudi Arabia, U.A.E will likely make trade deals with China and China could offer U.A.E military protection thus protecting the U.A.E from Saudi Arabia and Iran since the risk of a war going on in the Persian Gulf is high.Dubai will become a more important city and will become a cultural as well as scientific center, much of its workforce would likely be desperate people from South Asia looking for work. If a new superpower enters world-stage then the West could face sanctions for acts of war against the Arab Spring, especially if the new power is disapproving towards the West, if the West is sanctioned then it will enter a long-term economic depression and could be forced to house refugees.Populism will spread as more people feel like they are living through a crisis, populist candidates appeal to people by presenting themselves as the solution to their crisis. Populism has been on the rise in the 2010s and many people believe that most populist movements have been right-wing, the most common theme of 2010s-populism are anti-immigration and America/Britain first, those populist movements have resulted in Brexit and Donald Trumps presidency.If populism continues to spread in the 2020s then we will see more and more nations implementing anti-emigration policies and we will see them turn away from globalization as they retreat into the concerns of their own nation. The European Union will decay due to countries leaving, the United Nations too will decay as countries start to defy and leave so they can do their own thing, globalization is at a big risk in the 2020s. Largely due to technology more and more people will begin to lose their jobs, and more people will lose their homes to man-made disasters. Self-driving cars will begin to render Uber Drivers and Taxi drivers obsolete, mass-production is becoming more automatic so more people who work in mass-production will lose their jobs, self-checkout machines in shops will continue to slowly render retailers obsolete. Newspapers are dead, and soon TV will be.Nations will be able to provide more resources with robots but there will be less consumers since not many people would be able to afford to buy many things, this would cause a worldwide economic crisis and we are overdue for a 1920s-style economic crash.What will the government do with all those homeless and unemployed people? Universal income will be the most likely solution but it is highly unlikely that many people would live comfortably since they will have to work very hard to survive and you'd have to be very lucky to get a job, in turn people will begin to reject the government and the system, some (hopefully many) people could turn to online communities to support one another and due to the failing economy will turn to cryptocurrency which they use to support themselves. The Sagrada Familia will finally be complete, I think it would be nice to make the wonder of Sagrada Familia the icon of the 2020s. Other projects will be completed as well such as The London Super Sewer, The Giant Magellan Telescope, The Square Kilometer Array radio telescope, a few big bridges (and a tunnel for boats in Norway) and a few new railways here and there. There will be at least a few major space achievements thanks to Elon Musk and some privatized science projects will offer few more major breakthroughs in science, the first manned mission to Mars is scheduled in the 2020s but its chance for success is low due to the many risks and dangers, space junk will become a much bigger problem and will need to be cleaned up before we will never be able to leave the Earth. The mission to Mars would likely be re-scheduled or postponed. 3D printing is expected to enter mainstream which in itself will change many things, 3D printing could even render some shops obsolete because you could print whatever stuff you want at home instead of going to a shop looking for what you want, a creator sub-culture may develop from 3D printing enthusiasts.Vertical farms are expected to be erected for the first time in cities, this trend will grow because agriculture is also expected to fail in the long-run so there is a lot of funding put into vertical farming because vertical farming could replace conventional field farming, in the 2020s however vertical farms will only generate a very small percentage of food and its produce would not be sold in mainstream shops for a while.Lab grown meat will be a new growing trend in the 2020s, but its adoption will be slow due to skepticism and lack of popularity. Will there be wars? Likely more than the 2010s.Because not much has been resolved at 2019 we can expect things to grow more tense, especially since we are all facing an impending global warming crisis and a decline of globalization. Russia and China will become more dominant and influential throughout the world, developing countries will bear the brunt of climate change while the developed countries are increasingly destabilized by the flocks of refugees flooding in, developing countries could be reduced into war-zones like Syria in the 2010s.The trade-wars between America and China could involve other world powers and it could escalate into the 2nd Cold War, with a Cold War there is always the chance of a 3rd World War looming.The west will decay as the western economy worsens, Russia and China would exploit whatever resource they can get with their new influence in a decaying world but their economic growth will be fragile too.China is threatened by the loss of fresh water once the Himalayan ice melts, much of Chinese agriculture is threatened by floods, when the Chinese eco-system fails then you can expect them to attack their neighbours or best-case scenario demand resources from their allies.Russia is threatened by the same thing that will give them economic prosperity, global warming, when the ice melts the methane would doom us all and will also release long-forgotten epidemics into our world, Russia will face a huge refugee crisis coming from the south due to water shortages so you can expect Russia to heavily enforce their borders.European politics will change drastically due to responses from refugees, if Europe refuses most refugees then it is possible that armies of angry refugees could invade Europe in the future.Africa is gaining so much but that growth will not be expected to last due to climate change, water wars reduce some areas into anarchy like Libya in the 2010s, Nigeria-Ethiopia-South Africa would likely be the most prosperous countries of the continent, the African countries that are developing would likely begin to adopt the same lifestyle as the West is living like eating fast food and being online all day long. I do not know much about South America but some parts appear to be on a verge of political change and turmoil, I do believe that they are at risk for water shortages due to melting ice in the Andes, I can't see them stopping the destruction of the Amazon so that will be ongoing. South America will grow economically but like the rest of the world it will be a highly vulnerable growth.Australia will continue to be burnt alive by wildfires, we should start seeing more and more Australians moving to colder areas such as Tasmania New Zealand and Britain. Indonesia will continue to destroy their rain-forests to make money out of palm oil, don't know what their political situation would be though but would most likely go down the capitalist path. All in all the 2020s will be a time of disruption, the pace of life will get faster and faster, fake news and deep fakes will spread, misinformation will be rife, as the internet spreads and becomes more disruptive more restrictions will be put on the internet, because we are growing more dependent on technology cyber-attacks or power-cuts could bring us back to the late 20th century, people will grow more scared and desperate and may turn to drastic courses of action if said course of action is the only solution.We are at risk of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and bird flu, obesity and depression will become a bigger burden than it already is, transgender people will be the new normal as people are now coming out as transhuman, in some parts of cities driving a car could be banned because of driverless cars replacing transportation in some city centers, cars are switching to hybrid/electricity as electric car plugs appear in many built-up areas, more and more people have had their DNA stored into a database and I can't say for sure how this data will be used. Online communities give me hope, and I hope that online communities become so rich with cryptocurrency and popular that when the decaying society that thrived in the 20th century fails we got the new online society to fall back onto and rebuild a new society from scratch instead of trying to rebuilt a society that failed us. I wish us all the best of luck. --------- reply to user: I think you are definitely right about 2020 Britain being pretty much the same as 2019 Britain except that it could get worse especially since the NHS is in the process of being privatized which sucks for me too because I am a Type 1 Diabetic, I am inclined to think that Boris Johnson will resign in the near future just to be replaced by another equally unqualified/unpopular Tory. I am going to be a bit controversial and biased but I want to blame Democracy for