The idea that America ‘has no culture’ and that it’s culture is merely the result of commercialism or naturally-occurring hedonism is employed to mask the sheer quantity of violence and coercion it has taken to spread that culture worldwide.
The presence of American culture is often taken to be the mark of freedom in other countries. “Before the authoritarians came, people were listening to American music and wearing American style dress and observing American mores.“ Because what else would free people do?
‘Freedom‘, then, merely means creating the kind of environment where American corporations and media can dominate. Free trade, free markets, the free press, etc, are all legal constructs that favor large American incumbents over local suppliers of goods and services.
The ‘democratic‘ ideal is related. It will be American NGOs and foundations and media behind large, well-funded activist groups and they will be pushing ideals that further entrench American dominance. This is just another avenue for exercising power abroad.
The American political system acted as an incubator for America’s unique brand of imperialism. The federal government has always had to act through private sector proxies and use astroturfed political activism in order to bring states into line. This was simply extended abroad.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
People who oppose the current US (and Western) political and economic order, for whatever reason, often don’t fully update their views on foreign policy, imagining that a new order would have the same goals, enemies, etc.
US foreign policy is a product of its economic order. The US seeks to impose a particular LEGAL order on the world, because that’s how it generates income. This gives its foreign policy certain peculiar characteristics, such as unlimited scope and a tendency to ‘leapfrog’.
Since the goal is to extract rent from the economic activity of others, US foreign policy does not limit itself to a particular geographic domain, it does not distinguish between ‘near’ and ‘far’. Every conflict, regardless of location, is relevant to its goals.
If you look at war economies as the norm and consumerism as an attempt to sustain the economy in peacetime, the problem with consumerism becomes obvious: it has no objective measure of progress.
Most of our economic institutions and stats were created for fighting wars but they're incomplete. War provides many objective measures of progress: the front, consumption of materiel, weapons testing, etc, so this is not a problem. It becomes a huge problem in peacetime.
The problem is that consumer preferences can be changed through marketing, etc. The economy - according to our stats, at least - can be booming, while industry is declining. In the absence of war, we only have the economic stats and nobody knows how bad things are, materially.
Liberal democracy is essentially a coalition of conservative movements that form a united bulwark against genuine modernity. Its ‘progressive‘ credentials come from incorporating foreign movements (‘multiculturalism’) and subcultures (LGBT, etc). But they’re all anti-modern.
Genuine modernity would simply accept that political arrangements are arbitrary and that language and culture are artifice and of purely instrumental worth. Liberal democracy is just a collection of groups that oppose this for whatever reason. An anti-modern coalition.
A lot of confusion around the nature of feminism, anti-racist movements, LGBT, etc, comes from the fact that conservatives don’t understand them as fellow conservative movements and therefore don’t understand why they’re concerned with history rather than mere ‘equal treatment’.
Social theorists massively overestimate the role of conflict and competition in people's lives. Our lives are overwhelmingly dictated by routine and we very rarely engage in conflict or even competition of any kind.
Even when we do engage in competition it's highly constrained. For example, when competing for jobs or other positions, we generally don't even know who we're competing against or have any ability to affect them.
The experience of 'market competition' over resources is for individuals also much like this. We don't know who we're competing against or have any way to alter their chances. You just have to have the money and show up at the right time to get whatever is in limited supply.
Because liberalism has such an implausible model of individuals, institutions, society, etc, it, for a long time, seemed to make good on its promise of 'neutrality'. Culture, in liberal societies, was largely left to the whims of elite philanthropy. They were fairly conservative.
Thus, Christianity and Christian mores survived the secularization of the state because liberal societies are actually dominated by elite philanthropy and elite philanthropy remained nominally Christian and geared to 'moral reform' along nominally Christian lines.
This doesn't appear to have changed dramatically until the 20th century and not because of 'leftist infiltration' but because elite philanthropy thoroughly secularized, adopting ideas from the commercial world of marketing and academic psychology and the social sciences.
AI doomer's don't seem to be able to model their opponents well. If an AI is not a mind, it will still be subject to reliability and misuse issues, but not as a mind. So it won't go rogue or deceive you or plot against you, it will just fail.
"what do you think happens as artificial neural networks get smarter and smarter?" They don't get smarter and smarter because they're not minds.
"Saying that AI can’t be dangerous because it’s just math and code is like saying tigers can’t hurt you because they’re just a clump of biochemical reactions." No, it's like saying Professor Moriarty can't hurt you because he's a fictional character.