[ mlpol / qa / go / 1ntr / vx / sp / üb / a ] [ Overboard ] [ Statistics / Banlist / Search ] [ PonyX ] [ Policy / Store ] [ home ]

/mlpol/ - My Little Politics

  [Go to bottom]   [Catalog]   [Return]   [Archive]

File: 1536675010962.png (108.58 KB, 345x383, Power.png)

ea7c1 No.170784

Every time I see a thread about what books to read i'm always disappointed that the subject of power in never brought up.
If you want your side to "win" you need to study the strategies of how people take power in the first place.
However if you have some moral righteousness, then I would advise you stop reading this. The best advise im gonna give you is to KYS.
No seriously you Have to kill your sense of morality if you wish to gain power.

ea7c1 No.170786

File: 1536675243246.jpg (10.21 KB, 342x342, 48 laws of power.jpg)

Ill start with the Obvious one.
the 48 laws of power is a good book on understanding how to manipulate people.

22f90 No.170787

I disagree entirely, and this is a common misconception. Power and morality can and do exist in the same structures and individuals, however it takes an incredible amount of discipline to maintain. The pursuit of power is often described as synonymous with moral relativism, but that's a depiction of the individuals who seek power and not power by its self. People who actively and consistently seek power are often want to (or have) practice moral relativism, but these are the people who tend to aspire to positions of power in business, politics, finance, etc. Having said and reiterating, the pursuit of power is not in and of its self morally relative, nor is moral relativism requisite in the pursuit of power. Furthermore - and as detailed in the Preface (an absolute must-read/listen!) the knowledge and skill that comes from the pursuit of power is necessary if for no reason other than to avoid the power-hungry and morally relative, who can/do/will engage predatory behavior against any/all whom they have some incentive or other to do so. Simply put, if you're potential food for the power-hungry, they will try to eat you, and knowledge of these forms and dynamics are often the only thing that prevent one being prey to such.
bosting audiobook

ea7c1 No.170789

I think i understand what you're saying. There are 2 main ways to obtain power. the direct way and the indirect way.
The Direct way is the "Might makes Right" approach. Utilizing fear and violence is a sure way to take power, yet it will come at a cost of making many enemies trying to destroy you.
Nobody like having a gun pointed at there head, but its a sure way to get stuff done in an emergency.
The indirect approach is what you mean by moral relativism. Simply put, everyone is pretending to be an upstanding righteous individual. yet behind the facade are more darker actions.

Basically if you dont be evil, you'll be beaten by people who will be evil.
you have to be the most brutal, while have the cleanest image.

22f90 No.170792

Its more complicated than that, though I admit there is accuracy in the simplification.
It is not evil to guard yourself against people who are otherwise evil (malevolent, manipulative, coercive, etc.), its a matter of understanding the tactics they use to engage in those behaviors. Put it this way: Yoda - as a jedi master - knows the way of the sith. He doesn't know it as well as the dark lord of the sith, but he knows it well enough to guard against it and to recognize it when it is presented to him. Power is the same way. Power isn't the way of the sith, but the way of the sith is rooted in the pursuit of power. Knowing how to be powerful while avoiding the motivations and practices (in one's self and in others) that lead toward malevolent behaviors and practices is a useful (essential) skillset for anyone imo.

29b3c No.170795

This is applicable to just about anything. To refute the Holohoax you have to understand all the arguments used to present the hoax. To convert someone away from Islam you have to know what the Quran says, etc. Knowledge is power.

c19a8 No.170845

The problem with power at the end of the day is that it is a feminine force. Think about it, men aspire to win her hand but she will run away as soon as someone presents himself better to her. The obsessiveness of the left wing to court her illustrates it, after all the left is a feminine in all its negative and positive ways and this is due to their constant hold on power. This would indicate that chasing power for power's sake alone is a degenerate behavior, after all why would you attempt to court some roasty if it was under the same principle?

