Infinity16

You probably find this mindset in poorer countries with unreliable governments. In countries like Russia, China, Turkmenistan, and North Korea, the government is simply a mafia that controls a nation. I wonder if this shapes society or if the state is shaped by society. Russia has no history of liberalism. It wasn't long after the end of the monarchy that it became a one party autocracy. The brief period that Russia was friendly with the west was a time of high unemployment, crime, and mortality. Putin promised order to the Russian people and they got it. Plus the Russian people tend very heavily towards conservatism. Russia would be the future of the US should Trump succeed in doing away with democracy.

I always figured that Russian culture was cynical but this video dives more into depth. Obviously this video does not use spiral dynamics but it contrasts the stage red Russian mindset from the stage orange western one. As quoted in 1984, power is not a means to an end but rather an end in of itself. Ideology and popular well being are the means; power is the end. In stage red, you don't question why those with power over you do what they do. Rather, you work around it. Orange seeks a meritocratic hierarchy whereas in stage red, there is no pretense that the hierarchy should be meritocratic. In red, your goal in life is to make your way up as high in the hierarchy as possible. We in our WEIRD society are oftentimes baffled by how differently the rest of the world thinks. I as a westerner was surprised that Putin decided to wage war a special military operation in Ukraine, not because I believed that there was good in everyone but because it's the worst move possible from a western perspective. I figured that as a dictator, one would want to ensure prosperity for the people, if nothing else, to stay in power. According to this video, the war is helping to keep Putin in power. The video says that with war, time stands still, but I might add a thought to it. Taiwan and South Korea both started out as dictatorships. Their economies grew quickly and eventually, both got to a point at which the people demanded a democracy. It might just be that dictatorships benefit from the populace being at a low level of consciousness. At red, you are concerned with survival and do not even consider the possibility of social change. At orange, survival can be taken for granted and social change becomes possible. The first video of his is about how freedom is scary from a Russian POV. This is because Russian society is at stage blue. People at any stage (at least below yellow) assume that the next stage is just like the previous one with those limitations. As such, people in orange hold collectivism in contempt, considering green to be oversensitive just as blue is judgemental. For people in stage blue, individualism is instability. They don't consider orange from above because all they understand is red from below. His video on propaganda mirrors a common take on MAGA talking points. The take being that Trump doesn't lie very convincingly, but he lies so often that it becomes pointless to even worry about it. The job is not to convince but rather wear you down. I don't quite think the comparison quite sticks because half of the country does believe that Trump was a victim of the deep state. With that said, Trump's way of doing things is authoritarian. That's why he gets along well with people such as Putin, Erdogan, and King Salman, but not so well with Merkel, Macron, or Trudeau. If the US didn't have a century long tradition in liberalism and was a fragile state for a decade, Donald Trump would probably have been more well received. It really seems like Russian culture revolves around fear, contrasted with the west which revolves around guilt. Authoritarianism is good from a fear-based perspective, not so much from a guilt-based one.

Indeed, it seems like authoritarianism is making a comeback in the west. I genuinely wonder if deepfakes will encourage the Russian mindset to truth.

We don't know how good his relationship with his parents was when the cameras weren't on them. Obviously that comes nowhere near close to justifying the murder but there is a lot that doesn't get discussed behind closed doors.

