everything we were dealing with, for example, politically, or what they used to talk about the 1980s and the 1990s is trying to figure out a soft landing from the US post-war dominance, right? The hegemony that because we were the one power that wasn't devastated, that we were feeding, I mean, there was a sugar high, a historical sugar high that we had after 1945 that inevitably was goingto come down as the rest of the world caught up. But what was that going to look like for the average American right on the street? So I remember in the 1980s when we were dealing with
go there and download for free and read themselves, it's a very clear road map of what America needs to do in order to maintain imperial hegemony . And so, let's let's let's just summarize the major points. The first major point is to maintain control over the Western Hemisphere and create a fortress America. Which is why he invaded
And the last one of these is actually a fairly simple one, but one that, I think, has a point. It's called "ASCII Hegemony ." So when we translated this to Russian or transliterated it to Cyrillic, this one stayed the same. Because this is just all the printable characters in ASCII.
I would suggest to you that what you have here is an indigenous geopolitics, a very, very different way of thinking about the world, and a one that is actively challenging the hegemony of the nation state to divide the world up into particular kinds of ways. But that won't stop those nation states, AKA coastal states.
Oliver is obsessed by the shoddiness of his leased car and of his treatment at the hands of a huge, computerized, alienating leasing firm. At root, he insists the problem is the hegemony of the computer model for thinking and organizing. People don't think like, or rather they start thinking like computers.
logic that you enter into when you use the phrase 'necessary and sufficient.'' 'But try.' 'Historians speak of critical masses of popular frustration. Weakening central authority. Loss of hegemony .' 'Meaning what?' 'Hegemony means one group dominating others without exerting sheer force. Something more like a paradigm that creates unnoticed consent to a hierarchy of power.
Is that incidental to what's happening? of the American right was beating back cancel culture, destroying left-wing cultural hegemony . It was very explicitly the purpose of a lot of
And the title of the morning was going to be, "To See the Streets of New York through the Eyes of a Spy". Long term, I think China's designs, hegemony in the Pacific, challenging US military strength, the cyber
color majority in the United States, um, the hope is that right, like South Africa or Brazil, where you have minority white populations that will rule, Um, a majority of people of color nation, right? You do that through ideology or what we talk about is hegemony , right? People give their consent because they agree with that, right? That's why have Candace Owens and people like that kind of running around and, you know, because it
about, um, Amazon, whatever any corporation, any institution, whether we're talking about the churches and and whatnot in the country, I think they are all impacted by a system of colonization, White supremacy, right? Or more So, more importantly, I would actually argue than white supremacy Is white hegemony the idea that certain ideas hold more power and validity than others?
This was certainly true during the Reformation, when print was adopted far more rapidly and deftly by people we now, in retrospect, call Protestants, people who were protesting against the power of the pope, than by the Catholic Church itself, which had as much power to defend its hegemony over the world of ideas. But somehow because they were slower at mastering print, they didn't get as much traction as the Protestants.
Something more like a paradigm that creates unnoticed consent to a hierarchy of power. If the paradigm comes to be questioned, especially in situations of material want, loss of hegemony can occur nonlinearly starting revolutions so rapid there is no time for more than symbolic violence. As in the 1989 Velvet, Quiet, Silk, and Singing Revolutions.' 'There was a singing revolution?'
we need to bring back a lot of that polytheism. A lot of where we've gone wrong is with monotheism because this God is such an angry God and a vengeful God and there have been so many things done in the name of war and aggression in His name. And it was always His, His hegemony and so forth. And I found myself thinking that this anthropomorphic idea of a god may have nothing to do with, if there is a God. What that force may be. That force may play no role whatsoever in our lives. It may just be a primal force that began to create out