the situation that Britain is in right now and I want to explain why I am skeptical towards Democracy.So the idea of Democracy is to get the public to choose who becomes the leader and its down to the public to make that important choice, but many people do not want to run the country and many people do not know what is best for their country.In a Democratic society the best way to win a vote is to promise the public everything and appeal to them, you don't have to be good at politics to win and you don't have to tell people of your true intentions all you have to do is lie and be charismatic. Politicians probably hire professional psychologists to trick people into voting for them because they know how to trick the system to get them into the position that they both don't deserve or are qualified for. Its no wonder why Politicians are losing their efficiency, they do it as a job because many politicians do not need to be good at running a country to become the leader and like I said they just need to know what the people want to hear and to put on a charismatic face.I believe that running the country should be reserved for those who want to run the country and have the countries best interest at heart, it should be reserved for professionals who know what they are doing and have had years of training as well as experience. In a Democracy if you get two candidates, one is a businessman who is very charismatic but only knows about business, the other one is a ex-Sergeant who has had 20 years of experience in the administrative field but he is not as charismatic. Even though the Businessman is less qualified he will win because he is charismatic and knows how to trick people into voting for him instead of the professional, repeat this process and you'll end up with a very ineffective government or circus full of charismatic millionaires who trick and lie to the public to maintain their lofty position in society. And that is probably how Britain ended up with the government it has, people have been lied to and people don't know who is best for their country so we end up voting for the wrong people or get tricked into believing that Democracy is the best form of government.Sadly Democracy will put Britain(as well as other nations) at risk of a power hungry Populist who will present him/herself as against the present government and will use his/her charisma to appeal to us to make us believe that the Populist is the solution to all of our problems caused by the government, but once the Populist gets elected s/he will show his/her true colors and the public will soon regret their vote.This process will keep repeating itself while we have Democracy, I believe that its not working and maybe we are better off leaving our politics to the professionals elected by professionals. I also want to thank you for all the replies you posted on my 2020s posts, they have helped keeping the 2020s posts alive. Again, thank you. --------------------- reply to user: Not only that but many people are also misinformed because Democratic candidates lie and be all fake to get votes and on top that they also spread rumors about other candidates or pretty much anything so that they'll get more votes, its bad because not only many people already don't know what is best for their country but they will find it very difficult to know for sure what will be best because of all the lies and misinformation. --------------------- reply to user: Its scary that some people out there actually believe that Jeremy Corbyn is anti-semetic, its such a ridiculous and desperate accusation just to make Jeremy Corbyn look bad and lose. And its scary because if people actually believe those bogus anti-Semetic accusations then it just shows how much the media controls us all.Donald Trump is indeed right about journalists and fake news being an issue, but I think the reason why journalism is such a joke in America is because it is privatized and they are becoming desperate so that they can survive kinda like 'IT' from the Steven King novel.Capitalism and privatization can corrupt journalism because capitalism makes journalism more about money and getting attention so it degenerates into what it currently is, but Donald Trump is very capitalist, which could mean that Donald Trump is a cause of journalism gone wrong and he is getting backlash from the world he helped to create whether he knows it or not. Journalism does need to be regulated, especially now we are becoming fully aware of how powerful mass media can be. I could be blaming capitalism because of mass media and it could turn out that capitalism isn't to blame after all, but I still believe that its probably best for journalism to just focus on entertainment and to leave actual news to a more professional environment where the professionals highly focus on telling the people about unbiased truths. ------------------------------
Tracking and Rating Arizona State Legislative Campaign Filings for the 2020 Cycle (June 2019 Edition)
It's been a while since my last post highlighting the 2020 AZ legislative campaign, so I've decided to write an update on how things are looking in the Grand Canyon State. Unlike last post, there are 3 main lists: Incumbents (this includes State House running for State Senate), People I Have No Clue About, and Notable Challengers. When a specific filing has a discernable impact - i.e. "this is good for Democrats" - I'll say so. There's also an update to a January ranking that merits writing because I forgot which seat an incumbent held - instead of running for re-election in the House Kirsten Engel is running for Senate in D10, which could lead to her primarying our Senate Minority Leader. Don't worry that this batch of candidates is, on the whole, more bad for Dems than good. Some are incumbents, and them running for these seats was a foregone conclusion. Updates
Kirsten Engel, SD-10 (D) - in January I wrote "Rising star in the Democratic party, could potentially run for CD2 when it next opens up. Glad she's still in the fight". "In the fight" was probably an understatement, since Engel isn't the incumbent in SD-10 - instead, it's Senate Minority Leader David Bradley (D). Now, most Democratic leaders in Arizona are pretty competent - not Bradley. He only ran for Senate Minority Leader for the ability to fire some paid aides he didn't like who had been hired by a previous minority leader. Other Dem. senators think he's incompetent and lazy and often joke that House Minority Leader Charlene Fernandez is the de-facto Senate Minority Leader as well. Bradley has done practically nothing for the statewide cause and I hope he's retiring in 2020 (he's 67). If he runs for another term I pray Engel hands his ass to him on a platter. This is good for Democrats.
Kate Brophy McGee, SD-28 (R) - the Susan Collins of Arizona has filed to run for yet another fucking term in 2020. She held on last time by only 267 votes against 2016 Teacher of the Year Christine Porter Marsh. This seat would be a lot more winnable if it was open (I think Clinton won it by 3, Sinema by...9?) but if McGee is running for this she isn't primarying Stanton. This is bad for legislative Democrats, good for congressional Democrats.
Leo Biassuci, HD-5 (R) - nondescript GOP backbencher (and former Green Party candidate!). Very red district.
Richard Andrade, HD-29 (D) - progressive Dem. in a blue seat. Old backbencher, nice guy, glad he's running again.
Walt Blackman, HD-6 (R) - the AZ GOP's token black friend, a freshman incumbent in a very close House seat up north (where Dems lost by 577 votes last year). Blackman's a charismatic veteran and a minority and is probably the best candidate they can field in this seat - a mini John James. Him running for re-election, while expected, is bad for Democrats.
Isela Blanc, SD-26 (D) - not an incumbent in SD-26, but a House incumbent in the analogous district. She's primarying Sen. Juan Mendez for unknown reasons, having split from him and fellow district Democratic Rep. Athena Salman back before last year's election. Blanc and Mendez are both progressive as fuck, so I don't see the point of this primary.
Shawnna Bolick, HD-20 (R) - Bolick is the wife of AZ supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick. After carpetbagging across the Valley of the Sun, Shawnna won a seat on her 3rd try - but not by much. Given how tight HD-20 is her re-election campaign is at worst neutral for Dems, and may be slightly good for Democrats.
Sean Bowie, SD-18 (D) - Bowie is a Blue Dog-ish Senator in a suburban district, having flipped the seat in 2016 and increasing his margin in 2018. On a personal level he's kind of a dick (you didn't hear it from me), but as a candidate he can run a damn good race and has a surprisingly loyal base among Dems in the district. Him running again is good for Democrats.
Paul Boyer, SD-20 (R) - Paul Boyer is a freshman Senator in District 20 who for some reason is running for re-election (instead of opting for something less stressful, like the Phoenix City Council) despite being threatened with blacklisting by his GOP colleagues for having the gall to hold his budget vote hostage until a law defending sexual assault victims was passed. He's a kinda-moderate guy, teacher - decent fit for a suburban district that Dems won statewide last year. Him running for re-election is bad for Democrats.