As you probably all know, capitalism has its issues. But as Leo Gura pointed out in When Does the Left Go Too Far?, socialism isn't perfect either. Awhile back, I discovered an economic theory that can ensure steady economic growth whilst at the same time, ensuring that those benefits distribute rather than consolidate. To understand this, you first need to understand the three factors of production - land, labor, and capital. Profit for each of the three has its own term. Land: Natural resources and plots of land. Profit from land is rent. Labor: Effort by people to provide a good or service. Profit from labor is a wage. Capital: Anything manmade, especially to produce goods or services. Profit from capital is interest. What different economic theories disagree on is on the priority of each of the three. For example, Marxian economics revolves around the labor theory of value (LTV) which states that labor is the only way to contribute to the economy. Land and capital exist but take on a passive role relative to labor. As such, landlords and business owners are leeching off of the productive working class whilst giving nothing in return. Neoclassical economics considers all three to be legitimate. There was something that I noticed. I spotted a thread in the LTV when it occurred to me that each business has to start somehow. The founder may not contribute a majority of the labor that goes into a successful business, but does take on a risk of starting one. Most fail but the ones that succeed will become big. Even big businesses can eventually fail as is the case with Sears which has just five locations left as of December 2025 (Sears had a branch in Mexico which is now larger than the current company). At the same time, I felt like land speculation was a way to make money without actually giving anything to society. In fact, it's negative since it drives up land prices. I then discovered georgism, an economic theory that I believe will give us the best of both capitalism and socialism. Henry George lived during the late 19th century and wrote a book called Progress and Poverty in 1879. In this book, he took note that landowners nearby where the railroads were built were profiteering big time. The industrial revolution brought forth unprecedented wealth and yet there was still a great deal of poverty. He came to the conclusion that land was the problem. After all, whereas labor and capital are manmade and variable, land is a constant. It's also worth noting that at the time that book was written, the American frontier was nearing its conclusion (Native Americans would get kicked off of Oklahoma a decade later). Once all of the land gets sold, the price of land will go up. To solve this, George proposed a land value tax (LVT). This is different from a property tax in that it only taxes the land and not the improvements. Henry George gained following in what became known as the single tax movement. Henry George ran for NYC mayor in 1886 against Abram Hewitt, who won, and Theodore Roosevelt. He ran again in 1897 but died a few days before the election. His funeral was attended by 100,000, making it one of the largest funerals in the country at the time. The LVT was largely forgotten in the mid 20th century, perhaps because the post war boom and the automobile enabled a recreation of the frontier. George's ideas remained of note to economists, perhaps because of how logical they are. Since the 2008 financial crisis, georgism has become relevant again, especially as homes have become increasingly unaffordable. I found myself to be persuaded to support land-based taxation because it enables the state to collect revenue without incurring any deadweight loss. This is because taxing land does not result in less land. Furthermore, LVT does not suffer from tax avoidance or evasion because the government will always know what landowners have to pay. The only issue lies in separating land from improvements as not doing so makes it simply a property tax which is a double edged sword. A property tax discourages land speculation but it also discourages improving the property.

Excellent question A property tax is a tax on the whole property. That means that if demand for the location increases or if an improvement is made, the property tax goes up. Land value tax is meant to tax just the land, not the building on top of the land. In other words, demolishing a building or making an improvement would not affect the LVT. The only thing that would affect LVT is a change in demand for the plot of land.

Fun fact: Japan has a much lower incarceration rate than the US.

I wonder if capitalism is necessary due to low conscious individuals. The big problem with a state-run economy is that there are so many variables that experts often miss the finer details (think about how Polymarket predicted the 2025 election while Alan Lichtman failed). This is known as the economic calculation problem. Furthermore, an economy run by the state can easily be manipulated by politicians for their own ends. Many leftists on the internet actually call for a decentralized economy which is more based on cooperation rather than competition. Whether this can work in any current society is yet to be seen. This is oftentimes referred to as democracy in the workplace. Running with this analogy, we know that democracy didn't work so well in countries in which it was imposed from the top-down like Afghanistan and Iraq. It's also delivered mixed results in Tunisia which democratized without foreign intervention. The bad news is that stage green isn't as popular as it makes itself out to be.

I should perhaps distinguish between type of government, mode of government, and culture. The enlightenment values that western culture is based on today are essentially stage orange. Democracy is valued by stages orange and green. For most of US history, although enlightenment values took root in academia, most of the population was in stage blue. This changed in the 60s in what can possibly be referred to as the cultural enlightenment. The cultural enlightenment gave the west all of the benefits and drawbacks of stage orange. The mode of government (which I coined) is different from a type of government which is how the government is run. The mode of government actually deals with the makeup of the government. The empire is the stage red mode of government. It starts at stage red because that's where state formation starts. Empires are defined by a dominant group and submissive groups. It is perhaps worth noting that the mode of government that embraces elements from the next stage tend to have an advantage. This is because the next stage fixes the problems with the current stage. It is very much worth noting that the mode of government that embodies the previous stages are dysfunctional. We can see that the most corrupt nation-states in the world have a lot of red and purple. Stage blue empires are more stable. Stage orange does not allow for empires because its values are contrary to imperialism. Perhaps not so coincidentally, empire and imperialism attained negative connotations right around the 60s. The nation-state is the stage blue mode of government. It is characterized by a people-group bound together by either ethnicity or civic values. This can actually make things worse for ethnic minorities as this will incentivize the state to forcefully assimilate them. The nation-state is strengthened by stage orange because it prevents technological stagnation and makes the economy more efficient.

