IMHO - distrust in the establishment is not the cause, but a side effect of the real cause.
I used to be a journalist before my career in tech. In my opinion, the real culprit is that news outlets now have the wrong incentives.
When people still used to buy printed newspapers, you had to pay for your news so you better get well researched articles for your hard earned money. [1]
With the rise of internet news, that incentive is no longer in place. Yes there are paid news outlets on the Internet but the majority of people don't pay for a subscription. What gets you most views does rarely align with high journalistic standards. [2] In a way, everything is a tabloid now.
[1] If you are at least as old as me, you might remember that reading a certain newspaper rather than another was almost seen as a status symbol. I remember journalists saying things like "I love working at [newspaper X] because of our fine readership, they challenge me to write high quality articles".
[2] With a few obvious exceptions like Panama Papers etc.
Seems like it'd run a bit further than the invention of the internet then, right? Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent is scathing of the move to ad supported newspapers way back in the past, leading to the rise of companies like News Corp.
It’s kind of interesting that this occurs that at the same time tech leaders are basically telling us, we don’t need institutions, look we have ai instead of universities, tech will solve all of your problems. I don’t actually think there’s a conspiracy here, but like, instead of journalists raising the standards of tech, tech lowered the standards of journalists, and made us all sensationalist microbloggers.
And yet I wonder with the acceptance of tech and the downfall of institutions… isn’t one of the things people are nostalgic for or made the past so great was basically institutions?
I think that around the mid-2010s that acceptance of tech you're talking about has started eroding and it's still eroding quite fast. Maybe I'm just getting older and leaning towards being cynical? I don't know but it seems my daughter and her friends don't have that idealistic view of tech as me and my buddies had in the early 2000's.
I read a good editorial recently by George Potter about how advertising is good because it allows news orgs "pay their own way" and helps keep the press free.
I can see where he's coming from but I ask: what would you consider more controlling, advertisers or readers? Readers are not an organised entity, as opposed to corporations buying ad slots. And don't get me wrong sensationalist news outlets have always existed (I mentioned tabloids in my previous comment), so relying on paying readers is not a panacea, it's just the scale that's different today I think.
So basically rage-bait sells? It's not really surprising in the finance and wellness space that it also works. People often feel vulnerable and that "the system" is rigged against them. This kind of content appeals as it makes them feel that they are not alone, like someone understands them.
It would be interesting to extend the study to other categories where this trust gap does not exist. Would anti-establishment content also get more engagement in say the woodworking niche?
All 5g gay frogs aside, this a power problem and not really a people problem. How many establishment institutions are left that citizens would wish to enthusiastically uphold? We have come to almost expect corruption and these days.
This isn't a justification for irrational conspiracy theory (which are generally harmless, yet occasionally highly catastrophic). It's that the establishment whack-em-all approach is not working, and is probably exacerbating their problem.
> this a power problem and not really a people problem
It’s an education and channel incentive problem. Our kids’ literacy is crashing [1]. And most Americans get their news through channels that are incentivised by selling ads.
I totally agree about literacy being huge, and would actually extend it to going beyond literacy.
The literacy crash is alarming, and is no doubt agitating this situation in a major way. However, I think what we are experiencing is something like a kind of siloing of private realities. Not the pearl-clutching 'echo chamber' discourse from 2019. But an increasing lack of social competency amongst younger people that is disallowing them to be present others in the world itself.
This is why I still think it is a power problem. Government, however incompetent, still has the monopoly on control and policy. They have experts yelling at them everyday about these problems. But their answer does seem to be more censorship and surveillance, rather than addressing the causes of these problems. As I mentioned, this only exacerbates the problem and makes it more socially dangerous.
The fact that Flat Earthers believe the earth is flat isn't the problem. The fact that people of such low intellectual quality have so much power over the rest of us is the problem.
>Yes but a flat-earther is a useful idiot for precisely zero dangerous social movements.
Incorrect. As with most if not all conspiracy theories, flat-earthism incorporates anger at "the establishment" because "the establishment" is hiding the truth. And this is the hook. If you can be convinced that a secret cabal is manipulating all science, controlling all governments, censoring all media and filtering all information in order to keep the basic nature of reality hidden from humanity - which flat earthers do believe - then you're susceptible to someone suggesting who that cabal might be. You know who.
