He and Peter Turchin have many good points. Charles Hugh-Smith sees sickcare for what it is, a jobs racket and rent-seeking endeavor. He sees the parasitic elite detached from the population it supposedly guides. He knows. He sees how the center cannot hold. He sees how centralization is now at the negative returns stage. He points out that centralization's effects are now all negative, and the positives are sequestered away to the very few. Eventually, the social effects will become too much to endure.
The tech is there for greater centralization but it is there for decentralization as well. Each element of tech that adds to greater centralized control can be equally applied for decentralization if people coordinate to value decentralizing. Nick Land has written about the democratization of massive violence as adding to decentralization. This applies to many other capabilities.
How many people want to be a tiny fish in a giant, fetid pond? The elite count on you not just tolerating that but wanting that, craving the chance for that.
Spend some time reading Charles Hugh-Smith's essay and his other work. It is worth it.
Last week I wrote on how rebellions fail or succeed if they have elite factions supporting them. England saw two similar attempts, with one succeeding, so the story was why? Elites need to feel threatened and feel that they have something to gain with the rebels. Weimerica Weekly was on the Chinese critique of the white left (baizuo).
This week I will write on the spread of prison culture, and how our culture is sliding towards it not just from the police state assembled but population-wise. Weimerica Weekly will touch on the blackpilling, which allows me to discuss what the first 100 days or so of Clinton's presidency would've looked like.