Apologies! It might be best for moderators to remove my messages, and I'll prepare a PDF file once I complete the summaries.
Here's an interesting fragment of the summary from his 9th lecture, revealing his personal cosmology:
Predictive History (YouTube Lecturer)
- Thread starter T.C.
- Start date
Here's an interesting fragment of the summary from his 9th lecture, revealing his personal cosmology:
No problem! I actually think it would be enough to just put the AI stuff into quotes as you did in your last post above. In that way people can read it if they want (expand the quote), since it IS relevant to discussion, but at the same time the thread doesn’t get overwhelmed by long texts that you have to scroll through, which makes it hard to find/follow the discussion by the people here about the guy and what he is presenting.
The Duran just had Professor Jiang (Predictive History) on their show. Most of his predictions and views were pretty standard things you will find among the numerous channels engaged in geopolitical analysis. He falls into the 'nuclear weapons will not be used' camp, which is refreshing because I agree and I see many interviews get bogged down in this subject and all its dire implications.
I was surprised to hear him predict that Trump will take on the Deep State by going after their narcotics trafficking income streams - and that strikes on vessels near Venezuela are motivated by this. I think that's way off the mark, even if Trump does believe they are achieving something against drug trafficking.
Thanks for sharing. It’s worth watching just for their comparisons between the current US foreign policy and internal situation, with ancient Greece and the Peloponnesian War.
I thought it was particularly on point from Professor Jiang when Alexander asked him if, based on this comparison, Venezuela might represent what happened with the siege of Melos and how the Greeks’ massacre of the Melians turned everyone else in the region against them; and Professor Jiang pointed out that if we’re looking for a comparison to Melos, then the present day equivalent is Gaza.
Added: I don’t know if this is true but I was shocked to hear the professor state that China gets 100% of its oil from Iran and A THIRD of its food
I don’t know how true it is about the oil, but if it’s anywhere near true about the food then we’re talking a LOT of food.
palestine
Jedi Master
It seems he's managed to create a predictive model.
I understand that "predictive history" observes the degenerative processes of past civilizations—identifies stable variables, then says, "this is how it always happens"—and finally applies it to the present day.
What I see is that he's gathered the elements of 3D degeneration, drawn conclusions, and developed a model.
The only drawback is that he doesn't precisely identify the source of the degeneration; his model can be validated and yield results.
It might work, but it's quite pessimistic! The only problem would be assuming, "this is how ALL societies evolve," instead of, "as long as there are hidden psychopaths in society, this will be the fate of any civilization."
This could lead us down the wrong path: "humans are weak, fallible, and inherently evil."
I read the initial tweet, and also the PDF. It's very interesting. There are a lot of things that the forum could link to, either with A. Lobaczewski or with the C's model
.
I understand that "predictive history" observes the degenerative processes of past civilizations—identifies stable variables, then says, "this is how it always happens"—and finally applies it to the present day.
What I see is that he's gathered the elements of 3D degeneration, drawn conclusions, and developed a model.
The only drawback is that he doesn't precisely identify the source of the degeneration; his model can be validated and yield results.
It might work, but it's quite pessimistic! The only problem would be assuming, "this is how ALL societies evolve," instead of, "as long as there are hidden psychopaths in society, this will be the fate of any civilization."
This could lead us down the wrong path: "humans are weak, fallible, and inherently evil."
I read the initial tweet, and also the PDF. It's very interesting. There are a lot of things that the forum could link to, either with A. Lobaczewski or with the C's model
.
Added: I don’t know if this is true but I was shocked to hear the professor state that China gets 100% of its oil from Iran and A THIRD of its food
I don’t know how true it is about the oil, but if it’s anywhere near true about the food then we’re talking a LOT of food.
At first glance that claim seems rather unrealistic to me and at least according to Grok it isn’t true at all and I would be surprised if Grok is that far of from reality in that case:
Which makes you wonder about the professors knowledge and understanding of China and international affairs in general.
Indeed he seems to be wrong re the oil situation (see image, published two months ago). Iran produces about 4 million barrels per day, while China imports around 11,4 million barrels per day, so no way this adds up.
I’ve re-listened to what he said and I guess I misunderstood. It’s the way he worded his statement that confused me.
Alexander asked what China would do if the US invaded Iran, and the professor replied:
“China right now is heavily reliant on Iran, right? Because China imports all of its oil and a third of its food.”
In the second sentence, when he says ‘it’s’, he’s referring to China, not Iran.
I understood Jiang meaning that China imports most of it's oil in general (not all from Iran but it's still third highest exporter, because due to sanctions these are hidden and routed via third parties UAE and Malaysia). With food it's more complicated, China imports 30% of it's food to it's larger cities such as Shanghai and Beijing (they consume more beef, dairy and fruits), in rural areas it's much less. But what he basically means is that Iran i.e Middle East is important to China's security due to its role in global trading via Strait of Hormuz, and the destabilizing effect the war could cause to global economy, so China takes this threat seriously.
