Is Stage Green Currently Losing Influence?

[Basman]

Just now, Stovo said:

Much of the European right is to the left of the democrats, e.g. the British conservative party. 

There does exist a populist right in Europe but they're still to the left of most Republicans. The Republican party would be seen as an extremist party if it was in Europe. 

That is hilarious. God bless America.

[Kid A]

55 minutes ago, Stovo said:

The Republican party would be seen as an extremist party if it was in Europe.

I sure view them as that. It wasn’t like this before though. Maybe just 12 years ago they were kind of a “nice” version of the most conservative party in the Norwegian parliament. Now they remind me more of, as you said, Russians.

[Leo Gura]

In a sense nothing about the Republicans has changed. They were delusional lunatics during the Bush years, Clinton years, Obama years, and now Trump years. The surface seems to change but the ideological reactionary delusional nature of it is fundamentally the same. They are incapable of coming up with anything truly new. Just reacting like sheep against X, Y, or Z flavor of the decade.

It's important to see that Trump is not some special case, he is the logical extension of their last 30 years of reactionary antics, BS, and stupidity.

The same stupidity that voted for Bush voted for Trump.

Edited Monday at 07:50 PM by Leo Gura

[Hardkill]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

In a sense nothing about the Republicans has changed. They were delusional lunatics during the Bush years, Clinton years, Obama years, and now Trump years. The surface seems to change but the ideological reactionary delusional nature of it is fundamentally the same. They are incapable of coming up with anything truly new. Just reacting like sheep against X, Y, or Z flavor of the decade.

It's important to see that Trump is not some special case, he is the logical extension of their last 30 years of reactionary antics, BS, and stupidity.

The same stupidity that voted for Bush voted for Trump.

They've kept shifting more and more and more to the right ever since the election of Reagan in 1980.

However, because most Americans are conservatives or moderates and as long as the extremely influential right-wing propaganda machine keeps growing stronger, it's hard for me to see how Trumpism and the Republican party will ever lose power at the national level again for the foreseeable future.

I know you've said a number of times before that Trumpism and the Republican Party will eventually collapse, leading the country to desire more liberal policies. But what if too many voters, despite acknowledging Trump and his party's role in the country's terrible crisis sometime in the future, continue to vote Republican due to their conservative or moderate values and perception that Democrats have shifted too far left in this day and age?

What if they're like "I'd rather die than vote Democrat ever again, even if it's someone like Gavin Newsom because they are all radical leftists who are even worse at running the country!"?

Edited Monday at 09:20 PM by Hardkill

[Emerald]

12 hours ago, The Renaissance Man said:

Not directly! Tate "showed the way" to misogyny! Incels by themselves tend to remain clueless and desperate. It's too much for them to figure out by themselves how to become attractive after all those years of having different beliefs. So they either:

• Remain incels for life
• Desperately seek solutions elsewhere, adopting anything that makes them improve the hopeless situation (even just the mental side)

Tate, and some toxic aspects of pickup, can lead to misogyny (point 2).

For the full reasoning behind why misogyny is convenient and so easy to adopt from their perspective, my post just above explains my opinion.

Not all nice guys become misogynysts.

 

I disagree. Here I do agree with Leo instead. Your typical incel is needy, shy, and awkward around women. Your typical "misogynist", or "asshole", doesn't give a shit. And confidence and being an asshole gets you laid 100x compared to neediness.

Not all nice guys become misogynysts, not all confident guys are misogynysts. But we're talking about two kinds of misogynysts, we need to make a distinction here:

• The Tate kind, who is stage red, confident, manipulative, narcissistic, but still confident!
• The incel kind, who becomes misogynyst after years of being a desperate nice guy with zero success, after hearing convenient Tate-like philosophies.

Will many (maybe most) women reject a narcissist? Possibly. But with incels we're talking zero success. Awkward, shy little boys no girl ever felt attracted to. And I argue they are like that because they have low self-esteem, aka they consider women goddesses, as I said again in my post just above. And this philosophy revenge-swings back from veneration to resentment.

 

Conclusion:

Incel-misogynists are born as nice guys, suffer because their neediness repels women, and adopt convenient toxic ideologies.

Natural-born, stage-red misogynists are much more confident and less awkward, although toxic, and so still get laid much more.

The first is developed as a desperate coping mechanism (and can be transcended much more quickly), the second comes from an actual lack of development and empathy.

