"It is not as chaotic as it seems." That statement strikes me as accurate and important, although for me perhaps somewhat different, but nonetheless, complementary reasons. As an American who has spent the second half of nearly 80 years in Australia I felt the 'disturbance in the force' caused by Brexit more strongly from my Commonwealth perspective. So the election of Trump felt more like an aftershock than the complete shock it apparently did to many Americans. So in my view it has been obvious that something deeper was going on, something arising from a deeper level - what I think you may be indicating with "posterity, humanity and mankind". To be upfront, as a Jungian, I think of it as the 'collective unconscious', but in any case we, the people, are more than, and deeper than the creators of Matrices, and Echo Chambers, or deniably led organisations. So, no, you are not a "Rare Black Unicorn" who can smell the faux flowers of Critical Race Theory but a fellow American who thinks, like me, how the "Darkhorse Guys" go could prove significant. BTW, JD Vance, another node on the network, pointed out to Dave Rubin that it took Nigel Farage 25 years to bring about Brexit and that Americans should be prepared for a similar timeframe to work things through. No, I don't know where things are going to end up, and I am a lot more confident that I am unlikely to live to see much in the way of an outcome and therefore recognise that I will have to leave that in the capable of younger people like like Lindsay, Pluckrose, and your good self.
If you are interested in Brexit and the reasons for it -- read Robert Tombs This Sovereign Isle which gives a reasonable explanation. For me personally as an American/Californian (now dual national) who has lived in the UK for the last 33 years, my real break with the EU came when they annulled the Greek and Italian elections. It did not surprise me in the least that Britain, particularly the rural and de-industrialised parts of Britain voted to Leave. What I think has shocked the EU establishment was that Britain decided to honour the vote rather than keep holding referendums until they got the vote they wanted.
Having only recently completed FA Hayek's Road to Serfdom, it's clear that the man was onto something prophetic in his characterization of the British. Much he said still stands to reason. I'm still not sure how well the networks of sanity and reason can remain loosely affiliated and thrive amid the forces of Idiocracy and general corruption. My fingers are crossed to ward off the possibility of a yuppy apocalypse, so I should remind myself of my NeoVictorian values. I can cook. I can build a chair. We may be forced to deal with deindustrialization. I would hate giving up my keyboard for pencils.
Interesting perspective from another dual national who has seen the Brexit project up close emerge over a long time. My break with the EU came similarly when I saw them re-holding referendums (I think it was the Danes that finished me) and I realised for some people democracy is just a sham to be manipulated, when it is also a non-violent way to titrate change without revolution. I know quite a few older English people here in Perth and even the most reliably leftist of them show no great regret over Brexit. I can understand how a more cosmopolitan youth would feel alienated by Brexit, but I don't think they appreciate the potential downside of a unipolar Europe. I like Dehio's thesis that modern England, as an island sea power, has always opposed the continent being dominated by a single power - Spain, France and Germany in turn. I think it is arguable that Germany and France have teamed up to accomplish what Bonaparte and Hitler could not and that Brexit foiled their plans. I'll check out the Tombs book - thanks.
Networks are interesting -- how does one build and grow them, particularly if one starts off from a position of little or no power. I would humbly suggest studying St Bathilde and how she developed networks in the church which enable her to take power and control all three countries of the Merovingian Empire in the 660s. She is also the person responsible for closing the Christian slave markets which led less than a generation later to feudalism (being owned by the land). The remnants of feudalism in Europe remain today. But her stance (she was a former slave) moved the Church to condemning the enslaving of Christians, a stance which Isabella and Ferdinand used as a reason to wage war against the Moors. I believe the stance is reversed in mid 17 century.
Unfortunately she is also overlooked and people think that slavery died out in Europe. It is always more complex.
Part of my trouble with 1619 is various things were ignored in order to fit the narrative and thus it ignores the ratcheting up and its long term consequences.
But network building and how people use existing networks and how inadvertent barriers can be created to the detriment of the thing the network is supposed to serve is a really interesting study.
