Be The Power
by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner
I think some crazed hater of mine was looking for proof that I was some sort of danger to society so they could report me to the FBI. I’m not in anyway any such thing. I’m very harmless. I don’t hate Trump personally, I just hate what he stands for and MAGA in general.
So, there’s nothing to tell the FBI or ICE about me.
I *am* a loudmouth crank who goes off the handle sometimes in a fit of pique. But that’s still legal, right?
by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner
Because of things like the “K-Shaped” Economy, and a lot of financial ineptitude on the part of Democrats, Republicans are going to probably keep the House and Senate this fall.
So, the Trump Revolution will continue apace, whipping through the government at an alarming rate. Now, 2028 is interesting because there is at least a small chance that either we will be in the Singularity or we will really begin to feel the effects of AI on the job market.
That will put a lot of pressure on our managed democracy and it’s possible that things will be so bad — or just different — that Democrats will win despite themselves.
Or it could be the AI advancements will slow down significantly and it will all be a lulz. I just don’t know at the moment. But I do know that I wouldn’t hold your breath when it comes to Democrats being very successful in the near term.
The pursuit of Artificial Superintelligence (ASI) has transitioned from the realm of speculative philosophy to the centerpiece of a high-stakes geopolitical confrontation. At the heart of this transition is Recursive Self-Improvement (RSI)—the theoretical “holy grail” of computer science where an AI system begins to autonomously refine its own architecture and algorithms. As the United States and China race toward this “intelligence explosion,” the path is being increasingly obstructed by a sophisticated layer of regulatory capture. This essay examines how the narrative of AI safety is being leveraged to consolidate control over the means of ASI production, potentially creating a global “intelligence monopoly” that prioritizes corporate and state power over the democratization of superintelligence.
Recursive Self-Improvement represents a fundamental shift in the AI development paradigm. Traditionally, improvements in model performance have been driven by human engineers and massive compute scaling. However, recent milestones—such as Anthropic’s Mythos and Xiaomi’s MiMo—suggest that we are entering an era where AI can participate in its own R&D. When a model becomes capable of writing its own training code or discovering more efficient neural architectures, the timeline from Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) to ASI may compress from decades to months.
| Milestone | Developer | Strategic Focus | Projected Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mythos | Anthropic (US) | Automated R&D & State Verification | Early RSI-lite capabilities |
| PhD Super-Agents | OpenAI (US) | Specialized Autonomous Research | Acceleration of the AGI-to-ASI path |
| MiMo (Self-Evolution) | Xiaomi (China) | Algorithmic “Self-Evolution” | Closing the compute gap with efficiency |
| Open-Source ASI Path | Global Community | Decentralized RSI Cycles | Democratization vs. Centralized Control |
For the United States, RSI is seen as a way to maintain a qualitative edge over China despite the latter’s massive data advantages. Conversely, Chinese researchers view “self-evolution” as a critical tool for overcoming US-led chip export restrictions by maximizing the intelligence output of available hardware.
As the technical feasibility of RSI becomes clearer, the rhetoric surrounding “AI safety” has intensified. Leading US AI labs have increasingly advocated for stringent regulatory frameworks that would mandate government oversight for any model capable of significant self-improvement. While the risks of an unaligned ASI are undeniable, the proposed solutions—such as “licensing regimes” and “mandatory review periods”—curiously align with the business models of the incumbents.
“The first country or company to achieve RSI would leave its competitors in the dust, cementing an unassailable lead.”
By lobbying for regulations that effectively ban or indefinitely delay the release of high-capability open-source models, domestic giants are engaging in a classic form of regulatory capture. They are using the state’s legitimate concern over “national security” to “pull up the ladder” behind them. If the “right to review” becomes a prerequisite for RSI research, only the most heavily capitalized and politically connected firms will be permitted to proceed toward ASI, leaving the open-source community—and by extension, the rest of the world—in a state of permanent “intelligence debt.”
The US government’s efforts to “spook” enterprises away from Chinese AI models are not merely about cybersecurity; they are about control over the ASI breakout. The narrative that Chinese-origin models are “sleeper agents” or inherently unsafe provides a convenient geopolitical justification for domestic protectionism. This creates a “Silicon Curtain” where the path to superintelligence is bifurcated:
The risk of this fragmentation is profound. If the US succeeds in centralizing ASI development through regulatory capture, it may achieve “safety” at the cost of stagnation and global resentment. Meanwhile, if China successfully leverages open-source RSI to achieve an ASI breakout first, the US’s regulatory walls will have served only to ensure its own obsolescence.