Does this mean we should just refrain from power entirely or let ourselves be beaten by those willing to court her? No. But there is an alternative to this chasing of power and simple utilitarian though. That is to see and understand the spiritual and symbolic meanings in action and to describe cloak oneself in it. People are drawn towards an ora of the symbolic especially when it best describes things that they already understand and love. Power will then be indirectly be drawn towards you if you really do embody the good.

>Knowledge is power.
Which is why its not enough.

ea7c1 No.170890

File: 1536719082568-0.jpg (24.96 KB, 328x499, The prince.jpg)

File: 1536719082568-1.jpg (18.4 KB, 196x300, icap6yCQx1gC.jpg)

File: 1536719082568-2.jpg (57.58 KB, 1100x619, 180607122542-trump-king-ti….jpg)

Which bring me to my next book Niccolo Machiavelli: The Prince. (im still half way reading it) but he does say "The Ends justify the means" meaning that if a action benefits you in any way, then it is acceptable to do so.
yes that is selfish, but that's just human nature. Humans are Greedy, were all in it for ourselves. Altruism is a lie. we just have to make it look like we not greedy.

This is why I find Democracy gay af. Even if a women were a charge under monarchy, she would still have to act like a man. because the court (her keys to power) would demand she act like a man. Under Democracy she just have to act nice enough to hand out free Gibs.

"Even a monarch of mediocre talents and natural gifts has the advantage of having received and education for his/her profession. A democratic leader can only have a Hasty technical training of those with a "late vocation" and in most cases he is nothing but a dilettante."

it's not power that makes people feminine, it's Democracy. (see Justin Trudeau for example)

>third pic. this but unironically.

(I made 1 fucking typo and had to rewrite it)

36920 No.170896

If multiple groups are competing and the world is getting "smaller" and…
>"The Ends justify the means"
…then we are in perpetual hell until a unified NWO arrives. Oh wait, then we are still in hell.
No escape.

And through all of that we have to avoid the competing factions from using nukes.

85c11 No.170901

Spencer is that you? Yeah, we should be talking more about the nature of power.

85c11 No.170903

I do believe in morals, but in a game like this, morals are just a deficit. (being open assholes does not work for us by the way).
I'll put it like this: "the end justifies the means, but you should always think, are you fixing more than you're srewing up?"

c19a8 No.170911

>Even if a women were a charge under monarchy, she would still have to act like a man.
>Even a monarch of mediocre talents and natural gifts has the advantage of having received and education for his/her profession.
Agree but sadly arguing with rationality will make you always lose to liberalism. Better not to play on their home-field when trying to argue for something like this. Its like trying to make a cost benefit analysis against new technology, its so much better then the old is it not? But when we look at the overall spirituality and happiness of the west its pretty low so their is other more important things that come from tradition and following a hierarchy which is why I think monarchy is the best form of government.

>it's not power that makes people feminine, it's Democracy

I'm talking on a more broad scale, a society or factions within society become more feminized because they own power. Paternalism and handing out favors is a perfect example of this idea which can be seen with gibs. Democracy or not this has happened before, Communism being the best example of this.

ea7c1 No.170920

yep that's hierarchy. there is no escaping it. every system aimed to abolish hierarchy will inevitable collapse back in on hierarchy… so might as well accept it.

Thats law 2 and law 26
law 2 is basically don't be afraid to make enemies, because you can always use them to your advantage.
law 26 yes dont be openly mean. get other people to be mean for you. Palpatine didnt openly call himself a sith, he got dooku to do his evil business for him.

which is why you use a fuck ton of propaganda. Propaganda is effective.

36920 No.170929

The more I examine the world, the more I find that there is no clear path to some sort of utopia or goodness. Everything is just a re-arrangement of energy/things to favor one side over another. In many ways we are in a closed system and there is no advantage without a disadvantage put elsewhere. That guarantees that to do something you have to make an enemy of someone else (unless you can steal from inanimate nature herself).