Noel Campbell, HD-1 (R) - nondescript backbencher in deep-red seat.
Andrea Dalessandro, SD-2 (D) - nice Dem. backbencher in a safe D district.
Mitzi Epstein, HD-18 (D) - nice Dem. backbencher in the same district as Bowie. Speaks softly but runs a big campaign when you need her to. This is good for Democrats.
Karen Fann, SD-1 (R) - GOP Senate President who lives in a stupidly-red seat. Not much to analyze.
David Farnsworth, CorpComm (R) - Average GOP Senator in a deep red seat, trying to run statewide this time around for the utility board. I don't really know his utility positions and he's not much of a bombthrower so I can't give an impact of this filing at this point in time. I guess it makes the primary for the GOP slightly more contentious which might be slightly good for Democrats.
Charlene Fernandez, HD-4 (D) - if you read the Engel blurb above, Fernandez is the House Minority Leader that pulls double duty by covering for the incompetence of the Dem. Senate Minority Leader. Charlene's a goddamn tank and may run for Congress once Grijalva retires, or for the governorship in 2022. But she seems damn set to be Speaker of the House for a couple of years before that. The Democrats in AZ need her - so her running again is good for Democrats.
John Fillmore, HD-16 (R): GOP backbencher in a deep-red district.
Randall Friese, HD-9 (D): Randy Friese is the current Democratic Assistant House Minority Leader, the surgeon who saved Gabby Giffords's life, and amateur Jeremy Corbyn lookalike. He's a great legislator and campaigner and helped fundraise for competitive seats across the state. He was a presumptive candidate for the US Senate, but with Kelly running I'm glad he's sticking in the legislature. This is good for Democrats.
Rosanna Gabaldon, HD-2 (D) - nice Dem. backbencher in a safe D district.
Travis Grantham, HD-12 (R) - typical GOP douche dude in a dark-red seat.
Jennifer Jermaine, HD-18 (D) - the third Democrat in District 18 (along with Bowie and Epstein), Jermaine is a former Moms Demand Action and public school funding campaigner who ran a damn good race last year to win her seat. The fact that she's running again is good for Democrats.
Sine Kerr, SD-13 (R) - GOP backbencher in a dark-red seat. This is getting repetitive, I know.
Jay Lawrence, HD-23 (R) - Lawrence is a kinda-Trumpy Representative who holds court in his Scottsdale-centered district, an incredibly wealthy suburb of Phoenix. He's not as vocally and visibly horrible as Kern, but he's still quite the nut. Lawrence is 84 years old and is slowing down with every passing day. I don't know if he can put on a solid campaign, which is why this filing might be slightly good for Democrats.
Vince Leach, SD-11: Kinda-nutjobby Senator in a exurban district of Tucson. Probably won't be in play next year but if Leach and his seatmates keep running their mouths...I dunno. His bomb-throwing might be slightly good for Democrats.
David Livingston, SD-22: Deep red seat for a meh GOP backbencher.
Jennifer Longdon, HD-24: Longdon's an incredibly inspirational and powerful freshman legislator, who ousted an incumbent on her way to winning a deep blue downtown seat. She's a rising star in the party and her staying around for another two years is good for Democrats.
Otoniel Navarrete, SD-30 (D) - Navarrete is a strong progressive voice in the Senate, albeit also a Meza ally. I'm glad he's in the seat and I like his work, but christ, dude can choose better allies.
Jennifer Pawlik, HD-17 (D) - Pawlik is often Klobuchar-esque in her management of campaign staff and employees (I know from firsthand experience), but is a decent campaigner in a suburban seat - the only elected Democrat above the school district level in Arizona's 5th Congressional District. Her running for a second term is good for Democrats.
Warren Petersen, HD-12 (R) - Petersen is the Republican House Majority Leader and a former State Senator. It makes sense he's running again. Deep red district although tiny clumps of it are starting to swing blue.
Pamela Powers Hannley, HD-9 (D) – progressive seatmate of Dr. Friese. Nice lady, glad she’s still in the fight.
Bret Roberts, HD-11 (R) - not as bombthrowy as Leach or Finchem, but still hopefully too conservative for his purpling district. Might be slightly good for Democrats.
Amish Shah, HD-24 (D) - a physician by trade, Shah snuck into office last year in the bloody primary that also catapulted Longdon to her seat. He's surprisingly conservative for a deep blue seat (cosponsored a bill calling porn a public health crisis), although not Robert Meza levels. His political views aren't much of an impediment in the minority, but if Dems get the majority his presence in the caucus might be slightly bad for Democrats.
Jeff Weninger, HD-17 (R) - Weninger is a weird Bitcoin fan and quasi-libertarian who represents the same suburban seat as Pawlik. He's too much of a doofus to have any dirt on him, so if Dems field a candidate next fall he'll probably have a slight incumbency advantage. This is slightly bad for Democrats.
People I Have No Clue About
George Algozzini, HD-20 (I) - George is a very interesting character running for an important district next year. On his Twitter account, this "Christian veteran and Independent voter" has retweeted former Gov. Jan Brewer (R), Donald Trump, and oddly enough Pete Buttigieg - whom he is seemingly supporting in the presidential race. George leans conservative and might be an interesting spoiler in this race, but his issues and donation links are both broken on his website so I doubt he'll run a decent race. Might be slightly good for Democrats if he qualifies.
Seth Blattman, SD-23 (D) - Blattman's a small business owner with local connections who's running in SD-23, facing 2018 nominee Daria Lohman in the primary. Lohman ran a stupidly bad campaign so any warm body may be better than her, and Blattman's no warm body from the looks of his LinkedIn. This is probably good for Democrats.
Nick Fierro, HD-16, (I) - Fierro is a left-leaning independent in a dark red district who's trying to outperform the baseline by not running as a Dem. I mean, I'm glad they have someone there.
Edward Hampton, SD-6 (R) - some ranod, can't find anything about him online. If he makes the R primary at all contentious in this super-close race, it might be slightly good for Democrats.
Nadia Hanif, HD-4, (R) - Hanif is a doctor in Yuma running for a deep blue seat. She can knock herself out for all I care but I doubt anything will happen.
Suzanne Hug, HD-25 (D) - Hug's a random activist in HD25 who's better than the candidate last year, but that's a pretty low bar to clear. It's a ruby red district so there's no real impact here.
Justin Laos, HD-24 (R) - Justin's a software engineer with seemingly no prior political experience and with very little presence online. The district he's running in is quite blue so he's more or less an afterthought.
Kim Owens, CorpComm (R) – Experienced political operative with a legal background to boot. Could make the GOP primary pretty contentious, which might be slightly good for Democrats.
Felipe Reyes Perez, HD-11 (D) – random doctor in Tucson. Seems like a decent guy, might be able to put up a fight in the campaign. Might be good for Democrats.
Jon Saline, HD-6 (R) – Random rural attorney paranoid that we’re all gonna turn into Venezuela, per his Facebook’s “Why I’m Running”. This primary is looking like it’ll be a goddamn clusterfuck, which is good for Democrats.