The fundamental question of our era is whether ASI will be a public utility or a private monopoly. The current trend toward regulatory capture suggests the latter. By framing RSI as a “national security threat” that only a few “trusted” corporations can manage, we are drifting toward a future where the most powerful technology in human history is owned and operated by a tiny elite.
This centralization is inherently fragile. A single “aligned” ASI owned by a corporation is still a tool of that corporation’s interests. True safety and security in the age of ASI may not come from closed-loop regulation, but from a robust, transparent, and decentralized ecosystem where no single entity can monopolize the “intelligence explosion.”
The race for ASI is not just a technical competition; it is a battle over the future of global power. The collision of RSI’s potential with the machinery of regulatory capture threatens to turn the most significant breakthrough in human history into a tool of narrow corporate and state interests. To avoid an “intelligence monopoly,” we must look past the fear-mongering and recognize that the safest path to ASI is one that is open, transparent, and globally collaborative. True intelligence cannot be captured; it can only be shared.
The recent unveiling of Kimi 3 (K3) by the Beijing-based startup Moonshot AI represents more than a mere technical milestone; it serves as a definitive catalyst for a burgeoning collision between American regulatory strategy and the global democratization of artificial intelligence. As a 2.8-trillion-parameter model with open-weight commitments, Kimi 3 has effectively closed the performance gap between open-source initiatives and the proprietary “frontier” models maintained by Silicon Valley’s incumbents. This convergence arrives at a precarious moment when the United States government is increasingly leveraging “national security” narratives to dissuade American enterprises from adopting Chinese-origin technology, a move that critics argue aligns suspiciously well with the interests of domestic AI giants seeking to cement their market dominance through regulatory capture.
Moonshot AI’s release of Kimi 3 has fundamentally recalibrated the expectations for open-source Large Language Models (LLMs). Boasting a 1-million-token context window and a native “thinking mode” for advanced reasoning, the model rivals the capabilities of the most sophisticated closed-source systems, such as OpenAI’s GPT-5.6 and Anthropic’s Claude 4.8. By providing a high-performance, cost-effective alternative that is compatible with existing US-based developer SDKs, Kimi 3 challenges the narrative that frontier-level intelligence is the exclusive domain of a few heavily capitalized Western firms.
| Feature | Kimi 3 (Moonshot AI) | Typical US Frontier (Closed) |
|---|---|---|
| Parameter Scale | 2.8 Trillion | Estimated 1.8T – 3T+ |
| Access Model | Open-Weights (Scheduled) | Proprietary API Only |
| Context Window | 1,000,000 Tokens | 200,000 – 1,000,000+ Tokens |
| Primary Innovation | Hybrid Linear Attention | Transformer / MoE Variants |
| Cost Structure | High Efficiency / Self-Hostable | Premium API Pricing / Lock-in |
The strategic timing of this release, occurring just ahead of the 2026 World Artificial Intelligence Conference, underscores a broader Chinese strategy: using open-source contributions to build global developer ecosystems that bypass US-led restrictions. For American enterprises, the allure of Kimi 3 lies in its transparency and the ability to self-host, which offers a level of control and data privacy that proprietary APIs cannot match.
In the United States, the response to this shifting landscape has been a dual-track effort of legislative and executive maneuvering. Prominent AI labs have consistently lobbied for “safety frameworks” and “licensing regimes” that, while framed as necessary to prevent existential risks, effectively act as a ladder-pulling mechanism. By advocating for regulations that mandate expensive “right to review” periods and complex compliance audits for any model exceeding certain compute or capability thresholds, incumbents are creating a regulatory environment where only the most well-funded organizations can survive.
“Regulatory capture occurs when a state agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.”
This phenomenon is particularly evident in the recent White House discussions regarding a new Executive Order aimed at “managing” open-source AI. By focusing on “Chinese-origin models” and “distillation risks,” the proposed regulations would impose significant friction on any US firm attempting to utilize powerful open-source alternatives. This alignment between the state’s geopolitical goals and the industry’s desire for closed-model dominance suggests a synergistic form of protectionism that threatens the very innovation it claims to protect.
Parallel to formal regulation is a more subtle, yet equally effective, strategy of geopolitical discouragement. The US government, supported by reports from defense-linked consultancies, has begun a systematic campaign to “spook” American enterprises away from Chinese AI. Narratives surrounding “sleeper agent” vulnerabilities—claims that Chinese models might be trained to produce subtly flawed code or leak data when used in US contexts—have proliferated in Congressional hearings and national security briefings.