These battles we have against each other also push our technological advancement too, exacerbating our conflicts. Logic would suggest that this parabolic conflict/technological ability rise will have to collapse at some point, implying some major Armageddon. SO even persuing power has a final limitation.

And when I look at the terms good and evil I see more confusion. We have to have some level of selfishness to keep existing, and you can't help others unless you are well rested and fed etc. The idea of being purely generous can't work, hence communism failing. This oddness even shows up in MLP, Rarity the Element of Generosity is a capitalist. Capitalism is fair exchange, how is that generous? Or is it some sort of Wisdom that Faust had?

Then there is the concept that good can somehow work together to make hierarchies of goodness. Which never happens in the same way that communism can't happen. It's flawed to assume humans are good. Which leaves us with the most successful hierarchy we can do being based on evil. Blackmail someone into your cabal and you have a mostly stable hierarchy. Military being a commonly acceptable example.

And really power is intrinsically evil because to hold it you need implied or real threat which stifles the freedom (chaos) of individuals. And further "good" things like liberty and freedom are just other words for chaos as shown by those words used by revolutionaries (which is why the USA used/uses them).

Everything is a convoluted mess and almost the opposite of how we assume.

I am beginning to wonder if the two forces opposing each other are Evil vs Chaos. The first forms hierarchies of power and concentration based on selfishness and the second simply rips everything apart in an attempt to evenly distribute all energy. And the term "good" is just a "thank you" given by a selfish receiver to placate a giver who now has less. "Be good, give me your stuff!" Good can work with the few people you have mutual emotional empathy with, but not beyond that, beyond that it is exploitation.

Thread theme: https://youtu.be/pVI0xJ5lBxY

c19a8 No.170930

36920 No.170933

File: 1536740466647-0.png (1012.48 KB, 1390x903, WarDeaths-20150624_war1-A.png)

File: 1536740466647-1.jpg (219.14 KB, 1209x967, 309YR-Empires.jpg)

File: 1536740466647-2.png (350.07 KB, 1920x1080, 1.png)

File: 1536740466647-3.png (303.37 KB, 1920x1080, 2.png)

File: 1536740466647-4.png (470.74 KB, 1920x1080, 3.png)

Thank you. That ties together many ideas I already have and I should look into it more.

I have a problem with the assumption that Aristocracy is good. Children born into rich powerful situations can end up assuming they deserve it and then abuse it.

The video blames over intellectualization where as I would blame over-emotionality in civilization. I do not thing these are mutually exclusive. So I am going to make the divide be between high thought/emotions and low thought/emotions. High would be religious (God, purity etc) and civilized (roads, plumbing etc) ideals that we should struggle for and low would be selfish things like drinking, sex without kids, drugs, partying, entertainment, porn, intellectualizing finance, politics etc.

>"…or be cowardly optimists"

This is where I am. I am attempting to be accepting of the cycles of doom that I can never change. Interesting thing is that a civilization/culture can re-emerge according to Armstrong's visualizations of empire cycles.

I noticed again with the war casualties in history that they often happen to two bump groupings. I guess we try twice to get the one ring to rule them all.

>internal becomes external

When nature controls us we are forced to plead with nature (religion) to save us. When we control nature actions rather than inner thoughts matter.

Imperium leads back to fertility? Trump/Q stuff fits the imperium part of the cycle, military, religion and that would create a baby making situation. Talking of cycles I have used the Evil vs Chaos division earlier and I think these labels are what the video calls Culture vs Civilization.

evil vs chaos
national vs global
centralizing vs distributing
Tradition vs Civilization
Fantasy vs reality
religion vs science
[emotion vs thought] -- in the video but I dispute that
hope vs doom
inner vs outer
ethno vs diversity

What any culture/civilization needs is a common rallying point to rally around (Hitlers speeches, Trumps rallies, religion, building projects, nationalism, a flag etc). This gives meaning, the problem is these 'meanings' are all man-made and so they are man-destroyable. I see this being because everything is a spontaneous emergence from chaos and collapses back into that as well. Everything dies because there is no actual stable fundamental platform under us, only the ones we maintain with perpetual effort. And we forget to maintain that once we become civilized and slothful.

