Infinity16

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9XGUpQZY38 I know this one is a bit long but I think this video really embodies the stage orange mindset. Perhaps tellingly, Ray Dalio started out on his journey because he feared mediocrity more than failure.

And yet sexual shame almost always falls upon the woman. The purpose was likely to make sure that the children that men have are actually the man's. After all, cuckold was the most insulting thing to call a man.

At 41 days, this was the longest government shutdown in American history. I will wager that once further left leaning Democrats like AOC become more commonplace in the party, there will be an even longer shutdown as neither party will cave in. I won't at all be shocked if there's a shutdown that lasts until the next congressional election.

It's interesting to see the trend of Republicans move the party further right only to criticize people who move it even further right. Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1966. He, unlike most of his party, opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He opposed it on the grounds of being an infringement on freedom of association. Goldwater was clearly too far right for most of the country, losing all but 6 states. Aside from Arizona, his home state, Goldwater won the deep south, making him the first republican to do so since reconstruction (except Louisiana which Eisenhower won in his second term). This inspired the southern strategy which became associated with Nixon's campaign. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan courted the Evangelical vote. This is perhaps what sets the US apart from other western nations. Most of the west is Christian, but Evangelicals are a mostly American phenomenon. Prior to 1980, Evangelicals did not lean strongly one way or the other politically, but now, they make up the core voting bloc of the GOP. This helped move the GOP further right than contemporary mainstream right wing parties. But don't take my word for it. Goldwater himself complained about Evangelicals, mainly their lack of respect for separation between church and state. He, being in stage orange, was troubled by the takeover by people who refused to move beyond stage blue. Reagan was succeeded by George HW Bush who was basically Reagan 2.0 but without the charisma. Ditto for Bush jr. But then, Donald Trump came along to disrupt the GOP and move it even further right. George W Bush and Mitt Romney were particularly critical of Trump's nativist and authoritarian tendencies. Trump had even more critics within the conservative movement before his first term. What Trump's victory proved was that the right in the US had a strong stage red undercurrent. Now you see stage blue Ben Shapiro call out Tucker Carlson for platforming Nick Fuentes, a blatantly stage red fascist. Shapiro was previously critical of Donald Trump back in 2016 but was ok with supporting him in 2020.

Immigration is one of the many points of contention between stage blue and stages orange and green. Now the main point of contention is that according to those in stage blue, migrants from poor countries cannot integrate into the cultures of rich countries. Stage green does not believe this. As we all might figure, poorer countries tend to be at lower stages with most being at stage blue or even red or purple (red and purple lead to rampant government corruption). We already know of the tendency for immigrants to form enclaves so as to be surrounded by those who share their culture. People in stage blue also complain that migrants bring crime which is a stage red behavior (the extent to which this is true vs which is unsubstantiated rumors is not known). To the credit of stage green, it's actually better at dealing with red and purple people than blue is with diversity being considered to be a virtue. However, tolerance does get called into question whenever the subject turns towards anything that clashes with green values such as forced marriage, honor killings, and FGM.

The ego must rationalize that which we do. An ego in stage blue will ensure that we are never critical of our country or religion. That is where we get genocide denial.

I might add that you don't have to be at yellow to integrate stuff form other stages. You can be a stage red manipulator to do that (though stage red people tend not to get very far in western societies). Someone from stage orange can invoke stage green marketing (woke branding).

I think that the main cause of this is the fact that the US is the most influential country in the world. Another noteworthy cause for some of these that I noticed is the clash between stages orange and purple. It's especially noticeable with the one for Tuscany with tradition vs American efficiency.

That is indeed a product of the nation-state. The reason why immigration restrictions are necessary is because otherwise, immigrants will take jobs from the locals and drive down wages. It is therefore in the interests of the working class in the rich nation-states to restrict immigration to keep wages up. As for what policy can undermine neocolonialism, I would point towards the free trade of labor. Right now, we have free trade of capital. It's what enables companies to offshore production to nations with weaker currencies. What we don't have is free trade of labor which would enable people from poorer nations to take jobs in richer ones. The rise of online work can also break down the nation-state because eventually, people will stop identifying by nationality as they work from abroad.

That is indeed a product of the nation-state. The reason why immigration restrictions are necessary is because otherwise, immigrants will take jobs from the locals and drive down wages. It is therefore in the interests of the working class in the rich nation-states to restrict immigration to keep wages up.

