The shape of a 21st century I don’t want to see(antipope.org)
antipope.org
The shape of a 21st century I don’t want to see
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2018/05/happy-21st-century.html
37 comments
Makes me think of the intro movie to the game Syndicate Wars: the world looks shiny and beautiful, until an agent hacks your chip, and you see that you're walking a dystopian world: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGvIrf86g4Y .
Another thesis which basically supports Charlie's is: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/25/13-cri...
Another thesis which basically supports Charlie's is: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/25/13-cri...
> Makes me think of the intro movie to the game Syndicate Wars: the world looks shiny and beautiful, until an agent hacks your chip, and you see that you're walking a dystopian world:
Our existing dominant forms of escapism, video games & TV, have accomplished this fairly well already.
Our existing dominant forms of escapism, video games & TV, have accomplished this fairly well already.
> So it's almost illusory. Am I paranoid, or is the world really walking down a dark path towards....what?
It is just change. It was hard for the world to adapt to the idea of nuclear weapons, and before that the awesome power of mechanized war.
It is just change. It was hard for the world to adapt to the idea of nuclear weapons, and before that the awesome power of mechanized war.
> It was hard for the world to adapt to the idea of nuclear weapons, and before that the awesome power of mechanized war.
These are interesting examples because in both cases society only adapted to the new technology after it had been deployed to catastrophic or near-catastrophic effect. What is going to be the panopticon equivalent of WWI? I fear we're in for some interesting times.
These are interesting examples because in both cases society only adapted to the new technology after it had been deployed to catastrophic or near-catastrophic effect. What is going to be the panopticon equivalent of WWI? I fear we're in for some interesting times.
As Ursula Le Guin wrote, "Predictions are uttered by prophets (free of charge); by clairvoyants (who usually charge a fee, and are therefore more honored in their day than prophets); and by futurologists (salaried). (...) I don't recommend that you turn to the writers of fiction for such information. It's none of their business."
Let's not forget that it isn't 100% the right that likes to deny banking to "undesirables" - the Obama administration put the kibosh on Wikileaks funding through questionable means: https://wikileaks.org/Banking-Blockade.html
It's very much a "people in charge" vs "people not in charge" rather than "this political ideology" vs "that political ideology"
It's very much a "people in charge" vs "people not in charge" rather than "this political ideology" vs "that political ideology"
Obama is center-right by European standards.
Maybe you like what Wikileaks has done, but if a group solicits and then publishes huge troves of your nation's secrets, it's kind of hard to distinguish the group's actions from those of a hostile foreign power. I used to be a fan myself, but nowadays I can't figure out why Americans don't all consider Assange to be either a malicious spy or a malicious insurgency. They're definitely not on the USA government's side, and it's not clear to me that they're on my side, either, but they're definitely on some side, and they are on the attack.
I am a US citizen and it is blatantly obvious that the US government is not on my side. "My" nation shouldn't have those secrets in the first place. They clearly can't keep themselves honest, so it's good that someone has found a clever way of forcing them to deal with it.
Maybe you're not on the best side? Just a question to ask yourself. IMO wikileaks is a natural evolution being pushed by this fact that we feel less and less like we have the right checks and balances on the actions and decisions of the US government.
Or, good people will continue coming together in good faith to create new and marginally better times. Is that guaranteed? Nope. But, I've seen too many good people (from all sorts of places and backgrounds) to be pessimistic.
The problem, the way I see it, is that a lot of the problems that are going to be coming to a head over the next decades aren't even really from malevolence. It's just ignorance, incompetence, and not really working together. Of course there are bad actors (e.g. the oil industry) who spread FUD and discord when it comes to the things they are interested in, but mostly it's humanity being too disorganized to really fix problems. Humanity being too short-sighted to see what the culmination of individual, otherwise innocuous, steps toward prolific data collection would mean.
Did you imagine in 2006 when you first joined Facebook that some day it would impact your immigration status? Likely not.
So going back to what you said yes there are lots of good people with good intentions, but along the way to creating our problems have been good people with good intentions.
Did you imagine in 2006 when you first joined Facebook that some day it would impact your immigration status? Likely not.
So going back to what you said yes there are lots of good people with good intentions, but along the way to creating our problems have been good people with good intentions.
We don't disagree on much of that. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, people will act in poor faith, etc. Although, yes, I've always believed that anything that I say, anywhere, can and will be used against me.
What I do think is unlikely/hyperbolic is the global "soft genocide" and organized "culling" that he describes in the post.
I'm not much for Utopians or Dystopians, they're always trying to sell me something.
What I do think is unlikely/hyperbolic is the global "soft genocide" and organized "culling" that he describes in the post.