 

Or at least, this is my opinion and personal experience going through something very similar.

Certainly, Andrew Tate draws in guys who are insecure and he exacerbates the misogynistic feelings that were already there.

But the issue that I take is that you think of overtly aggressive guys like Tate as the average misogynist.

My experience has been that for every 10 regular, awkward, insecure guys who are misogynists, you have 1 macho aggressive misogynist like Tate.

I suspect the general populace over-estimates the Masculinity, aggression, and virility of the average misogynistic guy. 

When I've been on the receiving end of misogyny, it's usually some really insecure average guy who's gotten resentful and is trying to take me down a beg.

But perhaps that's just my own experience. And maybe there are more aggressive emotionally stunted misogynists who have gone numb to their vulnerabilities than there are insecure and vulnerable misogynistic guys.

It just doesn't seem to be the case.

[Raze]

12 hours ago, The Renaissance Man said:

 

Conclusion:

Incel-misogynists are born as nice guys, suffer because their neediness repels women, and adopt convenient toxic ideologies.

Natural-born, stage-red misogynists are much more confident and less awkward, although toxic, and so still get laid much more.

The first is developed as a desperate coping mechanism (and can be transcended much more quickly), the second comes from an actual lack of development and empathy.

 

Like Emerald you are forgetting what is probably the most source cause of misogynistic behavior and beliefs in men, a man who didn’t start out a misogynist, was somewhat successful with women, then became misogynistic after bad experiences with women.

It is a common trope called the jaded player.

Even a woman named Norah Vincent who did an experiment where she tried dating women as a man said after a month she started having misogynistic thoughts despite herself being a woman who had dating women as a woman in the past.

Edited Monday at 10:26 PM by Raze

[zazen]

@Raze That’s true. Once you get to witness the cheating that takes place, the cunningness involved, and the general level of stress induced from relationships - it can jade a man. You hear similar stories from friends in relationships and who’ve been “successful” also.

Also, what gets interpreted as misogyny is sometimes just carelessness. Misogyny is a active hatred and disdain of women, some times - I’d say a lot of the time player types simply don’t care and are indifferent - which is why they also do well.

But indifference also causes hurt - it’s just not a active hatred towards the opposite sex. 

Edited Monday at 10:43 PM by zazen

[Raze]

1 minute ago, zazen said:

@Raze That’s true. Once you get to witness the cheating that takes place, the cunningness involved, and the general level of stress induced from relationships - it can jade a man. You hear similar stories from friends in relationships and who’ve been “successful” also.

Also, what gets interpreted as misogyny is sometimes just carelessness. Misogyny is a active hatred and disdain of women, some times - I’d say a lot of the time player types simply don’t care and are indifferent - which is why they also do well.

But indifference also causes hurt - it’s just not a active hatred towards the opposite sex. 

I’m specifically talking about misogyny as in disdain or hatred of women, it is common in jaded players, not simple indifference or even condescension. 

[kamwalker]

Orange isn't going away in America. Tbh it has only gotten stronger these last few years. Most companies are drilling harder and harder into hyper efficiency and profit generation at the expense of job satisfaction. Leo is right that most want the image of being green while functioning at orange. Notice your bosses always say all the right things in meetings about how they value you, promote mental health, diversity, etc and yet they will fire you in a heart beat and replace you with someone else as soon as they can if you don't fit into their bottom line. Look no further than modern day healthcare, a sector you would expect human decency to be at the core of its existence and yet it has been fucked into oblivion by private equity and reduced doctors into grunt workers who are just cogs in a wheel whose purpose is to churn out as many patients as possible. It's not about providing the best quality care for humans. It's a business like everything else in this country 

[Emerald]

36 minutes ago, kamwalker said:

Orange isn't going away in America. Tbh it has only gotten stronger these last few years. Most companies are drilling harder and harder into hyper efficiency and profit generation at the expense of job satisfaction. Leo is right that most want the image of being green while functioning at orange. Notice your bosses always say all the right things in meetings about how they value you, promote mental health, diversity, etc and yet they will fire you in a heart beat and replace you with someone else as soon as they can if you don't fit into their bottom line. Look no further than modern day healthcare, a sector you would expect human decency to be at the core of its existence and yet it has been fucked into oblivion by private equity and reduced doctors into grunt workers who are just cogs in a wheel whose purpose is to churn out as many patients as possible. It's not about providing the best quality care for humans. It's a business like everything else in this country 

100%

[Hardkill]

36 minutes ago, Emerald said:

100%

So, then what’s was the point of having a political awakening about all of the grosteque levels of inequities ever since Trump first rose to power in 2016 if the sobering reality is that nothing more can be done about any of these things for the foreseeable future, especially now that Trump and MAGA will oppress the 90+% of Americans until probably we’ve all passed away?