These tactics create a significant reputational and legal risk for US CEOs. Even if a Chinese model is technically superior or more cost-effective, the threat of being labeled a “national security risk” by the Department of Commerce is often enough to force a retreat into the arms of domestic, closed-source providers.
American enterprises now find themselves at a crossroads. On one hand, the competitive pressure to integrate the most advanced AI is immense; on the other, the path to using the most accessible and efficient tools is being systematically blocked. This creates an innovation tax, where US firms must pay a premium for domestic proprietary models while their global competitors—unburdened by such “Silicon Curtain” restrictions—leverage the best open-source intelligence from across the globe.
The long-term risk is a fragmented AI ecosystem where the United States becomes an island of expensive, highly regulated, and closed-source intelligence, while the rest of the world builds upon a transparent, collaborative, and rapidly evolving open-source foundation led by Chinese innovation. If the current trajectory of regulatory capture and geopolitical fear-mongering continues, the US may find that in its attempt to “secure” the frontier, it has inadvertently ceded the lead to those who chose to leave the gates open.
The collision of Kimi 3’s technical brilliance with the machinery of US regulatory capture highlights a fundamental tension in modern industrial policy. While the desire to protect national security is legitimate, using it as a pretext to enforce market monopolies for a handful of Silicon Valley firms is a strategy fraught with peril. For the American enterprise to remain competitive, it must have the freedom to choose the best tools for the job, regardless of their origin. True security lies not in the height of the walls we build, but in the speed at which we can innovate within an open and transparent global community.
by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner
Trump is going to steal the 2026 midterms. And I fear he may even go so far as to use extra-legal means to do it. The question, of course, is what we’re going to do in response once he does it.
I fear we’re either do nothing or we’re going to have a civil war / revolution.
I really would prefer not to have a civil war or revolution — I have a novel to query at a minimum — but…I suppose what will happen is…nothing. People will get really mad but ultimately nothing will happen and Trump will push and push to the point that him running for an illegal third term might be a done deal by the time 2028 rolls around.
by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner
Now that Linsey Graham has suddenly died, it makes you think about what happens when “it” happens in regards to Trump. A lot the issue is how it happens. If Trump just shuffles off this mortal coil after a brief illness, I suspect we probably don’t know for a long time, maybe weeks.
The people around Trump are so shifty and untrustworthy that they would spend weeks struggling to figure out how to position themselves in a way that gives them the most power.
The thing I worry about, of course, is a civil war. MAGA is so paranoid that it seems like there would be riots in the streets if Trump leaves us anytime before he has successfully destroy the United States to the fullest extend possible.
Anyway, live long and prosper? At this point, I just be happy if Trump left office on time and if we had free and fair elections.
The early promise of the internet was one of radical decentralization, a “global village” where information would be free and power would be distributed. Decades later, the reality is starkly different. The underlying architecture of the web—its economic incentives, network structures, and data-hungry nature—has directly facilitated three of the most pressing challenges of the 21st century: the warping of reality via social media, the rise of a new class of global plutocrats, and the looming shadow of a technological Singularity driven by Large Language Models (LLMs). These are not mere side effects; they are the logical conclusions of an internet-enabled world.
The internet’s primary commodity is no longer information, but attention. This shift has given rise to the Attention Economy, a system where human focus is algorithmically extracted, packaged, and sold to the highest bidder [1]. Because social media platforms rely on maximizing engagement to drive advertising revenue, they are incentivized to prioritize content that triggers strong emotional responses—fear, outrage, and tribalism—over factual accuracy.
Social media algorithms are not neutral tools; they are “opinions embedded in code” [1]. They function as feedback loops that create Echo Chambers and Filter Bubbles. By analyzing every click, hover, and share, these systems curate a personalized reality for each user, reinforcing existing biases and shielding them from dissenting views. This has led to a fundamental breakdown in shared truth, making collective problem-solving nearly impossible.
| Mechanism | Description | Impact on Reality |
|---|---|---|
| Algorithmic Curation | AI-driven feeds that prioritize engagement over truth. | Users are trapped in “filter bubbles” that reinforce biases. |
| The Outrage Cycle | Provocative content spreads 17-24% faster than neutral content [1]. | Public discourse becomes polarized and hostile. |
| Data Mining | Constant surveillance of user behavior to predict and influence choices. | Cognitive autonomy is eroded by persuasive design. |
“We are in a time where we’ve sort of accepted the unrestricted, unregulated mining of the human consciousness… We are the resource, and it takes its toll.” — Center for Humane Technology [1].