"The elite" consist of people who gained wealth from the current economic paradigm. These are largely billionaires who gained their net worth from founding successful companies or inheriting it. They benefit from economies of scale and also lobbying for political favors which makes it more difficult for small competitors to keep up. It is largely the left that favors taxing them more. The main policy has to be oriented around the cost of eggs because that's what the median voter cares about (never forget that the nazis gained power during the GD). I think we're on the same page here. In terms of economic policy, framing would have to revolve around stage orange/achiever rhetoric. After all, how much can you really achieve in a monopolized economy? Most people in stage blue are evangelicals who would never vote Dem if their lives depended on it. Some are people in small town america, most of which has little economic opportunity. I'm not sure what would cause small town america to switch parties. Politics largely happens on a country-by-country basis. These countries are largely along the lower stages. Btw, people in stage green do occasionally talk about the global north and south as well as neocolonialism if you're interested in getting the leftist perspective there. I do somewhat wonder if the global capitalist system will crash hard. It has dark implications for humanity's evolution up the spiral. To simplify things, it seems like we move up the spiral when times are good and are held back when times are bad. A total collapse would likely see society devolve into control by stage red warlords or stage blue authoritarianism. Capitalism would collapse but it would be replaced by something worse, not better. This is what I hope happens. Right now, we are in the stage blue mode of government which is the nation-state. This emerged when enlightenment values called the stage red mode of government into question which is the empire. It is possible that a stage orange mode of government will eventually emerge. It will emerge once people start questioning the legitimacy of nationalism just as imperialism was questioned in the past.

A lot of the economic stuff have been popular in the US, even during the pre-orange 30s. The issue comes when economic policy hinders achievement which is what stage orange is all about. The social stuff pertaining to stuff like systemic racism and cultural appropriation can also turn off people in stage orange for being "woke". Trump did win with the median voter in the swing states and the POC vote swung towards him. Anyone who cares more about the state of our democracy than about the price of eggs either voted for Harris or left it blank because of her stance on Israel. It's actually a bit worse than peak orange since there's a prominent stage blue minority in the US. I will be making a post in the future as to what economic policy may work best. It will attain the advantages of both capitalism and socialism so stay tuned.

I noticed that Stirner was critical of both capitalism and property rights, both of these being stage orange ideas. I would think that someone at stage orange would be an ancap rather than an egoist critical of both capitalism and communism.

Max Stirner was someone who lived in 19th century Germany. He associated with a group called the Young Hegellians which contained notable figures such as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Stage orange was emerging in academia and Stirner was right at the cradle of stage green. He wrote a book called The Ego and its Own, also known as The Unique and its Property. In it, he reasoned that mankind is controlled by spooks. Spooks are ideas that cause people to behave in a way they would otherwise not behave such as religion, nationalism, and property rights. Stirner, like many anarchists, rejected the legitimacy of the state, believing it to only be legitimate through the use of force. However, Stirner went a step further and rejected the idea of natural rights, seeing that as another spook. Stirner believed that society should organize itself as a union of egoists which differs from society in that the latter is based around spooky ideas whereas the former is a free association. I was kind of thinking that this is a stage yellow idea. Socialism is a collectivistic ideology, contrasted with stage orange liberalism and the more extreme libertarianism. Max Stirner was critical of capitalism, putting him above stage orange, yet also critical of stage green as a collectivistic stage. He seems to have been the first person to critique stage green from above. Max Stirner differed from others in that he believed that there was no such thing as objective morality. This naturally left his orange and green contemporaries feeling appalled as they felt that natural law was necessary to oppose oppression.

I guess MAGA isn't imploding after all.

It all has to do with egos. The ego is the part of you that moves through the stages linearly. It cannot move backward because theY current stage will always contain some perspectives that the previous stages lack. It cannot skip stages because the problems with the current stage are resolved by the next stage. You cannot force the egos of other people to move through stages. They have to see the limitations of the current stage for themselves. Obviously, the most important transition is from beige to purple because that's when you gain intelligence. But the second most important transition would have to be from blue to orange. This is because in order to make that jump, you need a theory of mind. People in stage red are solipsists, meaning that they are utterly incapable of seeing any perspective other than their own. Stage blue people internalize the golden rule and are thus able to understand that sometimes what they want is considered shameful by the broader group, yet they still lack the notion that other people come from completely different perspectives as opposed to simply worshipping false gods out of rebellion for the true god. The moment when I moved from stage blue to orange is when I realized that people from other faiths were most likely in those faiths because they were raised in them, just as I was raised as a Christian.

Sounds like stage orange vs purple. Those two stages are the opposite of one another.

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.