Edited Tuesday at 03:29 AM by Hardkill

[Raze]

1 hour ago, kamwalker said:

Orange isn't going away in America. Tbh it has only gotten stronger these last few years. Most companies are drilling harder and harder into hyper efficiency and profit generation at the expense of job satisfaction. Leo is right that most want the image of being green while functioning at orange. Notice your bosses always say all the right things in meetings about how they value you, promote mental health, diversity, etc and yet they will fire you in a heart beat and replace you with someone else as soon as they can if you don't fit into their bottom line. Look no further than modern day healthcare, a sector you would expect human decency to be at the core of its existence and yet it has been fucked into oblivion by private equity and reduced doctors into grunt workers who are just cogs in a wheel whose purpose is to churn out as many patients as possible. It's not about providing the best quality care for humans. It's a business like everything else in this country 

Profit motive is fine if we have proper checks and balances to keep their incentives in the right direction 

[Emerald]

23 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

So, then what’s was the point of having a political awakening about all of the grosteque levels of inequities ever since Trump first rose to power in 2016 if the sobering reality is that nothing more can be done about any of these things for the foreseeable future, especially now that Trump and MAGA will oppress the 90+% of Americans until probably we’ve all passed away?

You're thinking too short term. 

"The wise man plants the seeds to trees that he will never sit under the shade of."

It's only when you set your vision for humanity outside of yourself and connect it to all the people of now and many generations beyond our own, that you can find motivation and meaning to move towards a vision for a better world.

Also, you're not seeing the cyclical nature of collective happenings... and that things always arise out of their opposites.

Things will ebb and flow within a proximal range during our lifetimes changing a lot in some ways and a little in other ways. Right now just happens to be an ebb period, which will probably last a few years or a decade. And it could be incredibly destructive... or more mildly destructive. 

But it is in these catabolic ebb periods that momentum gains for a pendulum swing towards the flow.

In the tale of the Chinese Farmer, there is a series of SEEMINGLY fortunate and unfortunate happenings. And with each successive happening, the positive event seems to turn into something negative. And the negative event seems to turn into something positive.

It starts with the farmer's horse running away. And the farmer goes to his neighbor and says "My horse ran away." And the neighbor says, "That's terrible!" And the farmer says "Maybe."

Then, the farmer's horse comes back home, along with several other wild stallions that the farmer comes to own. And he tells his neighbor. And the neighbor says, "That's wonderful!" And the farmer says "Maybe."

Then, the next day the farmer's son is riding one of the wild stallions, and it bucks him off. And the farmer's son breaks his leg. And he tells his neighbor. And the neighbor says, "That's terrible!" And the farmer says "Maybe."

Then, the next day the army comes to draft to farmer's son to go to war. But because his son's leg is broken, the army decides not to draft him. And he tells his neighbor. And the neighbor says, "That's wonderful!" And the farmer says, "Maybe."

If you want to preserve the current system for as long as possible, elect a Bernie Sanders progressive type. He has been the most conservative option out of anyone running in the past decade because he would make the current system a lot more livable and sustainable.

If you want to shake the system apart and introduce chaos and change, elect someone like Donald Trump. If his power is unchecked, his Narcissistic ways will erode the system away and in the chaos, the problems will become harder or impossible to ignore. And change will happen. And the Shadow of our current system will be laid bare for all to see and integrate.

We're getting the latter option. And it will suck in the short term. But if we're going to wake up and solve global problems like Climate Change, the current system has to become totally untenable. 

[Brittany]

I think Stage Green is losing influence.

Partially because many of the leaders of Stage Green, are shifting to Stage Blue.

Since the pandemic, a lot of people who were Stage Green, are moving more towards conservatism and right wing teachings.

I think the whole "get a vaccine or you can't enter this building" and "get a vaccine or we will fire you" terrified a lot of the Stage Green people.

Hippies and New Agers don't like vaccines.

So, they are now following Stage Blue people, thinking they are "rebelling against the system".