I'm not much for Utopians or Dystopians, they're always trying to sell me something.
Yeah I doubt it would be organized as stated. Probably more along the lines of various restrictive immigration policies and sanctions which, perhaps inadvertently, lead to famine and war.
And of course people on the left who are certain all the killing will be done by the right aren't dangerous at all. Beware a prophet who proclaims your own perfection.
No, I think people on the left are quite aware that fascists aren't going to punch themselves. When Nazis are marching in the streets, someone will have to step up to the plate.
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/white-supremacist-rallies-i...
(it's a sad sign of the times that "Nazis must be and should be stopped by force" is somehow seen as a controversial statement. Sometime, ask a WWII vet if they had any second thoughts about killing Nazis, let alone just giving one a black eye.)
What Antifa does may be illegal, but it's also morally correct. A lot of people have problems with confusing those two concepts.
Keeping torch-wielding supremacists from terrorizing innocents is not morally equivalent with those doing the terrorizing, even if both use violence.
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/white-supremacist-rallies-i...
(it's a sad sign of the times that "Nazis must be and should be stopped by force" is somehow seen as a controversial statement. Sometime, ask a WWII vet if they had any second thoughts about killing Nazis, let alone just giving one a black eye.)
What Antifa does may be illegal, but it's also morally correct. A lot of people have problems with confusing those two concepts.
Keeping torch-wielding supremacists from terrorizing innocents is not morally equivalent with those doing the terrorizing, even if both use violence.
Killing Nazis is controversial because leftists have changed the definition of what a Nazi is to include up to half the population.
Perhaps this would be a good time to point out that neither the article nor I were talking about Nazis. There's a lot of room to disagree before we hit Nazi.
"Extremists on both sides" is literally always a coded way to complain about Antifa fighting back against Nazi street gangs. And that's what your original comment was getting at - the top comment responded perfectly to your dog-whistle. It's really not a mystery where that talking point came from - that's Trump blaming Antifa after they beat up a bunch of torch-wielding supremacists at the Charlottesville rally.
It's not like Antifa is going into people's houses and beating up 50% of the country. If you're marching under torches and hate symbols you don't get much sympathy from me when someone gives you a black eye for it.
Antifa doesn't make you march around with torches and swastikas, you chose to march under the symbols that have been used for centuries for symbolizing intent to murder, lynch, and exterminate "lesser" human beings. Hopefully at that point most people would have a think about "Hans... are we the baddies? We're marching around with torches..."
There are a lot of people who are susceptible to fascist/"alt-right" slogans and thought, even if they're not the ones currently going out in the streets and attacking people. Some of them can be convinced to go a bit farther. "Hey guys, bring tiki torches to the rally tonight!" and so on. It's an active phenomenon with the alt-right to radicalize and recruit additional members - they call it "red-pilling" (after the MRA thing, although many right-wing groups use the term).
It's not dissimilar to the radicalization tactics that Muslim extremists use, which shouldn't be surprising - providing a home and an ideology for the disaffected is a highly effective radicalization tactic.
http://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/red-pill/
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/nnk3bm/how-to-tell-if-you...
http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/05/the-online-radicalization...
Remember, the actual Nazis were a minority in Germany too, and that took decades to build up.
It's not like Antifa is going into people's houses and beating up 50% of the country. If you're marching under torches and hate symbols you don't get much sympathy from me when someone gives you a black eye for it.
Antifa doesn't make you march around with torches and swastikas, you chose to march under the symbols that have been used for centuries for symbolizing intent to murder, lynch, and exterminate "lesser" human beings. Hopefully at that point most people would have a think about "Hans... are we the baddies? We're marching around with torches..."
There are a lot of people who are susceptible to fascist/"alt-right" slogans and thought, even if they're not the ones currently going out in the streets and attacking people. Some of them can be convinced to go a bit farther. "Hey guys, bring tiki torches to the rally tonight!" and so on. It's an active phenomenon with the alt-right to radicalize and recruit additional members - they call it "red-pilling" (after the MRA thing, although many right-wing groups use the term).
It's not dissimilar to the radicalization tactics that Muslim extremists use, which shouldn't be surprising - providing a home and an ideology for the disaffected is a highly effective radicalization tactic.
http://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/red-pill/
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/nnk3bm/how-to-tell-if-you...
http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/05/the-online-radicalization...
Remember, the actual Nazis were a minority in Germany too, and that took decades to build up.
To clarify what you likely meant: Extremists on either side are equally dangerous. I figured you'd get down voted for sounding like if you're generalizing.