True. I was being hyperbolic, but I hoped it was clear that I meant that flat-earthers are nowhere near the threat-level of something like a qanon or antivax movement, who are far more politically-activated, willing to take matters into their own hands, and likely to incite actual physical harm through ideological-driven behavior.
I wouldn't undersell the harms of general conspiracy theories. Most of them become more harmful the more people believe in them and the social media that I see has a tendency to spread the more harmful types of conspiracy theories (medical or political misinformation I see all the time on the internet now).
Yes. It has become mainstream. As soon as Kirk died, people were spouting antisemitic BS conspiracies that 'it was all Israel', even though he was the biggest shill of Israel's policies!
As you say, the medical conspiracies have really evolved since covid. I'm just glad we had covid when we did, because I feel that 5 years later people are so much more ignorant and less willing to all go through something together for the greater good.
With that said, I think the lot of conspiracy that just doesn't really hurt anyone but the believer. Aliens, moon landings, illuminati, etc. Kind of the modern day opiate of the masses.
Are those examples at all indicative of what conspiracy theories are anymore, they seem stuck in the last century? The only one of those I've literally ever seen, even online, is aliens (and just UFO videos). On the other hand I personally know a lot of people who consistently buy into medical and political misinformation (and social media pushes it to me at least weekly, no matter how much I try to say I'm not interested).
I know a lot of people who have had to cut off family members because they got too deep into conspiracy theories and it's pretty much always weird political ones.
Yes, I feel these type of conspiracies were structurally similar, but of a slighly different composition to political conspiracy. But I think what changed is that political conspiracy became activated by the atomisation of culture and the lack of social consensus. As a result, these former examples (ufo, moonlanding, etc) now almost feel quaint and cartoonish, because they are relatively inconsequential compared to the choices people make and socially harmful actions they'll undertake with political conspiracy.
For a few reasons I personally find that the best medicine is just to nod along with these people and watch them give away their ideological hand:
a) You know where they stand and who you are dealing with.
b) They can, however rarely, be forced to actually confront the irrational logic when sharing it.
c) I think it is the compassionate thing to do, as people just often want to spout these theories as a much needed release valve. After all, people believe this stuff often because of a confusion or frustration they have with their own lives.
> wackiest conspiracy theories are probably the ones most promoted by the establishment
Not really. They’re wacky because being believed by the establishment, they have consequences. I’m not bothered by flat Earthers and vaccine deniers. I am bothered when they’re in power, because now their beliefs have influence.
They're wacky because people want to live in a wacky world of cults and Satan and aliens and ciphers and wheels within wheels, where at least something is in control and there is an order to reality, however obscure and evil, as opposed to a world of chaos and mundane grasping evil where there is no purpose beyond rich bastards getting richer.
It’s kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. You watch one conspiracy video, the algorithm learns and recommends more of it.
Humans absorb what we see around us and our identity is now also formed by what we consume. So essentially you get a type of flywheel where you become more and more sucked in by virtue of watching more.
I think there’s been this sudden realization that the media can’t be trusted (for good reason) but people have been so long trusting the news that now they can’t accept the true reality which is NOT KNOWING THINGS and so they go to the internet to fulfill the addiction to a false feeling of knowing what’s going on and think “this must be true instead” but really we all need to accept that we just can’t know things to the extent that the media claimed they had the answers for, and that’s a healthy and good thing to embrace.
This is the Hillbilly Elegy hypothesis. I used to buy it. I’m now less convinced. There is a hateful streak in America driven, in part, by reduced attention spans, literacy and ad-powered algorithms. When those folks get better off, they don’t become less hateful. (I’d love to see evidence to the contrary.)
> If Democracy is simply Oligarchy with voting as a decoration and sometime even that was gamed, then to the hell with this democracy
Do you really think you’ll be treated better in a quasi-monarchy?
> There is a hateful streak in America driven, in part, by reduced attention spans, literacy and ad-powered algorithms.
I’m sure those things are not helping, but America’s had a hateful streak for longer than they existed. It’s always been here but mostly hidden under shame and a veneer of basic politeness. Recent political rhetoric has encouraged this hate to go “mask off” and open up with it. Now it’s ok and totally normalized to openly and loudly hate, and broadcast that hate through tech.
I guess it depends on who the Monarchy is. It was like asking, do you really think you will be treated better under Augustus or the Senate? I bet back then a lot of people would want the Monarchy — after all Augustus won and the Roman Empire was born.