But by following Stage Blue people, they are going to become even more obedient to the system.

Stage Blue leaders have no interest in your freedom. They are just pretending like they care about freedom. And many Stage Green people are falling into the trap.

[Kid A]

3 hours ago, Brittany said:

Since the pandemic, a lot of people who were Stage Green, are moving more towards conservatism and right wing teachings.

I think the whole "get a vaccine or you can't enter this building" and "get a vaccine or we will fire you" terrified a lot of the Stage Green people.

Hippies and New Agers don't like vaccines.

 

I've never quite understood the idea that a virus created in a Chinese lab is somehow more «natural» and healthy than a vaccine...

[soos_mite_ah]

I think whether or not stage green values are being rejected is not super straight forward in our cultural and political climate. Compared to 2014, as far as stage green goes, I feel like we're doing this dance where we take 6 steps forward, 4 steps back and osillate between these two in what feels like every 10 business days to where there isn't stability and consistency in terms of spiral stage when it comes to politics and culture. 

I think you see this more clearly when it comes to more left leaning feminist spaces the most. In 2010s, there was the whole body positivity and girl boss movement in feminism which I would characterize as both a mix of orange and green. The body positivity movement was good about moving away from the diet culture of the 90s and early 00s where emaciated bodies were celebrated and people started to accept themselves more and develop a better relationship with food. That's the stage green aspect of the movement. However, the body positivity movement quickly became overly commercialized as brands tried to use it as a marketing ploy to get people buy shit. In one way it's good and a move towards green in that there is more representation and diversity in the media (though there is still work that needs to be done) to where in the 20s, diversity isn't this radical, revolutionary thing anymore rather it's the standard. I remember like 15 years ago that if you're darker than tan, it's hard to find makeup to suit your skin tone where as now, if a brand releases makeup only to fair skinned individuals, there is a backlash from the public. Having makeup cater to a variety of skin tones isn't like a shocking thing any more rather it's the standard.

However, in the commercialization of the body positivity movement, there was a lot of diluting in their messaging and for a lot of people, it got old and annoying quickly. As a result in the 20s, we have a return to the skinny standard of beauty and all of the celebraties are back to pushing ozempic over accepting yourself (a swing back to orange). Diet culture is back and while it isn't as strong as it was in the 90s and 00s, it is still very present and is masked with better marketing where rather than using the word "diet" people are using the words "wellness" and "clean eating" thus while it still has the same orange core, there is some stage green surface level greenwashing if you will. At the same time, there are also people who recognize that the body positivity movement got diluted due to commercialization but rather than swinging back to diet culture, they are moving further into green by going deeper into the origins of body positivity, fat activism, and how those things intersect with racism, sexism, capitalism, and classism. 

Then there is the girl boss movement in the 2010s where women were encouraged to go into male dominated spaces and hustle their way to the top as a way to achieve more equality in the workforce which leans more green. I think Hillary Clinton running for president is an excellent representation of the cultural zietgiest. While it's great that the girl boss movement was encouraging women to take charge in the work place and move through these spaces in a more confident manner, it was also very superficial and neoliberal in the way things actually played out. It came out that prominant companies that were predominantly female still had the same hiearchial structures and issues as male dominated corporations. It didn't matter if a woman was a CEO, she can still be abusive, power hungry, and exploitative towards the working class. The girl boss movement, though it had promises of stage green, was still pretty orange at it's core. 

Much like the body positivity movement, the reactions against the girl boss movement is met with partly stage orange regresssion as well as partly a deepening of stage green. I'm seeing two reactions to the girl boss movement. The first is the trad wife/ sprinkle sprinkle form of feminism. It's understandable that after the pandemic, a lot of women looked at the work culture and were like "you know what, being a stay at home wife isn't such a bad idea. I'm tired of working myself to the bone to be some kind of girlboss." I think there is some green elements to the trad wife feminism in that there is more discussion on the value of the work women put in the household, how the choice to be a stay at home mom isn't inferior to working, and how femininity should be celebrated. However, it's still a stage orange backlash in the way that it emphasizes traditional gender roles and puts such an emphasis on finding a man who will be a provider. A lot of people weaponize feminist language as a way to repackage traditional gender roles and rigid standards of feminine expression according to what will appeal to men the most. 