The internet has fundamentally altered the laws of economics, favoring extreme concentration over competition. The rise of “Big Tech” billionaires—the modern plutocrats—is a direct result of two internet-native phenomena: Network Effects and Zero Marginal Costs [4].
In the digital realm, the value of a service increases exponentially with the number of users (Network Effects). This creates a “winner-take-all” dynamic where a single platform, such as Google or Meta, can achieve a global monopoly almost overnight. Furthermore, once a digital product is created, the cost of serving an additional user is near zero (Zero Marginal Cost), allowing these firms to scale at a rate that physical-world industries cannot match.
The result is a level of wealth inequality with no historical precedent. Today, the world’s 12 richest individuals possess more wealth than half of the global population [2]. This economic power is increasingly converted into political influence through:
The third and perhaps most existential problem is the rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) and the potential for a Technological Singularity. This crisis is uniquely internet-dependent: LLMs exist only because the internet provided a near-infinite corpus of human-generated text to serve as training data.
The Singularity refers to a point where AI reaches Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and begins Recursive Self-Improvement—designing better versions of itself at a pace that far outstrips human comprehension [3]. While experts debate the timeline, the “scaling laws” of the internet age suggest that as we feed more compute and data into these models, qualitative leaps in intelligence become inevitable.
| Concept | Definition | The Internet’s Role |
|---|---|---|
| AGI | AI that matches or surpasses human intelligence across all domains. | Trained on the “Common Crawl” of the entire public internet. |
| Recursive Self-Improvement | AI using its own intelligence to optimize its code and hardware. | Enabled by internet-connected high-performance computing. |
| The Singularity | A point of no return where AI growth becomes uncontrollable. | The internet acts as the “nervous system” for this emerging intelligence. |
The risk is not just “killer robots,” but a “loss of control of our civilization” [3]. If a superintelligent system’s goals are not perfectly aligned with human values—a task known as the Alignment Problem—the consequences could be catastrophic. The internet, by centralizing the world’s knowledge and connecting all its systems, has created the perfect environment for such an entity to emerge and exert influence.
These three problems—the erosion of truth, the rise of plutocracy, and the threat of the Singularity—are deeply interconnected. The plutocrats own the social media platforms that warp our reality, and they are the ones currently racing to develop the AI that could trigger the Singularity. The internet, once envisioned as a tool for liberation, has become the scaffolding for a new form of systemic instability.
Addressing these issues requires more than individual digital “detoxes” or minor policy tweaks. It requires a fundamental re-evaluation of the internet’s economic foundations, the breaking of digital monopolies, and a global, precautionary approach to the development of superintelligence.
The trajectory of global power dynamics is increasingly shaped by a complex interplay of historical patterns, evolving political structures, and rapid technological advancements. This analysis explores the potential for significant geopolitical shifts, particularly concerning the future of established nation-states and the emergence of new forms of global governance. Drawing upon theories of imperial lifecycles, contemporary socio-political trends such as democratic backsliding, and the transformative impact of advanced artificial intelligence and technological elites, this essay posits a potential reordering of the international system.
The concept of an imperial lifecycle, suggesting a predictable pattern of rise, zenith, and decline, offers a compelling framework for understanding the long-term evolution of dominant powers. A notable proponent of this theory is Sir John Glubb, whose 1976 essay, “The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival,” posited that empires typically endure for approximately 250 years 1. Glubb’s extensive study of historical empires, spanning millennia, identified recurring stages—from the Age of Pioneers to the Age of Decadence—culminating in an average lifespan of roughly ten generations 1.
While historical analogies must be applied with caution to contemporary contexts, particularly given the unique characteristics of modern nation-states and global interconnectedness, Glubb’s framework provides a heuristic for examining the potential vulnerabilities and systemic pressures faced by long-standing hegemonic powers. The notion that a dominant state, approaching a quarter-millennium of existence, might be susceptible to internal and external forces leading to a significant redefinition of its role and internal structure warrants serious consideration 3.
A critical aspect of potential geopolitical transformation involves the internal political evolution of established democracies. The phenomenon of democratic backsliding describes a process wherein democratic institutions, norms, and practices are gradually weakened, often leading to a concentration of executive power, erosion of civil liberties, and compromised electoral integrity 4. This process can manifest through various mechanisms, including the politicization of state institutions, the suppression of dissent, and the undermining of independent media.