"It is not as chaotic as it seems." That statement strikes me as accurate and important, although for me perhaps somewhat different, but nonetheless, complementary reasons. As an American who has spent the second half of nearly 80 years in Australia I felt the 'disturbance in the force' caused by Brexit more strongly from my Commonwealth perspective. So the election of Trump felt more like an aftershock than the complete shock it apparently did to many Americans. So in my view it has been obvious that something deeper was going on, something arising from a deeper level - what I think you may be indicating with "posterity, humanity and mankind". To be upfront, as a Jungian, I think of it as the 'collective unconscious', but in any case we, the people, are more than, and deeper than the creators of Matrices, and Echo Chambers, or deniably led organisations. So, no, you are not a "Rare Black Unicorn" who can smell the faux flowers of Critical Race Theory but a fellow American who thinks, like me, how the "Darkhorse Guys" go could prove significant. BTW, JD Vance, another node on the network, pointed out to Dave Rubin that it took Nigel Farage 25 years to bring about Brexit and that Americans should be prepared for a similar timeframe to work things through. No, I don't know where things are going to end up, and I am a lot more confident that I am unlikely to live to see much in the way of an outcome and therefore recognise that I will have to leave that in the capable of younger people like like Lindsay, Pluckrose, and your good self.
If you are interested in Brexit and the reasons for it -- read Robert Tombs This Sovereign Isle which gives a reasonable explanation. For me personally as an American/Californian (now dual national) who has lived in the UK for the last 33 years, my real break with the EU came when they annulled the Greek and Italian elections. It did not surprise me in the least that Britain, particularly the rural and de-industrialised parts of Britain voted to Leave. What I think has shocked the EU establishment was that Britain decided to honour the vote rather than keep holding referendums until they got the vote they wanted.
Having only recently completed FA Hayek's Road to Serfdom, it's clear that the man was onto something prophetic in his characterization of the British. Much he said still stands to reason. I'm still not sure how well the networks of sanity and reason can remain loosely affiliated and thrive amid the forces of Idiocracy and general corruption. My fingers are crossed to ward off the possibility of a yuppy apocalypse, so I should remind myself of my NeoVictorian values. I can cook. I can build a chair. We may be forced to deal with deindustrialization. I would hate giving up my keyboard for pencils.
Interesting perspective from another dual national who has seen the Brexit project up close emerge over a long time. My break with the EU came similarly when I saw them re-holding referendums (I think it was the Danes that finished me) and I realised for some people democracy is just a sham to be manipulated, when it is also a non-violent way to titrate change without revolution. I know quite a few older English people here in Perth and even the most reliably leftist of them show no great regret over Brexit. I can understand how a more cosmopolitan youth would feel alienated by Brexit, but I don't think they appreciate the potential downside of a unipolar Europe. I like Dehio's thesis that modern England, as an island sea power, has always opposed the continent being dominated by a single power - Spain, France and Germany in turn. I think it is arguable that Germany and France have teamed up to accomplish what Bonaparte and Hitler could not and that Brexit foiled their plans. I'll check out the Tombs book - thanks.
Networks are interesting -- how does one build and grow them, particularly if one starts off from a position of little or no power. I would humbly suggest studying St Bathilde and how she developed networks in the church which enable her to take power and control all three countries of the Merovingian Empire in the 660s. She is also the person responsible for closing the Christian slave markets which led less than a generation later to feudalism (being owned by the land). The remnants of feudalism in Europe remain today. But her stance (she was a former slave) moved the Church to condemning the enslaving of Christians, a stance which Isabella and Ferdinand used as a reason to wage war against the Moors. I believe the stance is reversed in mid 17 century.
Unfortunately she is also overlooked and people think that slavery died out in Europe. It is always more complex.
Part of my trouble with 1619 is various things were ignored in order to fit the narrative and thus it ignores the ratcheting up and its long term consequences.
But network building and how people use existing networks and how inadvertent barriers can be created to the detriment of the thing the network is supposed to serve is a really interesting study.