"Equally dangerous"? If so, that'd be a highly unlikely coincidence. Both sides advocate a bunch of really stupid ideas that'd be likely to kill a large number of people, but those stupid ideas are radically different in both likelihood and mass death potential.
Extremists are usually unpredictable.
>People will be die in large numbers, but it will happen out of sight.
Out of sight for the first world (or parts of it in good neighborhoods) -- very much in sight for those dying....
Out of sight for the first world (or parts of it in good neighborhoods) -- very much in sight for those dying....
I took that as implied.
When an international audience can read one's blog, such as the web allows for, it can be in bad taste to leave it implied.
In Mr Stross's case, "international audience" means "outside of Scotland".
They seem to like attacking the right; but it is the left which already screams about the world being overpopulated, are intolerant of religion or morals, advocates eliminating poor people through birth control, getting rid of "undesirables", uses violence to get their way, etc. and everyone seems to forget the Nazis were actually the "National Socialists", left-wing, not right-wing, but officially denied being either. I'm not saying the right is much better, but painting the left as being panda-bear loving hug-givers and the right as monsters is a very biased attitude.
EDIT: main point being, I think it's a very biased article with little evidence of their claims. Sure, I think there are some bad things going on, and that we should take care of those, and that society should be less complacent, but forecasting doom and a certain group of people as being ruthless is a bit far out.
EDIT: main point being, I think it's a very biased article with little evidence of their claims. Sure, I think there are some bad things going on, and that we should take care of those, and that society should be less complacent, but forecasting doom and a certain group of people as being ruthless is a bit far out.
> and everyone seems to forget the Nazis were actually the "National Socialists", left-wing, not right-wing
They forget this because it is trivially, obviously, crashingly false
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists...
https://www.indy100.com/article/nazi-socialist-right-wing-wh...
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hitler_and_socialism
They forget this because it is trivially, obviously, crashingly false
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists...
https://www.indy100.com/article/nazi-socialist-right-wing-wh...
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hitler_and_socialism
National Socialism is an (extreme) offspring of Socialism, is entirely left-wing to modern standards and I have actual textual evidence from the man himself to proof it:
"Socialism as the final concept of duty, the ethical duty of work, not just for oneself but also for one’s fellow man’s sake, and above all the principle: Common good before own good, a struggle against all parasitism and especially against easy and unearned income. And we were aware that in this fight we can rely on no one but our own people. We are convinced that socialism in the right sense will only be possible in nations and races that are Aryan, and there in the first place we hope for our own people and are convinced that socialism is inseparable from nationalism."
-- Adolf Hitler, August 15 1920
"The common good before the individual good. (Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz)"
-- Adolf Hitler, February 1920
"Since we are socialists, we must necessarily also be antisemites because we want to fight against the very opposite: materialism and mammonism… How can you not be an antisemite, being a socialist!"
-- Adolf Hitler, August 15 1920
"Because it seems inseparable from the social idea and we do not believe that there could ever exist a state with lasting inner health if it is not built on internal social justice, and so we have joined forces with this knowledge. "
-- Adolf Hitler, August 15 1920
"There are no such things as classes: they cannot be. Class means caste and caste means race."
-- Adolf Hitler, April 12 1922
"To put it quite clearly: we have an economic programme. Point No. 13 in that programme demands the nationalisation of all public companies, in other words socialisation, or what is known here as socialism. … the basic principle of my Party’s economic programme should be made perfectly clear and that is the principle of authority… the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow countrymen. That is the overriding point. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners. If you say that the bourgeoisie is tearing its hair over the question of private property, that does not affect me in the least. Does the bourgeoisie expect some consideration from me?… Today’s bourgeoisie is rotten to the core; it has no ideals any more; all it wants to do is earn money and so it does me what damage it can. The bourgeois press does me damage too and would like to consign me and my movement to the devil. "
-- Adolf Hitler, 1931
"There is a difference between the theoretical knowledge of socialism and the practical life of socialism. People are not born socialists, but must first be taught how to become them."
-- Adolf Hitler, October 5 1937
"We are Socialists, we are enemies of the capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
-- Adolf Hitler, May 1 1927
Sources, so you can read these actual quotes yourself:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Adolf.Hitler.Quote....
As an added bonus I also would like to point out that Mr. Hitler hated "the Left" (as in Marxist Socialism, but mainly because he didn't believe in "their kind of Socialism") as much as "the Right" (Liberalism/Libertarianism). He saw both as enemies of the German people. So why both classical liberals and libertarians alike are branded as "fascists" or "national socialists" these days is beyond me, because it is historically false.
