A left-field take on the Trump Insurgency - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Any other minor ideologies.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14774702
Here's a left-field take on the Trump Insurgency from an open systems perspective.



(The above image is also a link to the article. Note I present this with reservations. Although I don't agree with all the conclusions, Greenhall has a compelling and fresh perspective.)

What Greenhall is proposing that there is an ongoing phase-state transition in the formation of collective intelligence. The current phase state (The Deep State) has been dominant since the end of the US Civil War, and gained supremacy throughout the post-War era until the fall of the Soviet Union. The Deep State appears strong, almost invincible, but it has a fatal weakness: like the Soviet Union it has cut itself off from information flow from the peripheral networks.

From this perspective, the recent election is not a continuation of previous ones but evidence of a new collective inteligence struggling to emerge.

Front One: Communications Infrastructure

"The first step of any conflict is to disrupt the enemy’s communications and control infrastructure. Our legacy sensemaking system was largely composed of and dominated by a small set of communications channels. A sizable fraction of the power, influence and effectiveness of the last-stage power elites (e.g., the neocon alliances in both the Democratic and Republican parties) was due to their mastery at utilizing these legacy channels.

Rather than endeavoring to establish control over the legacy infrastructure, the Trump Insurgency is in the process of destroying it entirely and replacing it with a very different architecture. One that is intrinsically compatible with its own form of collective intelligence."

Greenhall suggests the current legacy media (e.g., CNN, CBS, Fox, etc.) will soon be as irrelevant as the Newspaper Industry.

"This approach is strategically optimal. The Trump Insurgency represents a novel model of collective intelligence in general. It is the first truly viable approach that is connected directly with the emergent decentralized attractor that has been driving technical/economic disruption for the last several decades. This form of governance is structurally incompatible with the legacy media architecture. It is intrinsically dissonant with the kind of top-down, slow, controlled, synchronized approach of the old media. It therefore both must dismantle this architecture and replace it with one that is in synch with its mode of operation and, thereby, benefits massively by hamstringing any collective intelligence that works in the old top-down fashion (i.e., all existing forces currently at play)."

Front Two: The Deep State

In normal political transition, there is minimal disruption and maximal continuity. Bush and Obama, despite overt political differences, barely disturb the trajectory of the nation.

"...The balance of the struggle between the Deep State and the Insurgency will be determined by how quickly the Deep State can dispense with old and dysfunctional doctrine and innovate novel approaches that are adequate to the war...

...I cannot overstate how deeply dangerous this fight is. Classically, when a long-standing hegemony (cf “Pax Americana) is weakened and distracted by intra-elite conflict, rivals like Russia and China will see an opportunity to move from a hegemonic to a multi-polar world and can be tempted into adventurism. In these conditions, even the slightest mistake can push the system into nearly catastrophic conflict."

Front Three: Globalism

"...I expect the Insurgency to cut deep into globalist power institutions (the World Bank, the UN, various treaty organizations) and, more importantly, globalist-allied national institutions like the Federal Reserve. The Globalists have an odd connection to power. Generally, they must move through influence and threat to elites, with a non-trivial amount of mass level propaganda to smooth the way. The Insurgency is broadly immune to globalist propaganda, the Insurgency elites seem unlikely to play ball with globalist elites or to back down under threat. At this point, I see only two real moves available to the globalists. 1) economic destabilization hoping to turn “the people” against the Insurgency; 2) some kind of some kind of social/military destabilization...

...Notably, even large multi-national corporations — until recently appearing to be pulling the strings of political policy — seem to be rapidly capitulating to the Insurgency. The two major globalist forces that have not yet been publicly tested are the energy companies and the banks. What will happen here remains to be seen. A cynic might suggest that the Insurgency itself is only superficially populist and in fact really simply represents the interests of Energy and Banks against other elites. That cynic might be right, we shall see...

...Perhaps what is most clear is this: the period of transition as globalist forces struggle to maintain power while nationalist forces are not yet in any form of stable equilibrium with each-other is a moment (possibly lasting years) of extreme danger."

Front Four: The New Culture War

The proposition here is that counter-culture social revolution of the sixties is now dominant and institutionalized into the Blue Church.

"...the superior OODA loop of the Insurgency is only part of the strategic shift. Of far more importance is the fact that the Insurgency evolved within a culture broadly dominated by the values and techniques of the Blue Church and therefore, by simple natural selection, is now almost entirely immune to the total set of “Blue critique”...