Selina Bliss, HD-1 (R) – President of the Arizona Nurses’ Association. Hopefully a tick more moderate than the past occupant of that seat (David Stringer).
Stephanie Stahl Hamilton, HD-10 (D) - Small business owner, church camp leader, and liberal activist in Tucson. Very involved in the local political spheres. Decent replacement for Engel, who's moving on to the Senate.
Daniel Toporek, HD-20 (D) – Army Air National Guard warrant officer and Afghanistan vet. Little presence online but if he gets his campaign up to speed he could be a strong option for the seat, and his filing therefore might be good for Democrats.
Shea Stanfield, CorpComm (D) - Stanfield is a former teacher, counselor, and local environmental board member. Decent experience for the CorpComm position imo, and is hitting the ground running.
Jacqueline Parker, HD-16 (R) - former CorpComm staffer who likes to post incredibly racist "memes" about Obama on her personal FB page. Somehow might not be the most unqualified person running for this seat.
Ted Carpenter, HD-28 (R) - now that's a name Arizona hasn't heard in a while! Carpenter is a former State Representative, serving from 1998-2006 before losing in a State Senate primary in 2006. Carpenter hails from a by-gone era of slightly-less-combative GOP candidates, and is definitely a more moderate option compared to the nutjobs HD28 has elected in the past, like Trump inauguration donor Maria Syms. In the short term, this is bad for Democrats - but the recruitment of an old warhorse is a telling sign that the local party knows it's losing ground. They hear the drumbeat of progress in the district, and they're scared shitless.
Paul Newman and Bill Mundell, CorpComm (D) - Mundell and Newman are both former CorpComm members, trying to run to get back on the board. Paul Newman served on the board from 2009-2013, Mundell from 1999-2009 as a Republican, after serving in the Arizona House of Representatives, also as a Republican. Mundell previously ran in 2016 and 2018, losing twice. In 2018 his campaign went extremely in the primary, implying a fellow Democrat was a puppet of the utilities in this state, and had supporters get mildly-moderately stalkish trying to prove a non-existent connection. Mundell lost in the primary, and that Democrat (Sears) lost in the general. I'm no fan of the guy, explicitly because of stunts like this. This pairing is slightly good for Democrats - they bring a lot of star power, but also a lot of hairbrained insanity on the part of William Mundell.
Debbie Nez-Manuel, HD-26 (D) - A Native American activist living on the Salt River reservation, Nez-Manuel originally primaried Sen. Mendez in 2016. Narrowly losing, she's filed this year for the open House seat that Rep. Blanc is vacating. I haven't heard of any other candidates running for the seat besides her and Rep. Salman, so hopefully that primary isn't as contentious as the Senate mess. Debbie's a great person and I'm glad to have the opportunity to vote her in while still keeping Mendez in the Senate.
Wendy Rogers, SD-6 (R) - The worst carpetbagger ever is back at it again. Rogers had an illustrious career in the Air Force, followed by a slightly less-illustrious career of losing four elections in a row (2010 SD-17, 2012 CD9 GOP Primary, 2014 CD9 General, and then the 2018 CD1 General). She's a loose cannon with a small base of support that seemingly will never die. She's gonna add her own spice to a primary that already has Hampton, Rep. Bob Thorpe (he has yet to actually file so no blurb about him), and possibly incumbent Sen. Sylvia Allen. It will be a shitshow, and that is good for Democrats.
David Alger, SD-24 (R) - a perennial candidate for the seat who sometimes runs with his wife Vicki on a House/Senate slate, Alger's not much to worry about or write about.
Kenneth Bowers Jr., HD-28 (R) - Bowers is another perennial candidate who's been pinging around District 28 for quite a while, angry that McGee wasn't Trumpy enough. He's never won a race a probably never will, but this distraction for Carpenter is at least slightly good for Democrats.
Forest John Moriarty, HD-16 (R) - Close Townsend ally, private school and religious rights campaigner. Goddamn patriot. Probably will take this seat, because God hates us all. Like I said, if two Republicans had to win, I'd pick Parker over this fuck.
Felicia French, SD-6 (D) - Ran for HD-6 last year and lost by only 577 votes. French is a decent campaigner with a nice background, and if the SD-6 primary on the GOP side is the mess it looks like it's gonna be, she may have a shot at this seat. Her return to the fray is good for Democrats.
Coral Evans, HD-6 (D) - Mayor of Flagstaff, the largest city in HD-6. Her recruitment for this seat is a sign that the party's going all-or-nothing in the district. If she can't win this seat this year, I dunno who can. It's critical that we pick this seat up. Very good for Democrats.
Sharon Girard, HD-8 (D) - While she wasn't the worst campaigner out there (see Lohman, Daria), Girard made several rookie mistakes in 2018 and ran a poor campaign in a rural district that required 100% effort and focus. It's disappointing that she's running again. If the party doesn't find other people there who can win the primary this could be bad for Democrats.
Michael Hernandez, SD-16 (R) - Libertarian-ish dude in SD16 who ran for Senate last year. Honestly a pretty nice guy and a relatively moderate R, although not the best campaigner. At least he'll give Townsend somewhat of a fight in the primary.
Eric Sloan, CorpComm (R) - Trumpist candidate who ran for the same position last year. His campaign imploded after it came out he racially harassed coworkers at his past job, and he ended up getting 14.5% in a 5-way race. Probably will be toast next year as well, but if he adds to the shitshow of a primary that could happen on that front then this could be slightly good for Democrats.
And that's finally it! Took me most of my morning to type up. I'm gonna try to push out another update in a few months - although I won't wait until December because this was such a large backlog.
