What'll America's quarter millennial reconstitution be like?
Will power be consolidated or will it shift?
It has shifted a lot in the last 150 years, much to the approval of many, and the powerful today are not likely more bent on keeping it than those of yesteryear.
Shifts occur when power changes its form and since many lost their power the last time around being slow to adapt, today's elites are ever vigilant, ready to change their business model if need be.
Since their interest is thus to dominate investment, they're hostile to common independence, be it intellectual, social or economical. At the same time they have to protect their own from each other.
The canonical way to achieve this is to weaken the strongest until the others are strong enough to gang up on him and then keep that state of affairs.
As long as national affiliations persist in this, national characteristics are a power factor, and with the elite's interest being what it is, pliant populations are preferable.
Of course, eventually the elite will consider the general population an infestation of its property and lose its ability to keep itself in check.
The objective today though is to keep the balance both intra- and internationally: By maintaining national affiliation, Russia and China have to be balanced by nationalistic satellites, and their economies have to be suppressed as well.
Worse, America's national affiliation has to be increased as well in order to achieve this.
That's Trump's mandate.
In a situation like this it is entirely natural to act cautiously, so as not to arouse suspicion of being ambitious and always wait for encouragement to go farther. But is Trump doing that?
Though entirely natural, caution has drawbacks as well. After all, Trump is supposed to succeed, and his erratic behaviour causes manic-depressive assessmental distortions of the situation.
Either Trump underestimates the need, caps it or he obfuscates and falls short on purpose, annoys the populace and intimidates the elite.
Is ICE to deport all illegals or just violent offenders? Trump has been touting the latter, while the former has been pursued.
It is of course easier this way, until it isn't anymore, and predictably so, it's a way to cause outrage, harden the lines and eventually declare insolvability.
The other two possibilities are:
It has shifted a lot in the last 150 years, much to the approval of many, and the powerful today are not likely more bent on keeping it than those of yesteryear.
Shifts occur when power changes its form and since many lost their power the last time around being slow to adapt, today's elites are ever vigilant, ready to change their business model if need be.
Since their interest is thus to dominate investment, they're hostile to common independence, be it intellectual, social or economical. At the same time they have to protect their own from each other.
The canonical way to achieve this is to weaken the strongest until the others are strong enough to gang up on him and then keep that state of affairs.
As long as national affiliations persist in this, national characteristics are a power factor, and with the elite's interest being what it is, pliant populations are preferable.
Of course, eventually the elite will consider the general population an infestation of its property and lose its ability to keep itself in check.
The objective today though is to keep the balance both intra- and internationally: By maintaining national affiliation, Russia and China have to be balanced by nationalistic satellites, and their economies have to be suppressed as well.
Worse, America's national affiliation has to be increased as well in order to achieve this.
That's Trump's mandate.
In a situation like this it is entirely natural to act cautiously, so as not to arouse suspicion of being ambitious and always wait for encouragement to go farther. But is Trump doing that?
Though entirely natural, caution has drawbacks as well. After all, Trump is supposed to succeed, and his erratic behaviour causes manic-depressive assessmental distortions of the situation.
Either Trump underestimates the need, caps it or he obfuscates and falls short on purpose, annoys the populace and intimidates the elite.
Is ICE to deport all illegals or just violent offenders? Trump has been touting the latter, while the former has been pursued.
It is of course easier this way, until it isn't anymore, and predictably so, it's a way to cause outrage, harden the lines and eventually declare insolvability.
The other two possibilities are:
- Trump ran with it as long as he could, then blamed it on an underling, or
- he knew nothing of it and the underling ran his own show.
- inflamed?
- got a great deal?
- was misunderstood?
Labels: 42, formalisierung, geschichte, gesetze, institutionen, sehhilfen, wahrnehmungen, zeitgeschichte, ἰδέα, φιλοσοφία
Eingetragen Am/um
08:15