Concurrently, the rise of ethno-nationalism presents a significant challenge to pluralistic democratic societies. This ideology emphasizes a national identity rooted in a specific ethnic, racial, or religious group, often leading to the marginalization or exclusion of minority populations. The potential for a democratic republic to transition towards an autocratic ethnostate, characterized by exclusionary policies and authoritarian governance, represents a profound shift from foundational liberal democratic principles 5. Such a trajectory is frequently associated with heightened political polarization and a decline in the rule of law.
The contemporary global landscape is increasingly shaped by the unprecedented influence of powerful technological entities and their leaders, often referred to as tech oligarchs. These actors wield immense economic and informational power, frequently operating within a paradigm termed surveillance capitalism, where personal data is systematically collected, analyzed, and monetized on a vast scale 6. This economic model not only generates immense wealth but also confers significant control over information flows, public discourse, and individual behavior.
This concentration of technological and informational power raises critical questions about global governance and accountability. The ambition of these elites to extend their influence beyond national borders, potentially shaping global norms and policies, suggests a redefinition of sovereignty. The emergence of such non-state actors as significant geopolitical forces could lead to new forms of digital colonialism or a global order where technological rather than traditional state power is paramount 7.
The rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), particularly the hypothetical development of Artificial Superintelligence (ASI), introduce a transformative element into these geopolitical considerations. The potential for an ASI to emerge and, under the guidance of powerful state or corporate actors, to exert unprecedented influence over global systems is a subject of intense speculation and concern. The challenge of AI alignment—ensuring that advanced AI systems operate in accordance with human values and intentions—becomes paramount in this context.
Should ASI be developed and controlled by a limited set of actors, its capabilities could facilitate a rapid and comprehensive reordering of global affairs. Such a development could lead to a “new world order” where decisions are executed with unparalleled efficiency and scope, potentially reshaping human autonomy, global equity, and the very nature of political power 9.
The convergence of these macro forces—the potential for imperial decline, the erosion of democratic norms, the growing influence of technological elites, and the transformative power of AI—poses significant challenges to the liberal international order. This order, largely established in the aftermath of World War II, is characterized by multilateral institutions, international law, free trade, and a commitment to democratic principles 10.
However, the current global environment is marked by increasing geopolitical competition, the resurgence of authoritarian tendencies, and a growing skepticism towards multilateral cooperation. The forces outlined herein represent fundamental pressures on the foundational tenets of this order, potentially leading to a more fragmented, multipolar, or even anarchic international system. The long-term stability and efficacy of established global governance structures are thus subject to profound and ongoing reevaluation.
The interplay of historical patterns of imperial decline, the contemporary challenges of democratic erosion and ethno-nationalism, and the accelerating impact of technological hegemony and advanced AI suggests a period of profound geopolitical transformation. While the precise nature and timing of these shifts remain subjects of ongoing debate, the underlying dynamics present significant implications for the future of national sovereignty, global governance, and the liberal international order. Critical engagement with these complex forces is essential for navigating a rapidly evolving global landscape.
The following analysis critically examines the speculative assertions regarding the potential decline of the United States as a global power, drawing parallels with historical theories of imperial lifecycles and exploring contemporary socio-political and technological transformations. The original commentary posits that the United States, having reached approximately 250 years since its founding, may be entering a period of significant decline, transitioning from a democratic republic towards an autocratic ethnostate. This perspective is further complicated by the ascendance of powerful technological entities and the rapid development of artificial intelligence, which together could precipitate a novel global order.
The notion that empires typically endure for approximately 250 years before experiencing significant decline is a recurring theme in historical discourse. This concept gained prominence through the work of Sir John Glubb, a British general and historian, who, in his 1976 essay “The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival,” analyzed the lifecycles of numerous empires over 3,000 years 1. Glubb observed a consistent pattern of seven stages—the Age of Pioneers, Age of Conquests, Age of Commerce, Age of Affluence, Age of Intellect, Age of Decadence, and Age of Decline—culminating in an average lifespan of about 250 years for major empires 1.
While Glubb’s theory offers a compelling historical framework, its direct applicability to modern nation-states, particularly one with the unique constitutional and economic structures of the United States, warrants careful consideration. Critics argue that such historical determinism may oversimplify complex geopolitical dynamics and overlook the adaptive capacities of contemporary political systems 3. Nevertheless, the theory serves as a provocative lens through which to examine current societal trends and potential vulnerabilities.