Proposition : The only thing that matters for Bitcoin to succeed is its ability to be a good store of value
Proposition : The only thing that matters for Bitcoin to succeed is its ability to be a good store of value. Let me say it again. Bitcoin might be completely crap on the transactional side, you might have to wait 3 days for each transaction to confirm and pay 10$ : if it is a great store of value, it will succeed nevertheless, it’s market cap will become huge and we will all be rich. If it is not a good store of value (because, for exemple, it is perceived as unsafe) it will fail. Now you might think it is ludicrous, absurd. So let me try to convince you otherwise. But first, I would like to make a point. The point is that there is no difference in theory between value storing and speculation.You might think it is completely different things, and it may well be in practice for the average Joe, but from a theoritical point of view, there is no difference. In both cases, if you are a rational economic agent, you buy some asset X at time t0 (witch might be dollars, euros, gold, etc...) in order to spend it latter at time t1. In the mean time, you expect asset X to be the best possible investment (speculation) because otherwise you would have chosen another asset Y, wich you could exchange at time t1 for more X (having more of someting is always better). So the best store of value is the best way to teleport your wealth in the future, it is also the best asset to speculate on. (The reason I say it is true only in theory and not in practice is because in practice there is something called risk aversion, suffice it to say that it can be mitigated by special agents (invesment funds, etc) and in the end what really matters is the expected value of the asset : EV = p1x1 + p2x2...) Now you might try to recall why you bought bitcoins in the first place. Let me refresh your memory : You bought bitcoins because you thought it was a good way to become rich. I know it because I bought bitcoins for the exact same reason. In other words, you speculated on bitcoins : you used it as a store of value. Many people thought the same way and this is the reason why Bitcoin today has a 3 billion dollars market cap. Now this might not be a proof that the store of value side is so important, you might think of yourself as a special snowflake who bought bitcoins early for this specific reason, but expect others to use bitcoins for very different reasons. But still, it suggests that this speculation side of things may not be completely irrelevant. Now you may have heard about the transactional value of bitcoin and the famous formula MV = PQ. This certainly suggests that the medium of exchange side of things might be important after all. For exemple, there was recently a post from someone arguing that bitcoin was on the verge to world domination because banks were going to use it as an inter-bank medium of exchange. I’m affraid, even if it is true (and it may well be) that it will have no impact whatsoever on the price of bitcoin. It would be good publicity though, but nothing more. Now why do I say this ? First some empirical evidence : when merchants all over the world began to accept bitcoin, it did not increase the price contrary to what many expected (including myself actualy). On the contrary, it seemed to depress the price more than anything else. The reason, I believe, is that it incited people to spend bitcoins wich where automaticaly dumped on the market by the merchants, creating selling pressure. Now if every bitcoiner had rebought the same quantity of bitcoin they had just spent in order to conserve their speculative exposition to bitcoin, it would have had no impact at all, but it was not the case. The truth is, the transactionnal value of an asset depends solely on the time both parties have to be exposed to the asset in order for the transaction to complete. In the limit that this time tends to zero, the impact on the asset price also tends to zero. It is obvious, because if you buy 1 bitcoin on an exchange and then re-sell it immediatly, it can not have any long term impact on the price. You may not agree with all this but I think many will agree, so I will jump to another point and defend this thesis later if needed. Now I would like to make another point : If bitcoin succeeds as a store of value and it becomes the standard way to store wealth in the world, it will nescessarily also be used as a medium of exchange, because why wouldn’t merchants accept it in a world where everybody saves in bitcoin ? I am affraid, however, that the reverse is not true. First, if all you savings are in dollar, why on earth would you not directly buy your stuff with you dollars ? Well there are some cases where you might want to use bitcoin : To buy drugs on the darknet, to buy porn on the internet, etc.. But this will only ever be niche use cases, and even if it became fashionable, it would’nt change the fact that these kind of use have no impact whatsoever on bitcoin price. In fact they are dependant on bitcoin market cap to be sufficiently large, (ie being a good store of value/investment in the eye of many people) : If bitcoin market cap was 10 dollars, you obviously couldn’t use it to buy $50 worth of meth on the darknet. It doesn’t mean the market cap would magicaly grow to allow such use as a wrong understanding of the MV = PQ formula might suggest. It would just mean that bitcoin could not be used for this, and would not be used for this. In other word, it would be useless. Now what is the relation between bitcoin market cap and it's qualities as a store of value ? It is simple : if bitcoin is not a good store of value, nobody will want to hoard bitcoins, so everyone who is currently hording will want to sell, and noboby will want to buy. In other word, the value of bitcoins will be zero. And when the market cap is zero, it can not even be used as a medium of exchange anyway. So let us analyse bitcoin qualities as a store of value. First there is the dilution/inflation/scarcity aspect. With a fixed supply of 21 million coins, bitcoin pretty much scores A+. It is just impossible to imagine something better. But alas, there is another aspect to consider : for bitcoin to be a good store of value, it has to be safe. If there is a 20% probability that Bitcoin will stop working within one year, for whatever reason, you have to take that into account. And suddenly it doesnt look like a great store of value anymore. So bitcoin resiliance is of the utmost importance, it is actualy, I believe, the single most important factor that will determine wether it succeeds or not. Let me say it again : Bitcoin success depends solely on its resilience as a store of value. And what bitcoin resilience depends on ? On decentralisation. The one single distinguishing feature of bitcoin. This is why, I think, we should concentrate on this aspect, more than anything else. It is also why, I think, Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn are just plain wrong. They want to sacrifice some security (decentralisation) to improve transaction bandwidth, while in reality, security is many,many many orders of magnitude more important that anything related to transaction bandwidth. Now you may not agree with this way of seeing things, and that’s ok. I just wanted to explain this theory so that everybody can think about it and come to his own conclusion. If I am wrong, please try to change my mind, I may have forgoten something, my logic might be wrong, etc... Bitcoin is a communauty and we must think together about these issues and try to reach, together, a better understanding. In the meantime, HODL to your coins ! Finally, I would like to say that I am not a native english speaker so this might explain the poor english. EDIT All this is inspired from http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.f2011/04/on-monetary-restandardization.html "In any economy, there exists no less than one commodity or security of inelastic volume which is overvalued due to reservation demand. Ie: one scarce good which is money." EDIT 2 I should not have talked about Mike Hearn etc... and entered the block size debate. My point on the importance of the store of value side of things is independant from the block size debate.
"The Silicon Ideology" Fundamentally fails to understand neoreaction (and basic chronology)
Posted on a throwaway due to the Author's insistence on using Doxxing against their political opponents May Rule 1a defend me, for I myself hold positions that BadPolitics loves to shit on (No, that position isn't being pro-Neoreaction, for I am firmly anti-Neoreaction)
People of all ideological identities are welcome to post here. Ideologies may be based on wrong facts, but for the purposes of this subreddit, no ideology is wrong by itself. We are here to mock wrong facts, not wrong opinions. As such, posts mocking people for their ideology or political beliefs will be removed.
The Silicon Ideology is an article in Journal format from an unknown author (they used a pseudonym). It is being trumped up as the go-to guide on the emerging political phenomena of Neoreaction. Unfortunately, it suffers from a very severe case of "All my political opponents are the same thing", as Marxist polemics against non-Marxist political theories often do. It's better than a lot of other attempts to analyse Neoreaction because it has the occasional correct observation, but not by much. I shall skip to part 4 because I don't see much worth in criticizing Neo-Marxist understanding of Fascism separately.
Neo-reaction is a 21st century variant of fascism: a new ideology that values stability, order, efficiency and "good governance" above all, or claims to.
For reasons that will be covered later, it will become clear that trying to lump Neo-reaction in with Fascism doesn't work.
Comprehensive list of the backbone of neo-reactionary values part 1, transhumanism
I wouldn't say it's a backbone, but sure, that's ok.
part 2, form of government
Mostly correct. Eric Schmidt, Elon Musk or Peter Thiel are often given as an example of what a ruler should look like. Given the lack of any political organization beyond blogging, any proposal to actually make one of these a leader isn't serious. I cannot find any indication on the claim that Neo-reactionaries hope to become the aristocrats themselves.
part 3, the Cathedral
I would have listed this first. Doesn't go into enough detail to criticise anything here.
part 4, Nationalism
Misunderstands that Nationalism has to do with Nationality and not Continent of Birth. Misunderstands the conception of why Neoreaction considers (Insert group here) better. See Moldbug's comment on "IQism" here to see the lineage of Neoreaction's apparent preference for certain ethnicities. Like typical racists, Neoreactionaries believe that certain races are more intelligent than others. Unlike typical racists, Neoreactionaries do not believe that intelligence should determine how successful people are. Indeed, Moldbug even argues that our societies have simply replaced overt racism with a subtler racism via discrimination towards the less intelligent (which just so happens to correlate strongly with race according to moldbug). It is from this that Neoreaction's bizarre appearance of East Asian "nationalism" appears. Some Neoreactionaries, despite being of European descent, believe that East Asians are more intelligent. It may look the same on a cursory glance, but this distinction is, in fact, one of the defining features of Neoreaction, so for the Author to get this wrong is a massive error. Note that I am not saying Neoreaction isn't racist, it's just a different kind of racist.