...if we map the arc of the culture war from the 1950’s through to the 1990’s we will see the slow emergence of a set of strategies, techniques and alliances on the part of the emerging Blue Church that became increasingly perfected and effective over time. For example, the critical power of the epithets “racist” or “sexist” which had little or no traction in the 1930’s and 1940’s had, by the 1990’s become decisive.
Yet, even as the Blue Church was achieving dominance, the roots of the Insurgency were being laid. And, like bacteria becoming increasingly immune to an antibiotic after constant exposure, those aspects of the emergent “Red Religion” that were able to survive at all began to coalesce and expand. What has now erupted into the zeitgeist is something new and almost completely immune to the rhetorical and political techniques of the Blue Church. To call an adherent of the Red Religion “racist” is unlikely to elicit much more than a “kek” and a derisive dismissal...

...Moreover, the Red Religion does not intend to engage the Blue Church in any way other than “outright rejection.” It considers the Church and its adherents to be acting in bad faith by default and the doctrines of the Church to be little more than a form of mental illness. Accordingly, the Red Religion has no intention of dialogue, conversation or even sharing power with the Church...

...Going deeper, even as the Red Religion has developed an immunity to most of the primary techniques of the Blue Church, it has simultaneously developed its own memetic/values structure connected with deep human values that stem from ancient “tribal selection” and are highly attractive to the portions of the human family (men and women) who are focused on protecting and defending their tribe (hence the Red Religions’ intrinsic focus on Nationalism).

...This Culture War will be unlike anything we have ever seen. It will take place everywhere all at once, constrained less by geography than by technical platform and by the complex relationship between innovation and power on an exponential technology curve. It will be a struggle over not just the content, but the very sense and nature of identity, meaning and purpose. It will mutate so quickly and will evolve so rapidly that all of our legacy techniques (both psychological and institutional) for making sense of and responding to the world will melt into so much tapioca...

...Then the real question. Does the Insurgency and the Red Religion represent a stable attractor in the 21st Century. Can it form a collective intelligence that is able to select-against and out-compete all comers. If so, what does this look like? My sense is that this is ultimately a highly unstable state. While tribalism (nationalism) can be very potent in the short term, it is ultimately a deeply unstable ship to navigate the oceans of the future."

In other words, this phase-state transition is deeply unstable and we cannot foresee its outcome. My first main reservation with Greenhall's assessment is that the Trump administration does not represent the Trump Insurgency (as he characterizes it). Indeed it seems in its early stage in outright opposition to it. This muddies the waters considerably.

A second reservation is that many people who reject the Blue Church are equally disturbed by some of the Red Church's troglodytic aspects.
Last edited by quetzalcoatl on 11 Feb 2017 01:30, edited 1 time in total.
#14774703
...Moreover, the Red Religion does not intend to engage the Blue Church in any way other than “outright rejection.” It considers the Church and its adherents to be acting in bad faith by default and the doctrines of the Church to be little more than a form of mental illness. Accordingly, the Red Religion has no intention of dialogue, conversation or even sharing power with the Church...


It seems to catch some of the basic ideas, but it is not a matter of refusing to cooperate. There can be no cooperation without common ground. The different moral basis makes this inadvisable and probably impossible.
#14774704
One Degree wrote:It seems to catch some of the basic ideas, but it is not a matter of refusing to cooperate. There can be no cooperation without common ground. The different moral basis makes this inadvisable and probably impossible.


Well, of course. But the problem is that the Red Church considers half the population enemy territory. On its own it has the power to do significant damage - possibly even destroy - the Blue Church/Deep State nexus. It doesn't have the power to form its own consensus without opening itself up to potential common ground.
#14774706
quetzalcoatl wrote:Well, of course. But the problem is that the Red Church considers half the population enemy territory. On its own it has the power to do significant damage - possibly even destroy - the Blue Church/Deep State nexus. It doesn't have the power to form its own consensus without opening itself up to potential common ground.


I guess I am having trouble seeing where the common ground can come from. I would like to see it, but I see no indication at present. Based upon the above scenario, I would think the Blue Church should be the one seeking compromise, but that looks very unlikely.
#14775437
Since I don't know the basis of your moral disagreement, it's hard to make useful suggestion. For my part, I would advise people who favor a left insurgency to concentrate on grassroots organizing. Efforts like interrupting town hall meetings of Chaffetz and his ilk are totally wasted* - they are beyond redemption. They need to organize, field candidates, and work on networking with those of the left-behinds in the rust belt that are willing to listen.

On a personal level they need to listen and be respectful, especially across horizontal lines.

1) Drop all self-affirmation and petty moralizing.
2) The downwardly spiralling great middle is where the war will be won or lost, not the upwardly mobile Demo technocrats.
3) It's up to you to sell your ideas. But you are also selling yourself and a certain tribal affinity. This used to be called solidarity. Today's Democrats ain't got it, and Trump is faking it. If you offer the real thing and you are being authentic, you will win.

*Here's why they are wasted: they are based on generating camera time not face time. In other words, this model is mediated my the mainstream media and won't work anymore.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0pAf3aBt18 How […]

He is still under checks and balances while other[…]

So the evidence shows that it was almost certainly[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

The claim is a conditional statement. This is one[…]