Secondly, I would like to point out that I am not at all a fan of Hitler and Nazi Germany but I do like to spend a lot of time studying history as it happened, and I still very much hope others will find the time to do the same aswell. If only to avert the biggest disaster Western civilization has ever faced in the near future (or let me put it otherwise: I agree with Charlie that a devastating event will happen in the near future. I disagree however that the Alt-Right, and solely the Alt-Right, will be the cause of this event. Because entoxicating extremism is literally anywhere and everywhere on the political spectrum these days).
"Socialism as the final concept of duty, the ethical duty of work, not just for oneself but also for one’s fellow man’s sake, and above all the principle: Common good before own good, a struggle against all parasitism and especially against easy and unearned income. And we were aware that in this fight we can rely on no one but our own people. We are convinced that socialism in the right sense will only be possible in nations and races that are Aryan, and there in the first place we hope for our own people and are convinced that socialism is inseparable from nationalism."
-- Adolf Hitler, August 15 1920
"The common good before the individual good. (Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz)"
-- Adolf Hitler, February 1920
"Since we are socialists, we must necessarily also be antisemites because we want to fight against the very opposite: materialism and mammonism… How can you not be an antisemite, being a socialist!"
-- Adolf Hitler, August 15 1920
"Because it seems inseparable from the social idea and we do not believe that there could ever exist a state with lasting inner health if it is not built on internal social justice, and so we have joined forces with this knowledge. "
-- Adolf Hitler, August 15 1920
"There are no such things as classes: they cannot be. Class means caste and caste means race."
-- Adolf Hitler, April 12 1922
"To put it quite clearly: we have an economic programme. Point No. 13 in that programme demands the nationalisation of all public companies, in other words socialisation, or what is known here as socialism. … the basic principle of my Party’s economic programme should be made perfectly clear and that is the principle of authority… the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow countrymen. That is the overriding point. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners. If you say that the bourgeoisie is tearing its hair over the question of private property, that does not affect me in the least. Does the bourgeoisie expect some consideration from me?… Today’s bourgeoisie is rotten to the core; it has no ideals any more; all it wants to do is earn money and so it does me what damage it can. The bourgeois press does me damage too and would like to consign me and my movement to the devil. "
-- Adolf Hitler, 1931
"There is a difference between the theoretical knowledge of socialism and the practical life of socialism. People are not born socialists, but must first be taught how to become them."
-- Adolf Hitler, October 5 1937
"We are Socialists, we are enemies of the capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
-- Adolf Hitler, May 1 1927
Sources, so you can read these actual quotes yourself:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Adolf.Hitler.Quote....
As an added bonus I also would like to point out that Mr. Hitler hated "the Left" (as in Marxist Socialism, but mainly because he didn't believe in "their kind of Socialism") as much as "the Right" (Liberalism/Libertarianism). He saw both as enemies of the German people. So why both classical liberals and libertarians alike are branded as "fascists" or "national socialists" these days is beyond me, because it is historically false.
Secondly, I would like to point out that I am not at all a fan of Hitler and Nazi Germany but I do like to spend a lot of time studying history as it happened, and I still very much hope others will find the time to do the same aswell. If only to avert the biggest disaster Western civilization has ever faced in the near future (or let me put it otherwise: I agree with Charlie that a devastating event will happen in the near future. I disagree however that the Alt-Right, and solely the Alt-Right, will be the cause of this event. Because entoxicating extremism is literally anywhere and everywhere on the political spectrum these days).
> National Socialism is an (extreme) offspring of Socialism
No, it's not, though (especially early on) the mixed salad of policy proposals from different sources they adopted as a platform did include some originating in socialist movements.
Nazism was an right-wing authoritarian populist movement much like Trumpism, and much like Trumpism some of its early appeal to the working class came from some superficially left-wing prescriptions decontextualized from their ideological roots.
> is entirely left-wing to modern standards
Even less true.
> I have actual textual evidence from the man himself to proof it:
No, you have quotes from Hitler that demonstrate that he tried to use appeal to association with socialism as a sales technique. It's not all uncommon for leaders of authoritarian movements to use the rhetorical association with different ideologies than their own as a promotional technique, as hinted at in the “Democratic” in the name of the former German Democratic Republic and the current Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
> Hitler hated "the Left" (as in Marxist Socialism, but mainly because he didn't believe in "their kind of Socialism") as much as "the Right" (Liberalism/Libertarianism).
Classical liberalism is not the right, though it overlaps the part of the right that Hitler opposed in that some portion of it (basically, the part sometimes distinguished now as neoliberalism plus that labelled right-libertarianism) is part of the 20th-21st Century center-right. The Nazis, Fascists, and similar movements were novel far right groups with some similarities to classical conservatism (but incorporating modernist elements from classical liberalism, and corporatist elements various sources across the spectrum, peppered with populist rhetoric.)