Part 5, economics
The authors lumping together of the disparate, unrelated Austrian and Chicago economics proves that they understand neither. Austrian and Chicago economics occasionally advocate the same policy (free trade). They disagree on far more. Most importantly, Austrian economists oppose Fiat Money while Chicago economists place extensive focus on governments issuing fiat currency and see it as perhaps the most valuable tool the government has available to it for management of the economy. They are not linked by methodology. Nor are they linked by History: Chicago Economics is a descendant of Keynesian economics. Once again, a standard case of a Marxist analysis treating all non-Marxists as identical.
Part 6, extreme misogyny
Varies by specific author. To give one example, I see nothing from Moldbug that endorses rape. What little he says on the subject is actually via quotation criticizing liberalism as endorsing rape during wartime. Given this variation, I find it hard to place misogyny to the extent the author describes here as a backbone of Neoreaction. It may well be very strongly present, but "backbone" implies that Neoreaction would cease to be Neoreaction if you removed it.
Part 7, Warhammer 40,000
A bunch of video-game related in-jokes do not a backbone of an ideology make.
Part 8, an obsession with Cuckoldry
Trump Supporters are not Neoreactionaries, but I'll get to that later.
and the blogs of the main theorists of the movement
Correct, though I wouldn't call it a movement due to the total lack of political campaigning or advocacy.
And the alt-right pole
Time to win me some downvotes. Alt-right is a term that has, within a handful of months, been abused and twisted into utter uselessness in an attempt to describe and/or insult Trump. Alt-right is a catch-all term for any non-mainstream Conservatism in the US, typically that which avoids associating with the Republican Party. To describe alt-right as a subset of Neoreaction is grossly incorrect. The truth is that Neoreaction can be seen as a subset of alt-right but the term alt-right in itself is US-Centric and really shouldn't be used to classify political ideologies themselves because it refers generally to non-Republican Conservatism in the US. To really hammer the point home, the term "Alt Right" predates Neoreaction significantly so unless you're suggesting Moldbug is a mysterious magical time travelling fascist, Alt-Right cannot be a branch of Neoreaction.
neo-reactionary ideas are quite common in Silicon Valley
Without data here it's hard to say what the author means by quite common.
Transhumanism I define to be a collection of movements aimed at improving and enhancing humanity through technological means. Almost immediately, we see a precursor, and one which influenced the previous reactionary ideology of 20th century fascism: eugenics.
This is the most damnable lie in the entire piece. Eugenics is an ideology that originated in the 19th century, not the 20th. At the latest, Sir Francis Galton coined the term "Eugenics" and described it in 1883, although almost certainly one could find proto-eugenicists prior to 1883. Hence we come to another case of mysterious magical time travelling fascists. Fascism as an ideology didn't exist in 1883. Even proto-fascism isn't present at such an early date. No, the early adopters of Eugenics weren't Fascists. It was Socialists in the UK. Figures such as Sidney Webb and Beatrice Webb, who founded the Fabian Society, were notable campaigners for Eugenics. This is well documented. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/3079/1/Eugenics_(LSERO).pdf Side note: at this point I've matched the number of citations in the original source.
But let us not tar all transhumanism with eugenics, though it must carry it's historical burden
It's not Transhumanists that need to carry it's burden. They weren't responsible for it's crimes. Those would be actual fascists and Fabians.
though the more homophobic and transphobic element are looking for biological bases for gay-ness and trans-ness to include them here.
I'm sure those scientists researching the mechanisms behind Transgenderism and Homosexuality will be pleased to hear these crass, derogatory comments from the author. The errors in the section on Transhumanism are even more numerous than presented here, but as it's not the central topic of this article i'm going to move on. The Historical Origins of Neoreaction
The proportion of Neoreactionaries in Gamergate is minuscule as to be non-existent. Indeed, there's not even enough Neoreactionaries to make up a significant part of Gamergate even if they were all involved in Gamergate. Thankfully, the author averts accusing Gamergate of time travel here.
Raymond piggybacked off of Stallman's concept of free software to create a version more appealing for corporations: open source.
Unsupported motive assumption.
for here can be seen the origin of the neo-reactionary term "Cathedral" - it is in the title of Raymond's essay "The Cathedral and the Bazaar", though the meaning was somewhat different, referring in Raymond's essay to a centralized model of software development.
"Somewhat Different" is the understatement of a lifetime. Those meanings aren't related at all. It looks like the Author here just searched for someone using the term "Cathedral" in the 90s and chucked in the first mention of it as the source of the term. The source of the term "Cathedral" is actually made vaguely clear by Moldbug.. It's just a term used to describe the dominant dispenser of information. The original term for the Cathedral is likely Moldbug's Ultracalvinist hypothesis, so to follow that up a year later with a Church metaphor is unsurprising, and is almost certainly a Moldbug original.
The Bell Curve
Controversial? Yes. Flawed? Of course. But to blanket it as a "psuedo-scientific work" is to overstate the criticism here. It's heavily disputed, and to simply paint over that dispute with a "It's wrong" is inaccurate, especially without citation
Again, the author slanders a field of research they seem to not know anything about. The author should at least cite something here instead of taking "It's wrong" as a given.
The Economist is Libertarian
No. The Economist is Classical Liberal. See this comment by PepeLinux. They have classical liberalism as their foundation but refer to themselves as "radical centrists" or "true progressives"
I can speak to this firsthand, as I know many people who do this
Care to cite any? No. Ok.
Dark age of comic books is a source of neo-reaction
This is so stupid as to be barely worth my effort.
The God Emperor of Mankind
Is a meme from a kitschy British Tabletop Wargame community. The Imperium of Man is very consistently shown as an inept, poorly managed chaotic mess of a government that can't even figure out what planets it still owns, hardly a model Neoreactionary system.
Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Quake and Half-Life
Anyone still taking this work seriously at this point should reconsider their presence on this subreddit. This is "Heavy Metal is actually Satanic" Tier moral panic.
South Park Republican is a precursor to Alt Right.
Guess we are going to have to go further back historically than google trends. This should do. Came to prominence by 1992. South Park began in 1997. Those damn mysterious magical time travelling fascist south park viewers. Going back in time to 1992 and inventing the Alt-Right.
Orion's Arm is NRx-er's Future Visions
Here the author completely mixes up Rationalists (Eliezer Yudkowsky onwards) and Neoreaction (which makes up a mere 2% of people present in the Rationalist community).
Irrelevant comparison of Pinochet and Patriot Act based on them sharing a date on a calender
New Atheists were invented to justify Islamophobia
Anyone with even a cursory understanding of the background of New Atheism would know that their primary target has long been Evangelical Protestantism.
The science wars of the late 90s and Alan Sokal.