In general we consider democracy > monarchy because good monarchies are rare and far between, so democracy is the least bad option.
And no, I don’t think Trump could be Augustus. Augustus and Caesar beat their enemies and cut them down like chicken. We are more civilized now, but I don’t think Trump is willing and can do enough sweeping. It is only by sweeping away the old aristocratic that the new ones can building a new Empire.
> do you really think you will be treated better under Augustus or the Senate?
Augustus’s rein started with him engineering a peninsula-wide famine and economic collapse. He grew up after the civil war. But promptly after him you got Trajan.
> we consider democracy > monarchy because good monarchies are rare and far between, so democracy is the least bad option
Sort of. There is also the whole part about being able to fire the leaders once in a while.
> We are more civilized now, but I don’t think Trump is willing and can do enough sweeping
Trump would absolutely mow down Americans if his life depended on it, most leaders would, this is what makes dictatorships and other systems without a peaceful transition of power so dangerous.
> only by sweeping away the old aristocratic that the new ones can building a new Empire
Octavianus was a Claudian, one of Rome’s most prestigious patrician families. Most of the Emperors were also patricians. (Rome collapsed shortly after the aristocracy actually lost control. It’s literally referred to as the fall of Rome.)
If America goes monarchy, it would be in a way that ensconced our current elites into a generational aristocracy far more powerful than what Americans think is social immobility today.
Yeah you definitely have to be a patrician to be the Emperor. But you gotta remove many other patricians too.
My thought is, the US reached the peak of all Empires. It is Pax Americana, and every empire imploded whenever it stopped expanding. We had some pretty good time in the late 1800s and better time back in 1945 and 1990. There were struggles but we always managed to plow through because there were spaces to expand, and the elites back then, TBF, were better than this batch (I was reading Baltzell's books a while ago). But the good time was over, and there is not much space to expand, so the "safer" way is to reform -- but we rarely saw this happen, e.g. both Brother Gracchus were killed by the Senate -- and eventually Caesar came up and swept the floor, and I have no faith in this batch of elites.
What are you basing this on? The patrician families continued to rein under the Empire. Which side do you think backed Sulla’s dictatorship? Which side do you think felt (and feels) constrained by elections and democratic norms?
> It is Pax Americana, and every empire imploded whenever it stopped expanding
One, source? Because plenty of great civilisations across history reached stable states for hundreds if not thousands of years.
And two, America is still expanding. The economy is growing. Post industrialisation, there are more routes to goodies than conquering territory. (I can’t think of a single war of conquest since China annexed Tibet that has gone well for the invader since WWII.)
> One, source? Because plenty of great civilisations across history reached stable states for hundreds if not thousands of years.
Be that as it may. Expansionist empires usually shrinks dramatically once they reached their peak. Both Roman and the British are examples, as well as many Chinese dynasties. The East Roman Empire did survive for much longer so it is also possible for the US to go on for a lot longer. I think the Inca was also kinda stable before the Spanish came.
> And two, America is still expanding. The economy is growing. Post industrialisation, there are more routes to goodies than conquering territory. (I can’t think of a single war of conquest since China annexed Tibet that has gone well for the invader since WWII.)
I do hope that we can drag through this period and make some reformation happen. But I don't have high hope for the current batch of elites. Sure the number is growing.
Because everything anti-establishment is a conspiracy, remember folks, trust the main stream media - they definitely aren't working hand in hand with intelligence agencies and corporations.
The YouTuber Milo Rossi [1], who debunks archaeological conspiracy theories (and makes educational content about archaeology) likes to say (paraphrasing slightly) "you don't need to make up conspiracy theories to be mad at the government, you can be mad at the actual government for what they actually do." Institutions/"the establishment" deserve skepticism but that skepticism has to be grounded in the real world and in evidence you can actually acquire. Not in supposition about a nebulous "they" pulling the strings. Conspiracy theories rapidly devolve into something entirely unfalsifiable.
A key smell test is: Does receiving pushback or counter evidence strengthen your conviction that you are correct? If so, you're going down a dangerous path. You're painting yourself into a corner where you will have a lot of trouble changing your mind, even if you're wrong.
The "main stream media" is the worst source, except for most of the other ones. It's not valuable because it is gospel - it's plain to see that the media is fallible. It's valuable because it adheres to any standard of evidence whatsoever while producing content at scale. It's like what people sometimes say about Wikipedia, it's the best place to begin your research but it doesn't have to end there.