36920 No.170934

File: 1536741374771.jpg (67.7 KB, 543x474, ideology-cycle-chaos-evil-….jpg)

I have a new word: Imperium.

c19a8 No.170936

Your welcome if you are interested more in this I suggest you look more into Spengler's work The Decline of the West. I'd love to have someone to talk to about it. But I think further discussion would be better had in >>168522
A tl;dr of the book can be seen with https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsaieZt5vjk

22f90 No.170937

>The Ends Justify the Means
Except that's a lazy interpretation. Have you actually read the Prince, or are you just repeating what you've heard and been told? Its been years since I personally had to debunk this claim, so I'll let someone else do it.
First the accurate quote:
Men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, because it belongs to everybody to see you, to few to come in touch with you. Every one sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are, and those few dare not oppose themselves to the opinion of the many, who have the majesty of the state to defend them; and in the actions of all men, and especially of princes, which it is not prudent to challenge, one judges by the result.

For that reason, let a prince have the credit of conquering and holding his state, the means will always be considered honest, and he will be praised by everybody because the vulgar are always taken by what a thing seems to be and by what comes of it; and in the world there are only the vulgar, for the few find a place there only when the many have no ground to rest on.

And the breakdown:
Needless to say, this is considerably more nuanced than the stick-figure consequentialism commonly attributed to the Florentine political theorist.

What's more, it's not clear that Machiavelli is being completely serious here. Philosopher and writer Jean-Jacques Rousseau long maintained that "The Prince" was a work of satire that sought to expose the cynicism of one-man rule. This doesn't sound that far-fetched when you consider that Machiavelli was arrested and tortured by agents of the Medici family, whose members he dedicated "The Prince" to. And there's no denying that Machiavelli had an impish streak; during his later years, he wrote several popular – and politically stinging – satirical comedies for the stage.

What's more, the Prince was written to appeal to (and gain favor with) the Medicis (who had just finished crushing their opponents with the use of brutal mercenaries). It is not so much that he's trying to say "All rulers should do this to maintain power", its that he's advising that in the interest of maintaining a secure principality (which primarily consists of safe and secure borders in a time of factions and court personalities who were all-too keen to bump off their competition and who were less interested in the survival and satisfaction of those who had been essentially conquered) this Prince had an obligation to his people which necessitated getting his hands dirty as little as possible but as effectively as possible when necessitated.
"Any Prince who tries to be ethical all the time is certain to come to ruin amongst the many who are not so foolish. A wise Prince must therefore be versed in how to be ethical, and not ethical, as demanded by the situation."
Yes, people will interpret that as justifying a lack of ethics, but if you read the whole book you can sense that Machiavelli is ultimately advocating for an extreme minimization of unethical behavior, except to prevent war with other Prince's/Principalities for the benefit of both groups (ultimately the people). The development and prosperity of the masses was the "ends" he is advocating toward, and a powerful Prince is the "means".

36920 No.170938



Cycles are interesting, his is about 1400 years long. These cycles are likely to be fractals, they exist because of some microcosm has the data/schematic to make it. As below so above.

I wish science followed through more on reincarnation, there is a bridge there to a next level I think. But what use is an educated cow?

ea7c1 No.170980

That's not how I interpret the Prince.
lol, now I get why you think that.

d17f7 No.171132

Regarding statecraft (the macro level), the ends do justify the means. At the micro level, you will get a very bad reputation and be less effective in the long run.

b281e No.171173

File: 1536852916881.png (287.67 KB, 911x877, 52352678.png)

>manipulate people.
> Simply put, everyone is pretending to be an upstanding righteous individual. yet behind the facade are more darker actions
This is how you end up with this kind of shit happening in the first place
>meaning that if a action benefits you in any way, then it is acceptable to do so.