The commentary suggests a transition from a “prosperous democratic republic to a declining, autocratic white Christian ethnostate.” This transformation can be formally analyzed through the lens of democratic backsliding and the rise of ethno-nationalism. Democratic backsliding refers to the weakening of democratic institutions, norms, and practices, often characterized by the erosion of free and fair elections, constraints on civil liberties, and the concentration of power within the executive branch 4.
The concept of an “autocratic white Christian ethnostate” points to a potential shift towards an authoritarian regime underpinned by a specific ethno-religious identity. This involves the marginalization of minority groups and the redefinition of national identity along exclusionary lines. Such developments are often associated with populist movements, political polarization, and a decline in institutional checks and balances 5.
The emergence of “tech oligarchs” and their ambition to exert control on a global scale represents a significant contemporary force. These entities, often operating within a framework described as surveillance capitalism, accumulate vast wealth and influence through the collection and monetization of personal data 6. Their power extends beyond economic dominance, impacting political discourse, social structures, and even the very definition of sovereignty. The concentration of information and technological infrastructure in the hands of a few powerful corporations and individuals raises concerns about accountability, privacy, and the potential for unprecedented forms of social control 7.
This phenomenon suggests a potential shift in global governance, where traditional state-centric power structures are increasingly challenged or co-opted by non-state actors with immense technological capabilities. The pursuit of global influence by these tech entities could lead to new forms of digital colonialism or a reordering of international relations based on technological rather than purely territorial power 8.
The advent of advanced artificial intelligence (AI), particularly the hypothetical development of Artificial Superintelligence (ASI), introduces another layer of complexity to these geopolitical forecasts. The commentary speculates that ASI, guided by the American government and tech oligarchs, could “align” the globe to its will. This raises profound ethical and philosophical questions about AI alignment—the challenge of ensuring that AI systems operate in accordance with human values and intentions.
The potential for ASI to reshape global power dynamics is immense. If such an entity were to emerge under the control of specific national or corporate interests, it could indeed facilitate a “new world order” where decisions are made and enforced with unprecedented efficiency and scope. The implications for human autonomy, global equity, and the future of democratic governance are far-reaching and largely unexplored 9.
The confluence of these macro forces—imperial decline, democratic backsliding, the rise of tech oligarchs, and advanced AI—is posited to “run roughshod over the traditional rules-based post-WW2 liberal order.” The liberal international order is characterized by multilateral institutions, international law, free trade, and democratic norms, largely established and maintained by the United States and its allies after World War II. This order has historically promoted stability and cooperation, albeit with its own inherent challenges and criticisms.
However, the current global landscape is marked by increasing geopolitical competition, the resurgence of authoritarianism, and a growing skepticism towards multilateralism. The forces described in the commentary represent significant challenges to the foundational principles of this order, potentially leading to a more fragmented, multipolar, or even anarchic international system 10.
The original commentary presents a stark and somewhat pessimistic outlook on the future trajectory of the United States and the global order. While the specific timeline and outcomes remain speculative, the underlying concerns—regarding imperial lifecycles, democratic erosion, the unchecked power of technological elites, and the transformative potential of AI—are subjects of serious academic and policy debate. The notion that these macro forces are inexorable and beyond intervention underscores a sense of urgency for critical engagement with these complex challenges. The future of liberal democracy in the United States, and indeed the global political landscape, appears to be at a critical juncture, facing pressures that could fundamentally alter its established structures and norms.
by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner
The general consensus is empires last about 250 years before they begin to seriously decline. And I think the US is no different than any other empire. We’ve reached 250 years and this is the year that we will transition from a prosperous democratic republic to a declining, autocratic white Christian ethnostate.
All of this will be happening in the context of the rise of tech oligarchs that aim to control not just the United States but the globe. And add to this the rise of AI and there’s a chance that some form of new world order will come into being a lot sooner than you might think.
It’s possible the long predicted ASI might pop out and it will, under the guidance of the American government and tech oligarchs, “align” the globe to its will in ways that none of us would prefer.
And at the moment, there doesn’t seem to be any way to stop it. These are macro forces at work that will run roughshod over the traditional rules based post-WW2 liberal order that we’ve grown so accustomed to.
It’s seriously going to suck. When all of this might actually happen, I don’t know. But we have to wave goodbye to the liberal democracy of the USA I fear.
You must be logged in to post a comment.