> A key smell test is: Does receiving pushback or counter evidence strengthen your conviction that you are correct?
The parallels with religion are obvious here too. I would guess that the fall or organized religion participation in America directly matches the rise in political zealotry and/or conspiracy theory belief. There’s always something people believe more strongly the more it is opposed.
To be honest, while there are definitely religious fundamentalists or literalists who suffer from this kind of thinking, I don't find it to be any less prevalent among people who identify as atheists or rationalists. It's a problem of rigid thinking, overcommitment to ideology, and being unwilling to question and overturn your premises. If you are willing to hold beliefs lightly, entertain ideas even if you do not accept them, and remain open to new evidence and to changing your mind, you're probably on the right track regardless of other factors.
A lot of religions teach that reality and God's will is mysterious and open to interpretation. That can be the cornerstone of an epistemic humility, if you cultivate it that way. (I'm agnostic for what it's worth.)
IMHO - distrust in the establishment is not the cause, but a side effect of the real cause.
I used to be a journalist before my career in tech. In my opinion, the real culprit is that news outlets now have the wrong incentives.
When people still used to buy printed newspapers, you had to pay for your news so you better get well researched articles for your hard earned money. [1]
With the rise of internet news, that incentive is no longer in place. Yes there are paid news outlets on the Internet but the majority of people don't pay for a subscription. What gets you most views does rarely align with high journalistic standards. [2] In a way, everything is a tabloid now.
[1] If you are at least as old as me, you might remember that reading a certain newspaper rather than another was almost seen as a status symbol. I remember journalists saying things like "I love working at [newspaper X] because of our fine readership, they challenge me to write high quality articles".
[2] With a few obvious exceptions like Panama Papers etc.
Seems like it'd run a bit further than the invention of the internet then, right? Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent is scathing of the move to ad supported newspapers way back in the past, leading to the rise of companies like News Corp.
To a different degree, yes I agree. But the move away from paid printed news has overcharged it IMO.
> is that news outlets now have the wrong incentives.
You know how one sausage is made. But every factory is filthy just like yours.
I work with "the establishment". It has the wrong incentives too, just different ones.
Oh yes of course I don't disagree on that. I used to cover local politics when I was still in the field, so I've seen my fair share.
I think investigative journalism is still pretty good. It just takes a whole lot of time to produce.
It’s kind of interesting that this occurs that at the same time tech leaders are basically telling us, we don’t need institutions, look we have ai instead of universities, tech will solve all of your problems. I don’t actually think there’s a conspiracy here, but like, instead of journalists raising the standards of tech, tech lowered the standards of journalists, and made us all sensationalist microbloggers.
And yet I wonder with the acceptance of tech and the downfall of institutions… isn’t one of the things people are nostalgic for or made the past so great was basically institutions?
I think that around the mid-2010s that acceptance of tech you're talking about has started eroding and it's still eroding quite fast. Maybe I'm just getting older and leaning towards being cynical? I don't know but it seems my daughter and her friends don't have that idealistic view of tech as me and my buddies had in the early 2000's.
I read a good editorial recently by George Potter about how advertising is good because it allows news orgs "pay their own way" and helps keep the press free.
I can see where he's coming from but I ask: what would you consider more controlling, advertisers or readers? Readers are not an organised entity, as opposed to corporations buying ad slots. And don't get me wrong sensationalist news outlets have always existed (I mentioned tabloids in my previous comment), so relying on paying readers is not a panacea, it's just the scale that's different today I think.
[dead]
I think the establishment's actions are what's driving anti-establishment sentiment.
The establishment? That sounds so 20th. century to my ears.
Not allowed content, so sayeth Dang.
So basically rage-bait sells? It's not really surprising in the finance and wellness space that it also works. People often feel vulnerable and that "the system" is rigged against them. This kind of content appeals as it makes them feel that they are not alone, like someone understands them.
It would be interesting to extend the study to other categories where this trust gap does not exist. Would anti-establishment content also get more engagement in say the woodworking niche?
All 5g gay frogs aside, this a power problem and not really a people problem. How many establishment institutions are left that citizens would wish to enthusiastically uphold? We have come to almost expect corruption and these days.
This isn't a justification for irrational conspiracy theory (which are generally harmless, yet occasionally highly catastrophic). It's that the establishment whack-em-all approach is not working, and is probably exacerbating their problem.