I think the reason why a historical model works so well for predicting future human dynamics is because humans are the same today as they always have been. As Boris Mouravieff points out in his “Gnosis” series, we live under the impression that humans are ‘progressing’ simply because we have become more technologically advanced, but there is no inner progress, no advancement in the quality of human nature.
So, if the sheep in the field acted a certain way yesterday, then it’s safe to assume that they will act like that tomorrow.
Yeah it's bonkers, but I don't think he's too attached to this theory of his. I commented under the video:
"Not even wrong! Read 'From Paul to Mark: PaleoChristianity' by Laura Knight-Jadczyk. If anything, Paul's vision of Christianity, what survives of it anyway, was hijacked by 'the Jerusalem church', which sought to 'Judaize' it."
He 'liked' the comment.
palestine
Jedi Master
Yes that's exactly what I was thinking. And then I thought: that's kind of depressing. And then (my brain is kind of slow - that's during the third row of neuronal activity!), I thought: Caesar/Christ.
What's the utmost predictable would be the cometary cycle of 3600 years. A safe "bet".
Every 3600 years or so, one would prepare, let's say, starting some hundreds years before the deadline. I suppose that STS is kind of crazy with all sorts of predictions, modellings and mappings - in order to figure out when they have to temporarily leave the planet / go underground. "Rewriting history" etc, all those things must be part of some basic "memo". I am not tender, because humans are just cattle and slaves.
And so, Caesar/Christ kind of scrambled things, because his presence spans up to today. This is comforting. The 3600 deadlines are permeable to STO
I watched his lecture on the Peloponnesian War and noticed an issue in his presentation which may or may not give us an example or further insight about how high his capacity is for critical thinking, spotting holes in theories, thinking with a hammer, etc. It could just be that he himself has recognised this problem in his narrative but hasn’t come to a satisfactory explanation for it. Or even more wildly speculative of me, he may actually have knowledge of the best explanation, but doesn’t put it in his lectures because of the can of worms that it opens up.
He goes to great lengths to describe the fundamental cultural idiosyncrasies of the Spartans and the Athenians because by doing so, he is then able throughout the lecture to say to the class, “and so based on what you know about the Spartans, what do you think they did next?” or “so based on what you know about the Athenians, how do you think they responded?” which works really well as a system and implements historical thinking, and is just a very good teaching tool.
So he paints this picture of how the Spartans were so isolationist and conservative and wanted to keep themselves to themselves and not get involved with what other states were getting involved in (like the Athenians going off to fight the Persians and the Spartans refusing).
The image he paints of Athens is the whole Homeric values of courage and glory and that it’s better to go off to war and die a hero than to live a life of quiet mediocrity. Again and again he reminds the class of these Athenian attitudes in order to predict what the Athenians did next, to which the answer is always, ‘they went on the attack’, ‘they went off to war’, the chose ‘aggression’.
Until, the point when the plague arrives.
He says that when Sparta and Athens were at war with each other, the tactic that the Athenians decided on was to wall themselves in and await an invasion by the Spartans and fight the war defensively instead of offensively. The theory then goes that due to the fact that all the Athenians were packed closely together in the city, this lead to disease - i.e., the plague.
He spent so much energy reminding the class over and over about how the Athenian attitude towards conflict was to go on the offensive. That this was baked into their very natures, running through their blood and hearts and souls. That it was the thing that mattered most to them. It was existential even.
And then all of a sudden, on one anomalous occasion, they decide they’re just going to stay home like a bunch of cowards!? He even points out that (as happened in a later scenario), all the Athenians had to do was invade Sparta and empower the Spartan slaves (which made up the majority of the Spartan population) to rise up against the Spartan oligarchy in alliance with the Athenians and - in his opinion - foolishly, the Athenians didn’t do this and stayed home instead. In his own words, it just doesn’t make sense.
As we know from Laura’s work, the likelihood is a cometary intrusion into the story. That’s what caused the plague. And that, in turn, would be why the Athenians weren’t exactly in a position to go on the rampage in Sparta.
It’s such a glaring problem in the professor’s exposition of the war that I was listening carefully, expecting a student off camera to bring it up.
So he points out a problem with his own otherwise immaculate theory that only cognitive dissonance on his part could prevent him from trying to solve.
So yeah, he knows a massive amount of stuff and he’s a very good lecturer. If he just got a ‘fact’ wrong, that could be excused. But this is different to simply getting a fact wrong. This is shoving what amounts to an empirical observation under the rug because it contradicts the hypothesis. In other words, ‘bad science’.
Trending content
-
-
Thread 'Coronavirus Pandemic: Apocalypse Now! Or exaggerated scare story?'
- wanderingthomas
Replies: 30K -
-