Someone's bitter at catastrophically losing the science wars.
Bitcoin and Austrian Economics
True hardcore Austrian Economists would be unfavourable towards bitcoin as it's still a fiat currency. However, I understand (as, hopefully, so does the author) why certain people who gravitate at the fringes of Austrian Economics but don't study it in-depth might like Bitcoin.
Author drops what they're doing to insult Libertarians as not respectable
If this is indeed the quality of work by those who backed the anti-Sokal side of the Science Wars, then no wonder they lost catastrophically.
Author drops what they're doing to insult Ludwig von Mises
sigh... get on with the fucking point.
Chicago School is tied too closely with the crisis.
The dominant Economic school in 2007, and today, is "New Keynesian". Again, demonstrating that the Author here doesn't actually know what they are talking about regarding economics and is just using "Austrian" and "Chicago" as snarl words for "Bad thing".
Author drops what they're doing to shoehorn in the Koch Brothers somewhere
Get on with the fucking point.
Sudden jump to Curtis Yarvin mid-paragraph on LessWrong
Needless to say, this betrays how weak the link between these subjects is.
though he [Mencius Moldbug] did not call himself, initially, "neo-reactionary": he preferred to call himself a "Formalist" or a "Neocameralist" (after his hero, Frederick the Great).
Correct, but this isn't exactly worthy of congratulations.
Later in the speech, Srinivasan went through the whole gamut of neo-reactionary ideas: Bitcoin, corporate city-states, 3d-printed firearms, anti-democratic transhumanism.
All of these ideas predate Neo-Reaction. Nor are these ideas limited to Neo-reaction. I These fucking mysterious magical time travelling fascists.
Neo-reaction grew immensely outside of it's Bay Area base in the wake of the financial crisis
We have no data on the number of supporters of Neo-reaction. However, we do have some data on how much people were searching for it online. The conclusion is... Neoreaction didn't even show up on the radar until 2013, and immense growth in interest in the movement only occurred once inept journalists started scrambling around for an explanation of Trump's rise to prominence.
Right-wing media blamed teachers and immigrants [for the financial crisis]
No. It did not blame teachers for the financial crisis.
Liberal Claptrap Nonsense
Again betraying the distinctly unprofessional, unacademic nature of this work.
Lets wave around our hate boner for the IMF
Great, but can you get on with the fucking point again?
Origins of 4chan
The author probably should have mentioned that 4chan was effectively a split from SomethingAwful, something which I feel is essential for any description of 4chan's early history.
surrounding racism, misogyny, homophobia, and transphobia was the centrepiece of the culture.
Go tell that they're homophobic. They will have a laugh.
and so the userbase quickly became limited to young white cis straight men
Go tell that they're cis straight men. They will have a laugh.
Stormfront took over 4chan.
This is indeed vaguely correct, but it underestimates just how underhanded this takeover was. It was not a natural migration. Stormfront had long made deliberate effort to infiltrate various communities (including 4chan) with it's ideas. The most obvious calling card for a Stormfront attempt to infiltrate something is the phrase "Anti-Racist is code for Anti-White".
Harassment tactics originated on USENET
Actually, these Harassment tactics originated on SomethingAwful, which is how 4chan ended up inheriting them.
women, people of colour, and LGBT people always had played games.
Indeed, this shouldn't even need to be stated. A good example of a prominent early LGBT developer would be Danielle Bunten Berry.
Gamergaters are annoyed at games not about war or technology
No. This is not the kind of game that Gamergaters got annoyed about. If they did get annoyed about any specific kind of game, it was Advocacy Games and the genre known as "Interactive Narrative Experiences" or something to that effect, or more colloquially called "Walking simulators".
Called for serious critique and then called against serious critique
Critique of Critique is legitimate Critique.
Precedents of Gamergate
They missed out Doritosgate.
Fish disappeared from the internet.
The disappearance of Phil Fish is a bit more complicated than "Gamergate did it" and it mostly happened in 2013 after telling someone to kill themselves. Them mysterious magical time travelling fascist gamergaters! Indeed this entire section appears to be severely out of chronological order but I'm just going to move on because i've already covered how almost entirely irrelevant Gamergate is to NRx.
LGBT people in gamergate don't exist and are all sockpuppets.
You're currently reading a text written by a bisexual individual who is vaguely, slightly pro-gamergate. This author is alleging that I don't exist. Talk about bisexual erasure.
Soon, the neo-reactionaries noticed, and affiliated themselves with GamerGate:...
They began to pressure advertisers and Wikipedia, among others, and attempted to hijack the Hugo Awards through the Sad/Rabid Puppies campaign
Sad puppies doesn't come from Gamergate. This can be demonstrated simply by looking at the date of formation of the Sad Puppies voting campaign. It was formed in January 2013, while Gamergate begun in 2014. Those evil mysterious magical time travelling fascist goobergaters!
When his [moldbug's] past was brought up by concerned people of colour
Which incidentally gave Neoreaction the largest dose of adrenaline it has ever received and, unfortunately, staved off it's passage into obscurity and total irrelevance (instead of just being almost totally irrelevant).
"sometimes I think Mencius Moldbug is the greatest living political thinker".
Strangely, not too far out there. His ideas may be absolutely abominable, but who else in the 21st century can claim to have almost single-handedly founded a new political ideology: Not many. "Great" should be taken as "Influential", not "Good".
The alt right converted Tay into a Nazi.
Given the Black-box nature of Tay's programming and learning systems, it's not actually possible to verify any of this.
Schizoanalyst (or a Psychoanalyst)
Given the author's prior criticism of Psuedoscience, it seems comical to bring up Psychoanalysis here.
In order to contain the alt-right, we must stop this.
The first step to stopping the alt-right is good criticism of the alt-right. Same with Neo-reaction. Unfortunately, this isn't it. Praxis
Fascism can't be defeated by debate
Fascism was significantly removed from post-War Germany not because all the Nazis were dead, but because of the process of Denazification, which indeed used debate techniques such as emphisizing the moral responsibility that low-level Nazi supporters (such as your average voter) had for the crime. Stuff like this (warning corpses). Fascism wasn't defeated by rounding up everyone who ever supported Hitler and gunning them down (or beating the shit out of them). Indeed, to stoop to the level of political para-militarism to defeat fascism is to accept fascism itself, for political intimidation and "cleansing" of the opposition through para-militarism is essentially Fascism's defining feature.
Lets doxx all the Neoreactionaries.