> this a power problem and not really a people problem
It’s an education and channel incentive problem. Our kids’ literacy is crashing [1]. And most Americans get their news through channels that are incentivised by selling ads.
[1] https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Living/us-students-reading-math-s...
I totally agree about literacy being huge, and would actually extend it to going beyond literacy.
The literacy crash is alarming, and is no doubt agitating this situation in a major way. However, I think what we are experiencing is something like a kind of siloing of private realities. Not the pearl-clutching 'echo chamber' discourse from 2019. But an increasing lack of social competency amongst younger people that is disallowing them to be present others in the world itself.
This is why I still think it is a power problem. Government, however incompetent, still has the monopoly on control and policy. They have experts yelling at them everyday about these problems. But their answer does seem to be more censorship and surveillance, rather than addressing the causes of these problems. As I mentioned, this only exacerbates the problem and makes it more socially dangerous.
> their answer does seem to be more censorship and surveillance, rather than addressing the causes of these problems
The power hypothesis doesn’t explain Flat Eartherism. That’s just stupid people believing what I cannot imagine started as anything but a tantrum.
The fact that Flat Earthers believe the earth is flat isn't the problem. The fact that people of such low intellectual quality have so much power over the rest of us is the problem.
Yes but a flat-earther is a useful idiot for precisely zero dangerous social movements. They are irrationally angry at nature, not the establishment.
>Yes but a flat-earther is a useful idiot for precisely zero dangerous social movements.
Incorrect. As with most if not all conspiracy theories, flat-earthism incorporates anger at "the establishment" because "the establishment" is hiding the truth. And this is the hook. If you can be convinced that a secret cabal is manipulating all science, controlling all governments, censoring all media and filtering all information in order to keep the basic nature of reality hidden from humanity - which flat earthers do believe - then you're susceptible to someone suggesting who that cabal might be. You know who.
True. I was being hyperbolic, but I hoped it was clear that I meant that flat-earthers are nowhere near the threat-level of something like a qanon or antivax movement, who are far more politically-activated, willing to take matters into their own hands, and likely to incite actual physical harm through ideological-driven behavior.
I wouldn't undersell the harms of general conspiracy theories. Most of them become more harmful the more people believe in them and the social media that I see has a tendency to spread the more harmful types of conspiracy theories (medical or political misinformation I see all the time on the internet now).
Yes. It has become mainstream. As soon as Kirk died, people were spouting antisemitic BS conspiracies that 'it was all Israel', even though he was the biggest shill of Israel's policies!
As you say, the medical conspiracies have really evolved since covid. I'm just glad we had covid when we did, because I feel that 5 years later people are so much more ignorant and less willing to all go through something together for the greater good.
With that said, I think the lot of conspiracy that just doesn't really hurt anyone but the believer. Aliens, moon landings, illuminati, etc. Kind of the modern day opiate of the masses.
Are those examples at all indicative of what conspiracy theories are anymore, they seem stuck in the last century? The only one of those I've literally ever seen, even online, is aliens (and just UFO videos). On the other hand I personally know a lot of people who consistently buy into medical and political misinformation (and social media pushes it to me at least weekly, no matter how much I try to say I'm not interested).
I know a lot of people who have had to cut off family members because they got too deep into conspiracy theories and it's pretty much always weird political ones.
Yes, I feel these type of conspiracies were structurally similar, but of a slighly different composition to political conspiracy. But I think what changed is that political conspiracy became activated by the atomisation of culture and the lack of social consensus. As a result, these former examples (ufo, moonlanding, etc) now almost feel quaint and cartoonish, because they are relatively inconsequential compared to the choices people make and socially harmful actions they'll undertake with political conspiracy.
For a few reasons I personally find that the best medicine is just to nod along with these people and watch them give away their ideological hand:
a) You know where they stand and who you are dealing with.
b) They can, however rarely, be forced to actually confront the irrational logic when sharing it.
c) I think it is the compassionate thing to do, as people just often want to spout these theories as a much needed release valve. After all, people believe this stuff often because of a confusion or frustration they have with their own lives.
The conspiracy fans seem rather disinterested in conspiracies that are obviously happening, like people bribing government officials.
They seem to prefer implausible conspiracies, or where there is some ambiguity, such as documents that aren't public.
The wackiest conspiracy theories are probably the ones most promoted by the establishment since they taint all the plausible theories.
