You see similar thinking on the right. I have heard more than once that if Biden serves one more term it would damage the democratic party beyond repair. Most people realize that a two party system provides moderation.
Heh, I think first heard about the Strauss-Howe generational theory on Art Bell. As with most things on Art Bell, it was pretty transparently insane. It’s bizarre that anyone is basing their personal philosophy on it, but then again this year we did have a nitwit testifying in front of congress that someone had told him that UFOs and aliens were real, and it was presented as news. Not that he had any evidence himself, mind you. He had just heard that they were real.
So, it kind of feels like the philosophy of the right was written by somebody who listened to wayyyyyy too much Art Bell, and took it seriously.
I’d probably be a member of that crew, but I also have some moderating views that would get me kicked out. I do believe that if we could “burn everything down” and start over with the lessons we’ve learned, and with goals of equality and compassion, we could build a better society.
And by “burn it all down,” I don’t mean literally. Re-write the constitution, redistribute wealth, remove the current leaders from power, etc. That is “burn it all down” to me.
I also know that is a fantasy. So when people talk their fantasies, I can go to the “burn it down” one. On the left, those fantasies are frequently things like “get rid of the cars,” “universal health care” (in the US), wealth caps, and similar. There also exists bad fantasies based on racial purity, female subservience, etc.
I may think that complete restructuring and reforms of things like health care, education, policing, corporations, etc. are all called for, I can also recognize that incremental change for the better is also desirable. The problem often comes in when I don’t like some incremental change, for whatever reason, and then the “burn it down” accusations come out.
I’d say it’s dumb not insane. It’s not “covid.vaccines had 5g implants in them” or “birds don’t exist”. Its an ok, if fairly shallow, broad strokes description of the last 80 years of American society. But anyone who is claiming it’s some deep knowledge that reveals a universal law of all human society in all eras, and can be used to guide future policy (by you know, trying to destroy civilization), is just demonstrating their complete ignorance of history.
I can understand billionaires being desperate for some philosophy, any philosophy, that makes them look like Good Guys when they do destructive stuff (let their factories spew pollution; let their banks exploit the poors; let their yachts kill sea life by tossing plastic overboard, etc.)
Doing destructive stuff is SO much easier than doing constructive stuff. It takes SO much less effort. How much better when you can tell yourself that your depredations are actually for the Greater Good?!?!?
They believe in Game of Thrones “Chaos is a ladder”, but don’t understand that you can’t control who gets the ladder. Reality is more like Amos Burton’s “The Churn”.
Kenzo: It must be nice, having everything figured out like that.
Amos: Ain’t nothing to do with me: we’re just caught in the Churn, that’s all.
Kenzo: I have no idea what you just said.
Amos: This boss I used to work for in Baltimore, he called it the Churn. When the rules of the game change.
Kenzo: What game?
Amos: The only game. Survival. When the jungle tears itself down and builds itself into something new. Guys like you and me, we end up dead. Doesn’t really mean anything. Or, if we happen to live through it, well that doesn’t mean anything either.
That’s an interesting insight into Pournelle’s thinking, especially after reading Lucifer’s Hammer (written in collaboration with the great Larry Niven). In their post apocalyptic society, the triumphant “good guys” were using basically a hereditary monarchy.
Twenty better democracies around the world and our own current predicament would disagree with that conclusion.
We would like to think that things scale up as they theoretically should, but it always proves more difficult for larger countries to meet all relevant metrics. I would like to see it better but #20 isn’t all that horrible for a large country.
Well James Bond was a government bureaucrat shamelessly persecuting businessmen with dynamic and daring plans (this take stolen from Charles Stross’ The Jennifer Morgue)
Yeah, it’s insane for anyone who knows more than the last 80 years of US history, though. Once you take that into account, it’s purely insane. You’d have to be dumb to believe it, but it’s insane if you know enough history to critique it.
So the video from the OP is now on YouTube BTW.
(Also could the SDMB make up its mind whether it allows embedded YouTube posts or not 
)
Again IMO just dumb not insane. It seems perfectly plausible that some billionaire without any sort of mental illness but who is dumb and uninformed, and narcissistic, would go “yes this theory agrees with the very limited knowledge I have of history (basically what I’ve learned from watching Tom Hanks movies) and so it must be a universal truth. I am super smart and well informed, because I know this deep knowledge of how human society works that other regular schmucks do not”
That’s not showing you are crazy its showing you are dumb.
It works, you just need to know how to do it.
All hail our lord and savior Hugo Drax!
I don’t know about “accelerating the collapse”, but I feel they know it’s coming and that they are actively trying to prepare for it. That’s why I don’t think space is just the new playground of the rich. I think they are actively trying to achieve an alternative living space just in case the earth becomes unlivable. If you’ve ever seen the movie, Elysium, I’m talking about something of that nature.
That is not unreasonable (no one with a pair of eyes in their head is ruling out the possibilty that society is teetering). But IMO your billionaires stand a lower chance of getting through a proper societal collapse than a regular joe. They’ll basically have a target on their back. Sure you can put together a secret bunker full of Twinkies, MREs, clean drinking water and bourbon, and being in charge of that will absoluely make you a great leader post-collapse. But who will that end up in charge of that bunker? The elite security guy with a gun and a bunch of military experience, or the guy who made a pile of cash by knowing alot of about search engine optimization in the 1990s?
Also true (and also the plot of Stark by Ben Elton). But as a survival plan completely bonkers. The idea we are remotely close to a self-sustaining space habitat of any kind is less plausible than the “four turnings”.
Thats what makes this even dumber is the billionaires have even more reason than the rest of us to avoid societal collapse, rather than encourage it.
There’s probably some billionaires who don’t realize that their billions being valuable depend on the functioning of society.
Obligatory Douglas Rushkoff reference:
Only time will reveal the future, but I do know that the rich and powerful, though a pitifully small minority of the population, have always managed to stay on top throughout recorded history. I think you are underestimating them.