Do you understand the implications of what you are saying?
Because if you do, you deserve to be gassed.

10157 No.171179

Try reading the book before attempting to formulate an opinion about it, let alone try and summarize it for others.
The amusing thing is that this attempt to dismiss the contents of the book is very clearly and effectively addressed in the Preface.

9b0f0 No.171296

My problem is not that book, i am not criticizing the book, i'm criticizing you for your opinions.
Just re read your posts, how can you not see what is wrong with what you are advocating here?
The momment you embrace moral relativism is the momment you start selling children to the black market in the name of power.

36920 No.172674

I've been continuing to consider that intellectualism destroys society. It has some merits, for example science become so incomprehensible and dense that no one can comprehend it. Even the scientists I am sure are faking it half the time. Things become so complex we specialise, which creates division. Logic robs things of emotions and meaning. But it isn't just that, that destroys society. Emotionalism can do it also, see: >>172659 ( https://youtu.be/SYvQPKskqSU ) There is no way that that communist is an intellectual, and yet he is destroying America.

Wiki states, regarding Spengler:
>Oswald's father, Bernhard Spengler, held the position of a postal secretary (Postsekretär) and was a hard-working man with a marked dislike of intellectualism, who tried to instill the same values and attitudes in his son.

So the "intellectualism is bad", bias is deeply programmed into his psychology and he can never escape it for an objective view.

So if we take Spengler's view as valid, and we take the view shown in Project Veritas video as valid. We have to assume you can kill civilization by being either extreme. That would suggest we need to be a balance of compassion and pragmatic. In fact you can only ever be compassionate if you have been pragmatic enough to gain resources that you plan to give away to begin with. If you are too pragmatic (Fascist) or too generous (Commie) the resistance will topple you eventually.

Note: I haven't read Spengler's book. I won't have time to read 1000 pages. I have seen some YouTube videos and read wiki.

284df No.172676

File: 1537457336991.png (522.4 KB, 1001x3415, Opera Snapshot_2018-09-20_….png)



I keep hearing about Oswald Spengler over the course of several right winger videos. The man looks pretty ace on. German Historian and Author who wrote a book about Prussian culture and Authoritarian Socialism. Must have influenced the German Workers movements. Never read a book of his either but that seems like the right stuff for us.

284df No.172677


the man had some troubles with race realism and the JQ but nobody is perfect. History proved the Natsocs right in regards to the jews.

@Vril, if you have some time inbetween shitting up the board with leddit larping see if you can find us a PDF of some of his books please

36920 No.172683

After pondering things further. I can fit Spengler into my cycles idea.

The first corruption of a civilization comes from it's success. The richness of the society stops the making of 'hard men', therefore they stay children. Children are all born communists. That is they hold out their hands, cry a lot, and food magically appears. If society remains wealthy then society becomes the parent, and the citizen remains the child. The emphasis becomes on who can cry the loudest, like an actual baby. This is the first corruption of civilization. This is where we are right now.

Communism rotates then into Fascism. Because at some point there are so many children, that nature has to create a parent to deal with the chaos. This parent rules with an iron eagle fist. And this becomes the tactic for every single problem faced by the parent from then on wards. This is a rejection of childish emotional cry baby communism and the creation of "intellectualism". The war that the uber-parents then bring does the physical destruction of the society, after the babies destroyed the psychological parts of society.

Spengler sees this last part (called Imperium), and blames only the last part?

Book: https://archive.org/details/Decline-Of-The-West-Oswald-Spengler

284df No.172687

File: 1537460909846.pdf (36.72 MB, Decline_Of_The_West by Osw….pdf)


Thank you very much Vril. You did something useful today. 🙋⚡⚡🙋

284df No.172688


shoutout to Vril for bringing this up and finding the PDF
this thing is 1000 pages long
ive seen it brought up on public space streams about white nationalism

Oswald Spengler isn't a new find to me at all. Vril is fucking slow
I recommend Spengler to him ever since he began advocating a cyclical progression of history.

not everybody is a big brain like you ODF, give us time to Ketchup.
he loves spengler now


he assimilated him into his cyclejerk theory

He can be less gay now.