> wackiest conspiracy theories are probably the ones most promoted by the establishment
Not really. They’re wacky because being believed by the establishment, they have consequences. I’m not bothered by flat Earthers and vaccine deniers. I am bothered when they’re in power, because now their beliefs have influence.
They're wacky because people want to live in a wacky world of cults and Satan and aliens and ciphers and wheels within wheels, where at least something is in control and there is an order to reality, however obscure and evil, as opposed to a world of chaos and mundane grasping evil where there is no purpose beyond rich bastards getting richer.
It’s a symptom not a cause.
It’s kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. You watch one conspiracy video, the algorithm learns and recommends more of it.
Humans absorb what we see around us and our identity is now also formed by what we consume. So essentially you get a type of flywheel where you become more and more sucked in by virtue of watching more.
I think there’s been this sudden realization that the media can’t be trusted (for good reason) but people have been so long trusting the news that now they can’t accept the true reality which is NOT KNOWING THINGS and so they go to the internet to fulfill the addiction to a false feeling of knowing what’s going on and think “this must be true instead” but really we all need to accept that we just can’t know things to the extent that the media claimed they had the answers for, and that’s a healthy and good thing to embrace.
> Researchers say anti-establishment sentiment can undermine the health of democracies
This actually sounds like something from a fascist state. It's a completely contradictory, manipulative statement.
Where did you source that "research"? Orwell's Ministry of Truth?
It’s funny, those conspiracies are now the establishment.
New fresh relevant conspiracies buried in my threads!
"Memoirs of extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds" (Charles Mackay, 1852)
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/24518/24518-h/24518-h.htm
Not a new phenomena, but rather a reminder of what civilizations often offer. =3
"Conspiracy content drives anti-establishment sentiment on TikTok, YouTube" drives anti-establishment sentiment on Hacker News
People don’t trust the establishment because it doesn’t take care of them. Trump is simply a symptom, whether you agree with him or not.
If Democracy is simply Oligarchy with voting as a decoration and sometime even that was gamed, then to the hell with this democracy.
This is the Hillbilly Elegy hypothesis. I used to buy it. I’m now less convinced. There is a hateful streak in America driven, in part, by reduced attention spans, literacy and ad-powered algorithms. When those folks get better off, they don’t become less hateful. (I’d love to see evidence to the contrary.)
> If Democracy is simply Oligarchy with voting as a decoration and sometime even that was gamed, then to the hell with this democracy
Do you really think you’ll be treated better in a quasi-monarchy?
> There is a hateful streak in America driven, in part, by reduced attention spans, literacy and ad-powered algorithms.
I’m sure those things are not helping, but America’s had a hateful streak for longer than they existed. It’s always been here but mostly hidden under shame and a veneer of basic politeness. Recent political rhetoric has encouraged this hate to go “mask off” and open up with it. Now it’s ok and totally normalized to openly and loudly hate, and broadcast that hate through tech.
I guess it depends on who the Monarchy is. It was like asking, do you really think you will be treated better under Augustus or the Senate? I bet back then a lot of people would want the Monarchy — after all Augustus won and the Roman Empire was born.
In general we consider democracy > monarchy because good monarchies are rare and far between, so democracy is the least bad option.
And no, I don’t think Trump could be Augustus. Augustus and Caesar beat their enemies and cut them down like chicken. We are more civilized now, but I don’t think Trump is willing and can do enough sweeping. It is only by sweeping away the old aristocratic that the new ones can building a new Empire.
> depends on who the Monarchy is
We have a pretty good hint!
> do you really think you will be treated better under Augustus or the Senate?
Augustus’s rein started with him engineering a peninsula-wide famine and economic collapse. He grew up after the civil war. But promptly after him you got Trajan.
> we consider democracy > monarchy because good monarchies are rare and far between, so democracy is the least bad option
Sort of. There is also the whole part about being able to fire the leaders once in a while.
> We are more civilized now, but I don’t think Trump is willing and can do enough sweeping
Trump would absolutely mow down Americans if his life depended on it, most leaders would, this is what makes dictatorships and other systems without a peaceful transition of power so dangerous.
> only by sweeping away the old aristocratic that the new ones can building a new Empire
Octavianus was a Claudian, one of Rome’s most prestigious patrician families. Most of the Emperors were also patricians. (Rome collapsed shortly after the aristocracy actually lost control. It’s literally referred to as the fall of Rome.)