There's that "Fight paramilitarism with paramilitarism" tactic I just mentioned. Oh dear. How predictable. Repeated errors that aren't from a specific passage Treating 4chan as a monolithic culture is idiocy. Postings on about cute girls doing cute girls has little to do with Neoreaction, to give the most obvious example. Actually, that makes me curious as to what the Neoreactionary position on non-progressive-originating acceptance of Homosexuality (such as the Yuri Genre) is. Also, as this very sub is on reddit, it should be quite obvious that reddit isn't monolithically Neoreactionary. Indeed, neoreaction presence on Reddit is almost entirely non-existent. Seriously, go look for their core subs. They are basically graveyards. Mixing up Gamergaters, Trump Supporters, Alt-Right, Neoreactionaries, Libertarians, Transhumanists and Social Conservatives, Austrian Economists, Chicago School and Anarcho-Capitalists (unmentioned) occurs throughout. The author appears to be unable to conceive of any of their opponents actually holding different views from each-other and just throws them all into the same pot, wildly swinging from term to term with such wild abandon that by the end the terms are reduced to vague insults instead of useful definitions. Neoreaction is shit. Bad criticism of Neoreaction only makes it stronger Like Neoreactionary blogging itself, this article consists of a mix of largely gibberish, with only the occasional factoid managing to glitter through the incoherent gish gallop muck surrounding it. It can't even get basic chronology correct, making repeated errors where it states groups were created by groups that were founded later than their own founding. The best counter to Neoreaction remains this article written by a member of the LessWrong Diasporia (yes, that same LessWrong that the author slandered as being Neoreactionary). By being willing to engage with them, they've already done your work of discrediting Neoreaction for you.
Just found this sub after a friend of mine linked me irl - I guess /MGTOW removed the link? Whatever. /MGTOW to me has always felt like the bottom floor of a cheap university frat - a lot of egos and chest-pounding and not a lot of depth or substance. Plus the tradcon mods have an "Ex-Gay Therapy" link in the sidebar and a bitcoin mining QR code as the logo - so it's my opinion that /MGTOW will either get banned soon or will descend into cancer before the year's out. I like shitposting about chick logic and feminist cancer, but the attitudes at /MGTOW have always struck me as being so much "Fuck it, let the world burn yay nihilism and depression amirite!" That kinda sand rubs my ass cheeks raw, so I'm delighted to be on the ground floor of a sub like this! I look forward to getting to know some of you gents, and hopefully this old country lad can share a few things. I notice there's no reading links in the sidebar? Allow me:
•Cosmos, a blockchain interoperability project has released its platform dubbed “Cosmos Hub”. This comes after 3 years of planning and development and a $16,000,000 USD raise in 2017. The platform aims to solve scalability of distributed technology by proposing a platform of blockchains.
CRYPTOCURRENCY TRADING SERVICES
•Traders on Coinbase can now transfer cryptocurrency directly from its trading platform to the institution’s custodial wallet offering Coinbase Wallet. •Coinbase Pro, Coinbase’s professional platform lists Stellar Lumens for trading. •New Zealand based exchange Cryptopia migrates 35% of the platform’s funds into new wallets. •DX Exchange, an Estonia based exchange utilizing Nasdaq’s trading engine launches security token offering (STO) listings. •Trust Wallet, Binance’s endorsed wallet now supports Ripple (XRP). Traders and developers building on top of Trust Wallet can take advantage of the support of the Ripple ecosystem. •Hong Kong based exchange Gatecoin shuts down as a result of a legal dispute with a payment processor and a devastating 185,000 ETH and 250 BTC hack in 2016.
•In the U.S state of Texas, a bill has been proposed to require identity verification for sending cryptocurrency payments. •Central bank of Russia aims to introduce an annual limit of 600,000 rubles ($9,100 USD) for unqualified investors who want to purchase digital assets. •Thailand Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has approved the decision to create a portal for regulated ICO’s. •Singaporean based exchange Quoine has been found liable by the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) for reversing 7 trades from market maker B2C2 in April 2017. Trades were valued at 10 Bitcoins per 1 Ethereum. •The Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) and the Investment Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC) is now seeking regulatory input on cryptocurrency exchanges, in an attempt to integrate securities laws where appropriate. •In the U.S state of Colorado, governor Jared Polis has signed the Digital Token Act on March 8th, 2019. This will exempt specific cryptocurrencies with specific characteristics and functionality from being classified as a security.
•Tether has recently updated terms of service which will shift its reserves from 100% traditional currency (USD) to a combination of traditional currency and cash equivalent assets such as loans. •Samsung unveils a native cryptocurrency wallet for its flagship S10 device that can be found on the Samsung Galaxy Store. Wallet will support Ether (ETH) and ERC20 based tokens alongside 4 dApps from the outset. •MyEtherWallet launches an alpha version of its Ethereum blockchain explorer, EthVM. INSTITUTIONALIZATION •Kakao Corp, the creators of KakaoTalk – South Korea’s most used messaging app raises $90 million USD to supplement the launch of a new blockchain platform in June dubbed “Klaytn”. •A blockchain based ETF, consisting of 48 companies involved or building blockchain technology has launched on the London Stock Exchange (LSE). •Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE) announces that it will not add a Bitcoin (BTC) futures market in March.
•Mark Karpeles, the CEO of Mt Gox faces a 10-year jail term from the Japanese authorities for embezzlement of client assets. •Danelle Dixon has been appointed the new CEO of the Stellar Foundation, previously COO of Mozilla. •Konstantin Ignatov, CEO of multibillion-dollar pyramid scheme OneCoin has been arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Ignatov’s sister, Ruja Ignatov is charged with wire fraud, securities fraud and money laundering.
•@cz_binance – “Populaunpopular opinion: Everyone will be in crypto, sooner or later, whether they know it or not, whether you like it or not.” •@barrysilbert – “Wells Fargo, a Buffett investment, has been fined 93 times for fraud and other abuses, for a total of $14.8 billion in fines since just 2000. I'll take bitcoin's "charlatans" over that any day.” •@erikVoorhees – “Crypto is software eating finance”
limit my search to r/Bitcoin. use the following search parameters to narrow your results: subreddit:subreddit find submissions in "subreddit" author:username find submissions by "username" site:example.com find submissions from "example.com" url:text search for "text" in url selftext:text search for "text" in self post contents self:yes (or self:no) include (or exclude) self posts nsfw:yes (or ... Unqualified Reservations Reactionary Enlightenment. Wednesday, April 3, 2013 Felix Salmon's Bitcoin FUD This post has moved to the permanent location for Unqualified Reservations by Mencius Moldbug: Felix Salmon’s Bitcoin FUD; posted by Mencius Moldbug at 1:35 PM << Home. About Me Name: Mencius ... How Bitcoin dies. TL;DR—Bitcoin dies in two very simple steps. 1: A DOJ indictment is unsealed which names everyone on Planet Three who operates, or has ever operated, or perhaps who has ever even breathed on, a BTC/USD exchange, as a criminal defendant. The charge: money laundering. Bitcoin is a protocol standard, and everyone in our era knows how protocol standards play: winner takes all. When we define the essential characteristic of “moneyness” as overvaluation, not as currency, we see that commerce in Bitcoin has no direct relevance at all to its price. If you are spending in Bitcoin, you are not holding it. A community dedicated to Bitcoin, the currency of the Internet. Bitcoin is a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Bitcoins are...
Urbit - Mencius Moldbug - Personal Cloud Community Gathering Sept 2013
via YouTube Capture. This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue For tutoring please call 856.777.0840 I am a registered nurse who helps nursing students pass their NCLEX. I have been a nurse since 1997. I have worked in a lot of nursing fields and I truly love ... This video is an introduction to the Dark Enlightenment and how the Neoreactionaries aim to infiltrate Nationalist movements, political parties and the top positions of power. Twitter - https ...