You say a lot of interesting things in this post. The west is dominated by stage orange. Orange, alongside green and blue are what I refer to as the inverted stages. This is because they are the opposite of the primal stages. For example, authoritarian blue is the opposite of instinctive beige and power-driven red is the opposite of egalitarian green. Orange is the polar opposite of purple. Purple is a collectivist stage that thinks locally whereas orange is an individualistic stage that thinks globally (cosmopolitanism is introduced at this stage) - those in orange believe that there is no in-group or out-group, only individuals. The thing about each of the inverted stages is that although they're mostly better than their primal counterparts, they each have a problematic trait that the next stage soundly gets rid of. Stage blue carries an unhealthy amount of repression that orange does not carry. Stage orange, being the opposite of purple, rejects collectivism, discrimination, and spirituality. The problem is that humans mainly evolved for stage purple, making orange alienating. What stage orange discards is a sense of belonging. Culture arises from stage purple. It is not logical because it entails that there are some things that cause economic models to break down. Culture is a dirty word to stage orange, also because it entails that one set of government policies may have a completely different effect in two different societies. Perhaps the reactionaries are right to complain of western culture dying off but they get the cause completely wrong. No foreigners killed western culture, westerners did. It's also worth talking about the nation-state which I consider to be the stage blue mode of government. Stage blue, unlike orange, does carry a sense of belonging. Unlike purple which places it in an ethnic group, blue places it in religion and nation. This was a product of stage orange morals which made empires (red mode of government) unjustifiable. On top of that, mass media led to the rise of mass politics. This meant that the managers of government had to cater to the whims of the people. Defining who the people are becomes very important. Just as important is making sure that those people assimilate. The interesting bit about the UAE is that it seems to minimize the traits of a nation-state. It's relatively easy to move there and get a job, nigh impossible to become a citizen. 3/4 UAE residents are immigrants but none of them can sway elections because the UAE is a monarchy. The UAE seems to be embodying traits of a potential stage orange mode of government.

I think the desire to have kids goes down as society moves from blue to orange. This is what we see across rich countries is low fertility rates. Israel is unique in that regard in that the birth rate is just below 3 children per woman. Maybe it has to do with constantly being under threat.

In the immigration thread that I started, someone mentioned the likelihood that the nation-state may not last forever. It seems like countries in their current form have been around since forever and will last forever, but the nation-state is only a couple centuries old at most. They really started to emerge in the 19th century and became ubiquitous after WWI (obviously not including all of the European colonies which would only become nation-states in the decades after). Before that, there were kingdoms and empires. I think spiral dynamics can be used to explain how the nation-state formed and what will eventually replace it.

I was just recently thinking that Israel is similar to the US in that it has a lot of stage blue. Israel clearly has more stage blue than the US because of the former's high fertility rate and the fact that it's literally an ethnostate. Religion is about as important to Israelis on average as it is to Americans.

That's what I'm thinking. The US is primarily a stage orange culture with a significant stage blue minority. People in stage blue tend to be ok with democracy so long as they get what they want out of it. Stage blue tends to be found in evangelicals and other conservative Christians. The stage blue Americans will stand by Trump, but those in orange and green will resist. Alternatively, most stage orange Americans might not care enough to resist authoritarianism.

I think that's a very fascinating topic. A large essay could be written on how spiral dynamics applies to types of government and modes of government. A type of government is based on how power is distributed. Dictatorships and warlord states are stage red. Monarchies are stage blue. Democracy is stage orange/green. A mode of government is based on the fundamental structure. Empires as you described them are stage red. The purpose of an empire is to enable the dominant group to benefit from subjugating others. The nation-state is a stage blue mode of government. In the age of democracy, empires are difficult to justify, yet technology favors scale. Nation-states feel a stronger drive towards assimilation than empires do because nation-states are supposed to represent every citizen. This then got me thinking about what a stage orange mode of government would look like. Perhaps in a hyperglobalized world in which 3D printing has drastically reduced the scale of violence, city states will be run like corporations and people who work online will vote with their feet. Even if you have an iphone, it doesn't mean that you live in a country with good infrastructure, healthcare, economic opportunity, or human rights. Also, your analogy about tea and orange juice falls apart when you go to a place that is very diverse like New York City. There, you get to witness various different cultures. You can pretty much try every single culinary dish on planet earth.

Culture and traditions start at stage purple. Orange is an inversion of purple, meaning that it is the opposite in every conceivable way. You might have some powerful id in stage red, yet might have an ego in a much higher stage.

That's certainly the main reason why the alt right hates immigration. All the stuff about how migrants are criminals, taking people's jobs, and becoming a liability to the welfare state are just talking points that they use to sell to everyone else. The reactionaries fear not that immigrants won't integrate but that they will. They fear that mass migration will dilute their culture. This would obviously not be persuasive to those in stage orange which does not care about culture in the slightest. Perhaps tellingly, a poll of each state in Germany shows that those most likely to think that Germany was welcoming in too many migrants tended to reside where there were very few of them.

My post isn't about keeping migrants out to keep fascists from winning elections (that would be European politicians). It's about the stages that the migrants themselves are at. Tbh, honor killings and FGM aren't the big concerns because the victims of those tend to be migrant women and girls as opposed to the native Europeans. The bigger concern would be crimes committed by migrants which would come to the detriment of the natives.

I might just repeat what the others are saying and recommend that you move out of Russia. I follow infrastructure development and it doesn't look like Russia is really hurting for raw materials, despite waging a full on war. Russia's military budget also constituted 7.1% of its 2024 GDP which might actually be lower than for the USSR. What I'm trying to say is that it will take awhile for Putin to throw in the towel. Add that on top of Russia having quite a bit of stage red, not too similar to your typical Latin American country. Boris Yeltsin tried to catapult the country from blue communism to stage orange. However, the country ended up backsliding into red for a decade before Putin became president.

Outside of Chat GPT, the Democracy Index by The Economist ranks countries by electoral process, government health, political participation, political culture, and civil liberties, scoring countries from 0 to 10. The index dates back to 2006 and goes up to 2024. The US started with a score of 8.22 in 2006 and got a score of 7.85 in 2024. While the US has experienced a decline in democracy, it's not a sharp one.

If you pay close attention to the lyrics, it's clear that this is a song about how much stage red sucks.