If America goes monarchy, it would be in a way that ensconced our current elites into a generational aristocracy far more powerful than what Americans think is social immobility today.
Yeah you definitely have to be a patrician to be the Emperor. But you gotta remove many other patricians too.
My thought is, the US reached the peak of all Empires. It is Pax Americana, and every empire imploded whenever it stopped expanding. We had some pretty good time in the late 1800s and better time back in 1945 and 1990. There were struggles but we always managed to plow through because there were spaces to expand, and the elites back then, TBF, were better than this batch (I was reading Baltzell's books a while ago). But the good time was over, and there is not much space to expand, so the "safer" way is to reform -- but we rarely saw this happen, e.g. both Brother Gracchus were killed by the Senate -- and eventually Caesar came up and swept the floor, and I have no faith in this batch of elites.
> you gotta remove many other patricians too
What are you basing this on? The patrician families continued to rein under the Empire. Which side do you think backed Sulla’s dictatorship? Which side do you think felt (and feels) constrained by elections and democratic norms?
> It is Pax Americana, and every empire imploded whenever it stopped expanding
One, source? Because plenty of great civilisations across history reached stable states for hundreds if not thousands of years.
And two, America is still expanding. The economy is growing. Post industrialisation, there are more routes to goodies than conquering territory. (I can’t think of a single war of conquest since China annexed Tibet that has gone well for the invader since WWII.)
> One, source? Because plenty of great civilisations across history reached stable states for hundreds if not thousands of years.
Be that as it may. Expansionist empires usually shrinks dramatically once they reached their peak. Both Roman and the British are examples, as well as many Chinese dynasties. The East Roman Empire did survive for much longer so it is also possible for the US to go on for a lot longer. I think the Inca was also kinda stable before the Spanish came.
> And two, America is still expanding. The economy is growing. Post industrialisation, there are more routes to goodies than conquering territory. (I can’t think of a single war of conquest since China annexed Tibet that has gone well for the invader since WWII.)
I do hope that we can drag through this period and make some reformation happen. But I don't have high hope for the current batch of elites. Sure the number is growing.
[dead]
[dead]
Because everything anti-establishment is a conspiracy, remember folks, trust the main stream media - they definitely aren't working hand in hand with intelligence agencies and corporations.
The YouTuber Milo Rossi [1], who debunks archaeological conspiracy theories (and makes educational content about archaeology) likes to say (paraphrasing slightly) "you don't need to make up conspiracy theories to be mad at the government, you can be mad at the actual government for what they actually do." Institutions/"the establishment" deserve skepticism but that skepticism has to be grounded in the real world and in evidence you can actually acquire. Not in supposition about a nebulous "they" pulling the strings. Conspiracy theories rapidly devolve into something entirely unfalsifiable.
A key smell test is: Does receiving pushback or counter evidence strengthen your conviction that you are correct? If so, you're going down a dangerous path. You're painting yourself into a corner where you will have a lot of trouble changing your mind, even if you're wrong.
The "main stream media" is the worst source, except for most of the other ones. It's not valuable because it is gospel - it's plain to see that the media is fallible. It's valuable because it adheres to any standard of evidence whatsoever while producing content at scale. It's like what people sometimes say about Wikipedia, it's the best place to begin your research but it doesn't have to end there.
[1] https://youtube.com/@miniminuteman773
> A key smell test is: Does receiving pushback or counter evidence strengthen your conviction that you are correct?
The parallels with religion are obvious here too. I would guess that the fall or organized religion participation in America directly matches the rise in political zealotry and/or conspiracy theory belief. There’s always something people believe more strongly the more it is opposed.
To be honest, while there are definitely religious fundamentalists or literalists who suffer from this kind of thinking, I don't find it to be any less prevalent among people who identify as atheists or rationalists. It's a problem of rigid thinking, overcommitment to ideology, and being unwilling to question and overturn your premises. If you are willing to hold beliefs lightly, entertain ideas even if you do not accept them, and remain open to new evidence and to changing your mind, you're probably on the right track regardless of other factors.
A lot of religions teach that reality and God's will is mysterious and open to interpretation. That can be the cornerstone of an epistemic humility, if you cultivate it that way. (I'm agnostic for what it's worth.)
>they definitely aren't working hand in hand with intelligence agencies and corporations.
And definitely neither are any of the "alternative" sources you think are telling you the real truth.
Perhaps because the establishment is persistently wrong about almost anything?