Comment by komali2

To know the answers to all of these questions, you should really check out the Behind the Bastards podcast because that is the whole premise. Covering the lead-up to horrible situations and the inevitable slide in fascism. It's insanely detailed about covering many, many stupid fascist bastards and a few smart ones.

To know the answers to all of these questions, you should really check out the Bbehind the Bastards podcast because that is the whole premise. Covering the lead-up to horrible situations and the inevitable slide in fascism. It's insanely detailed about covering many, many stupid fascist bastards and a few smart ones.

Well, I at least know that teenagers were considered adults, not children, in the past and were expected to be responsible. Maybe that change is a big part of the problem.

> was it always this stupid?

Excellent question. There are two easily readable sources I know of covering historical events of the sort you're asking about. The first is Barbara W. Tuchman's The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam, where the entire premise is that stupid people did stupid things and then doubled down on stupidity as they went along. The second is Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, in which Hannah Arendt details just how dull and unimaginative Eichmann was. She writes, "it was difficult indeed not to suspect that he was a clown", and suggests that Eichmann was not especially different from anyone he worked for, right up to the top.

History doesn't seem clownish because of the way it is recorded and taught. Even Arendt's writing is cool and formal compared to the histrionics we see on social media and many news outlets.

> Was there a Napeolonic era equivalent to a media figure known for making light of school shootings, getting killed in a school shooting, a second after again making light of school shootings?

The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and subsequent events leading to the start of the First World War, were filled with errors and stupidity, so much that history mostly lumps them all under the term "July Crisis", and rarely goes into detail. If you're familiar with the Abilene paradox, you have a framework for how the Great War started as the result of collective actions by soldiers, diplomats, and national leaders.

Apparently (can't be bothered to fact check this) the nazis liked having parades in the dark because it was easier to propagate the idea of the nazi ubermensch when you couldn't see that the dedicated members of the nazi party were generally on the uglier side of average. As you'd expect of dissatisfied radicals, really. Probably same reason there's a stereotype of right-wing people on social media having a profile picture of themselves in a car with sunglasses on.

Anyway, as stupid as this is, Americans are generally literate, with access to unadulterated messages from the other side of the world. Imagine how stupid things were when 95% were illiterate and all information passed through a giant game of telephone before it arrived to you.

> how can I reinterpret the past such that it also experienced a bunch of clownish nonsense?

The thing is, you don't know what happened in the past - you weren't there. What you have is a lot of stories and films that bring that to life for you.

Personally, I'm pretty sure nothing in the implementation has changed, but that the goals being sought have changed, as has the technology and therefore the implementation.

This rings poignant now that I finally got around to reading The Three-Body Problem. It starts off depicting struggle sessions during the cultural revolution in China in the 60s, in which they're beating a physicist to death for teaching relativity because Einstein gave imperialists the bomb. It's so stupid, that if it was fiction, I wouldn't find it realistic that people would be this stupid.

To be clear, the book is fiction, but struggle sessions and beating physicists to death is not.

Details vary but from time-to-time, yes, things do go this wildly off the rails.

You could argue that the entirety of Europe declaring war on itself over the death of one royal (and not even a reigning monarch; an heir-apparent) is such an example; tens of millions dead over something as transient as birthright rulership. Others that come to mind are much of the reign of Henry VIII (everyone knew he was dangerously paranoid, nobody with the potential to do so mounted an overthrow of his power, and his son was shaping up to be worse and England was narrowly spared his reign by the luck of his own bad health). Then there's the French overthrow of a monarchy to replace it with a bloody civil war that liquidated, among others, most of the people who overthrew the monarchy (and replaced it with an empire).

Power consolidation begets perverse effects.

>I feel like I can't possibly live in the stupidest era in world history.

Your statistical intuition is sound, and while there are many historical sources describing very stupid events (VSE) dating as far back as recorded history, it is difficult to appreciate the outer bounds of the stupidity range because what has been written is a small fraction of the history that people have lived for at least 100,000 years.

So while I feel we are living in the stupidest era in history (the SEIH), I must conclude that we don't.

You would have to define what stupid is. We have some definition of crazy, which is, doing something that doesn’t work over and over.

Recurring racism is either crazy (as in, it doesn’t work but people keep doing it), or, it … works for some people. It makes them feel better, builds camaraderie and unity amongst a group. So in practical terms, I don’t know if we can call this stupid or crazy.

The word we might be looking for is “rotten”. To watch the evil of the past and continue to harbor any adjacent attitudes absolutely does qualify as “one of the the most rotten eras”, especially because our era was educated on the past and given so much comfort and luxury.

——

I wanna expand why I am honing in on racism. I can only define the American Right as something that has battery pack that is powered by hate. I can’t find the source of the hate. There’s no foreign occupier in America, there’s no evil army here locking people up. The hatred is rooted somewhere, and the core emotion of hatred is the fertile ground for all the obstinance (why nothing good seems to take initiative in this country).

It doesn’t take a genius to say “hey, I think this multi century issue of white racism is still here guys”, like discovering that a alien monster was on the ship all along, lingering, a horror movie.

Edit:

Get the audiobook for this. You can hear just how crazy things have always been:

https://www.amazon.com/Abuse-of-Power-Stanley-I-Kutler-audio...

I listen to this on nice walks, and I’ve literally had to stop in the middle of walking to laugh at the absurdity of it all. It’s surreal and relevant to what’s going on today, as usual.

The more I study 20th century fascism - and by "study" I mean "listen to podcasts like Behind the Bastards" - the more I learn that, yes, they were just as goofy and cringe in their time as their modern equivalents. Hitler was seen as a bit of a comic buffoon with his over-the-top rhetoric, he had an Austrian accent which made him come off as a country bumpkin, and many people were unimpressed by him. Trump in 2016 was a joke, a C-list celebrity game show host only known for being rich and sleazy and playing himself on television.

The core elements are usually similar. Fetishism of militarism often by people who never see a day of combat, occult and antiscientific beliefs, grifts, purges and nepotism, brutish mocking cruelty. The Nazi Totenkopf was the shiba inu of its day.

History doesn't repeat but it does rhyme. I think the lesson here is people tend to understimate what they can't respect. Thinking "no one would be stupid enough to take this guy seriously" is often a mistake.

[dead]

Every generation gets the stupidest politics the world has ever seen... So far.