Become PrusSoc

71760 No.172698

File: 1537464482997.pdf (2.13 MB, Theory of Socialism and Ca….pdf)

Reminder that the American public school system was modeled after the Prussian system. Public school encouraged the regimentation of society rather than critical thought. This has devolved into the base propaganda that we have today.

Conservatism socialism is a meme. Assigning hierarchy and tradition to be the purview of the State dooms it as the State inexorably corrupts itself and uses the legitimacy of tradition to fulfill its own secular ends. When the State then collapses under its own weight or from public outcry the "baby is thrown out with the bathwater" and tradition is destroyed.

Any sort of cycle must incorporate also freedom and limited government vs. corruption and unlimited government.

36920 No.172715


>Spengler responded to the claim that socialism's rise in Germany had not begun with the Marxist rebellions of 1918 to 1919, but rather in 1914 when Germany waged war, uniting the German nation in a national struggle that he claimed was based on socialistic Prussian characteristics, including creativity, discipline, concern for the greater good, productivity, and self-sacrifice.[2] Spengler claimed that these socialistic Prussian qualities were present across Germany and stated that the merger of German nationalism with this form of socialism while resisting Marxist and internationalist socialism would be in the interests of Germany.[3]

>Spengler's Prussian socialism was popular amongst the German political right, especially the revolutionary right who had distanced themselves from traditional conservatism.[4] His notions of Prussian socialism influenced Nazism and the Conservative Revolutionary movement.[5]

>Spengler utilized the anti-English ideas addressed by Johann Plenge and Werner Sombart during World War I that condemned English liberalism and English parliamentarianism while advocating a national socialism that was free from Marxism that would connect the individual to the state through corporative organization.[6]

The problem I have with ideologies is there are more ideologies and sub-ideologies than there are sexes in a Leftist's mind. At some point it descends into literal chaos. If I was to speculate on how many ideologies there are, there are: number of man hours in all of human civilization divided by how long a thought takes. That's a lot of ideologies. Unlike matter, well perhaps like matter, all ideologies are divisible into competing components. Meaning that people can never ever actually get along. This is why we should use the 5G network to MKUltra everyone. Except me. Techno-fascism!! The CIA did nothing wrong!!

36920 No.172717

File: 1537467216244.jpg (63.68 KB, 543x474, ideology-cycle-alignment-d….jpg)

>but rather in 1914
<< pic related.

1914 - starts National Socialism - Spengler
(wait 25 years)
1939 WW2
(wait 25 years)
1964 -- not sure what is here, what represents the transition from Libertarian Right to Left? Hippies?
(wait 25 years)
1989 Fall of Berlin Wall.
(wait 26 years)
2015 Trump starts to save the world.

Is it just my imagination?

03162 No.172739

Not imagination, just a prejudicial bias. 1914 was also the Federal Reserve act

36920 No.172745

>1914 was also the Federal Reserve act

You got me there. I am pondering that the timing on that cycle idea is for the strongest country at the time. So it reflects the lead nation of the Earth status.

f84e0 No.172751

>So the "intellectualism is bad", bias is deeply programmed into his psychology and he can never escape it for an objective view.
Spengler and I don't objective views entirely seeing that things are based on individual and mainly cultural views of groups created to defeat the idea of death. objectivity in things beyond life facts don't exist. This would mean that The idea that ideas were caused by something is gay, and so is the view in a causal world view because it is stagnate and not alive.

Also the idea wasn't really his to start with he got this idea from Nietzsche's looking over the cultural development of the greeks and applying Gurta and a few other philosophical ideas to get to this outcome. Add some metaphysics about time and you get what Spengler pretty much says.