No, it's not, though (especially early on) the mixed salad of policy proposals from different sources they adopted as a platform did include some originating in socialist movements.
Nazism was an right-wing authoritarian populist movement much like Trumpism, and much like Trumpism some of its early appeal to the working class came from some superficially left-wing prescriptions decontextualized from their ideological roots.
> is entirely left-wing to modern standards
Even less true.
> I have actual textual evidence from the man himself to proof it:
No, you have quotes from Hitler that demonstrate that he tried to use appeal to association with socialism as a sales technique. It's not all uncommon for leaders of authoritarian movements to use the rhetorical association with different ideologies than their own as a promotional technique, as hinted at in the “Democratic” in the name of the former German Democratic Republic and the current Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
> Hitler hated "the Left" (as in Marxist Socialism, but mainly because he didn't believe in "their kind of Socialism") as much as "the Right" (Liberalism/Libertarianism).
Classical liberalism is not the right, though it overlaps the part of the right that Hitler opposed in that some portion of it (basically, the part sometimes distinguished now as neoliberalism plus that labelled right-libertarianism) is part of the 20th-21st Century center-right. The Nazis, Fascists, and similar movements were novel far right groups with some similarities to classical conservatism (but incorporating modernist elements from classical liberalism, and corporatist elements various sources across the spectrum, peppered with populist rhetoric.)
> It's not all uncommon for leaders of authoritarian movements to use the rhetorical association with different ideologies than their own as a promotional technique, as hinted at in the “Democratic” in the name of the former German Democratic Republic and the current Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
And both are based on a form of Socialism. The DDR was a satellite state of the Soviet Union and the DPRK is based around Juche, which also is a form of Socialism. Another example would be "The People's Republic of China" which makes it sound like China is a democracy (demos = people) while it is absolutely not.
Also the economic engine of Nazi Germany was centered around a planned economy for the common good (or at least, "the common good" according to the Party); an economic system which can only be found in Socialist countries.
> Nazism was an right-wing authoritarian populist movement much like Trumpism
False, because "Trumpism" doesn't want to end capitalism as Trump is a businessman himself who loves capitalism. Hitler hated capitalism and wanted to get rid of it. Also authoritarian? Since when did Trump dissolve nearly all civil liberties in the US, and made all political parties except the GOP illegal? Because Hitler did exactly that, right after the Reichtstag fire and the Enabling Act. Trump sometimes does some pretty awkward shit, but until now he didn't do ANYTHING closely resembling to what those people and freedom hating assholes in Nazi Germany did.
And both are based on a form of Socialism. The DDR was a satellite state of the Soviet Union and the DPRK is based around Juche, which also is a form of Socialism. Another example would be "The People's Republic of China" which makes it sound like China is a democracy (demos = people) while it is absolutely not.
Also the economic engine of Nazi Germany was centered around a planned economy for the common good (or at least, "the common good" according to the Party); an economic system which can only be found in Socialist countries.
> Nazism was an right-wing authoritarian populist movement much like Trumpism
False, because "Trumpism" doesn't want to end capitalism as Trump is a businessman himself who loves capitalism. Hitler hated capitalism and wanted to get rid of it. Also authoritarian? Since when did Trump dissolve nearly all civil liberties in the US, and made all political parties except the GOP illegal? Because Hitler did exactly that, right after the Reichtstag fire and the Enabling Act. Trump sometimes does some pretty awkward shit, but until now he didn't do ANYTHING closely resembling to what those people and freedom hating assholes in Nazi Germany did.
Talking about "the left" as a group never works as an argument for someone on the Left, because there's no "the left". Denying that other groups are really left-wing is the favorite past-time of the Left.
(I say this as a sympathizer and voter of left-wing movements and parties.)
(I say this as a sympathizer and voter of left-wing movements and parties.)
You could make the case that the murderous racist militarist ethnonationalism is compatible with some perverse extremes of the Left (and Right, tbf), but less so with the whole "the merger of state and corporate power" thing.
"First they came for the Socialists, Then they came for the Trade Unionists" sounds to me more like eliminating the left. When in that sequence did they come for the factory owners? Oh right, they didn't. Unless the owner was Jewish.
"First they came for the Socialists, Then they came for the Trade Unionists" sounds to me more like eliminating the left. When in that sequence did they come for the factory owners? Oh right, they didn't. Unless the owner was Jewish.
I wasn't talking about the Nazis at all, I think your post covers that very well, I was making a more general point.
So it's almost illusory. Am I paranoid, or is the world really walking down a dark path towards....what?