>Note: I haven't read Spengler's book. I won't have time to read 1000 pages.

Too bad I can't recommend it enough. 1000pages isn't even all that bad for a good work especially one which is so reliant today.

>I keep hearing about Oswald Spengler over the course of several right winger videos
Spengler's view on history is the basis for most reactionary views that reject Hegelianism. If you don't see history as a linear development towards a utopia then you either view it as cyclical like Spengler does or as nebulous.
>troubles with race realism and the JQ
Well I'd consider that his views were more or less similar to Evola's in those regards, but I might just be projecting my own views onto his in this instance.

Dislike your model immensely.

36920 No.172752

File: 1537474144869.gif (268.28 KB, 1024x768, frac.gif)

And Armstrong views it as a fractal. So depending in the temporal width of your view the current direction can be different.

f84e0 No.172754

That'd just be a cyclical view when you think about it imo. I think its a more Faustian (fractal patterns are infinite) way of viewing cyclical history which is why I disagree with it.

36920 No.172762

File: 1537477994111-0.jpg (23.51 KB, 296x445, book.jpg)

File: 1537477994111-1.jpg (12.59 KB, 300x225, main-qimg-54c738d205fd5a26….jpg)

>What is the connection between chaos theory and fractals?

>Now the odd thing that people noticed about deterministic systems is that even though the development of the system from any particular state is unpredictable, if we graph it and watch it develop over a long enough time it will start to look like it is almost following some kind of pattern. e.g. the original Lorenz pattern: Pics

>It will loop back and around over the same territory in the same basic kind of way, even though it never falls back into exactly its own track. And moreover, if we choose a different starting state it will develop completely differently than the first state (sensitivity to initial conditions), but it will still appear to be following that same basic pattern.

>So, we cannot predict what state the system will be in at time t, but we can (apparently) predict the general shape the states of the system move through over time.

>But in chaotic deterministic systems, the attractor is not a point or a simple, smooth, continuous curve. The attractor — often called a strange attractor or sometimes a fractal — could be an infinite set of unconnected points (e.g. a Cantor dust), or a smooth curve with mathematical discontinuities, or a curve that is fully connected but discontinuous everywhere.

>So, a fractal image is a visual representation of a strange attractor (or fractal space) that defines the orbit of a deterministic system that behaves chaotically.

You can have orbits of/in chaos. You can have an intermediate state between order and chaos. An almost-order.

36920 No.172763

File: 1537478120467.jpg (61.88 KB, 640x480, 1531646655969.jpg)

Now add in one of MAs graphs. Order and chaos can live together at the same time. History does not repeat, it rhymes.

36920 No.172764

File: 1537478622656.png (323.22 KB, 750x750, 750px-Lorenz_attractor_yb.….png)

>Strange Attractor

>An attractor is called strange if it has a fractal structure.[1] This is often the case when the dynamics on it are chaotic, but strange nonchaotic attractors also exist. If a strange attractor is chaotic, exhibiting sensitive dependence on initial conditions, then any two arbitrarily close alternative initial points on the attractor, after any of various numbers of iterations, will lead to points that are arbitrarily far apart (subject to the confines of the attractor), and after any of various other numbers of iterations will lead to points that are arbitrarily close together. Thus a dynamic system with a chaotic attractor is locally unstable yet globally stable: once some sequences have entered the attractor, nearby points diverge from one another but never depart from the attractor.[5]


36920 No.172766

Us humans are the local unstable attractor, the political/ideological system as a whole orbits our chaos and achieves a global stability around the chaos of us. Our chaos has outer limits, there is a limit to our possible ideologies before we are simply insane, so it is contained chaos acting as the strange attractor causing unpredictable orbits that broadly fit a recognizable pattern at scale only.

[ mlpol / qa / go / 1ntr / vx / sp / üb / a ] [ Overboard ] [ Statistics / Banlist / Search ] [ PonyX ] [ Policy / Store ] [ home ]