There is also a deepening of stage green as well where there are people who saw the pitfalls of the girl boss movement and shifted towards 4th wave feminism. 3rd wave feminism from the 90s to 10s is characterized with exploring the issues women with intersectional identities (mainly race and sexuality) face since 2nd wave feminism focused on labor rights and mainly on the issues that affect white women. 4th wave feminism takes the intersectionality in a deeper level where instead of focusing only on identity politics, there is more discussion of how capitalism plays a role as well as the exploitation of women in the global south who are working in sweat shop conditions. Unlike trad wife feminism, 4th wave feminism knows that marrying a rich man isn't going to save you from capitalism and that aspiring to marrying up rather than critiquing class as a whole is what keeps us in this cycle. 

---------------------------------------

Politically speaking, we're still in polarizing times, even more so than 2016. As far as sprial development goes, I would characterize neoconservatives (your old school republicans like Romney and McCain) are half orange and half blue. Neoliberals (like Pelosi and Schumer) are more half orange and half green. The alt-right and facists like Trump and his cronies are orange with a lot of blue and even some red (think of the Heritage Foundation and the amount of corruption / incompetence that runs through his cabinent compared to the standard bureucrat). While neoliberals and neoconservatives disagree on cultural issues like gay rights, they work in unison when it comes to upholding capitalism and causing conflict in the middle east for financial gain. A lot of them have the same corporate donors. This gives both groups a strong orange core. 

However, what we're seeing now is that economically, we're in late stage capitalism and people's quality of life and sense of stability is dropping, thus causing people to be more prone to populist messaging regardless of whether it's coming from the left or right. There are people who don't authentically align with the right at their core regarding bodily autonomy and gay rights but they are frustrated with the current economic climate and voted for a change without researching what that change was. Like the google search "what is a tariff" spiked after the election smh. However, I will say, that to be authentically green,  Leo is right in that you need education and personal development. The school system is also a mess due to COVID as well as the No Child Left Behind policy from the Bush administration and the underfunding of schools (that's a whole nother problem for discussion). And when people are faced with economic uncertainty, people aren't thinking straight because they're in survival mode, thus they temporarily drop in consciousness are are suceptible to authoritarian messaging that scapes goats groups for said economic problems without actually addressing the real issue, the corporate class.

At the same time, while there is a step back in terms of groups of people being more susceptible to right wing messaging,  there is more discussion of left wing populism in left leaning circles. I feel like if you were to discuss things like capitalism, consumerism, and labor exploitation in 2014, people would look at you like you're fucking insane and an extremist even if you're in left leaning spaces. I remember when Bernie was seen as almost as crazy as Trump as he would rant about the 1% back in 2016 but now, more and more people regardless of if the vote Democrat or Republican are thinking that the guy has points and that he would have been a better candidate than Trump or Kamala. This is a step foward amongst the collective ego backlash we are facing. 

---------------------------------------

Finally, I am seeing a lot of discussion with the manosphere, podcast bros, and the Andrew Tates of the world. I feel like this is mainly an ego backlash to the progress we have seen since the 1970s where in the present day, women are more educated compared to men, we have our own bank accounts, and more autonomy than ever to where we don't need to partner up with any mediocre man in order to get base line survival. This is pouring gasoline on the fire of male insecurity since men aren't getting the marriage and family their fathers and grandfathers got simply by having a job and a bank account. Not only that, even things like getting a job that makes you a provider are few and far between due to wages not keeping up with the cost of living and us living in a late stage capitalist hellscape. Male insecurity, especially sexual insecurity, drives fascism. 

This is also a backlash to the stage green progress in feminism that I wrote about earlier. While the narrative around women and capitalism continues to evolve, the narrative around men and capitalism is stunted at the traditional notion of being a provider and protector. There isn't enough men in the left who are constructively talking about masculinity in a progressive sense to fill the void in the narrative which causes figures like Tate to swoop in and double down on the existing narrative as it's starting to erode with mainsteam feminist discourse. 

[soos_mite_ah]

TLDR: In conclusion, it's not so simple to say whether stage green is losing or gaining ground since the election. We're living in a chaotic time where some people are regressing to orange and blue due to survival pressures but some people are being catapulted to more green in various areas of life. We're amidst a messy collective ego backlash from the influences and cultural zietgist of 2008 to 2019 for better and for worse. 

[DieFree]

Too many years without war. Mothers see their boys with swollen bellies and even tits --- the "blessings" of long years of peace and sugary corn syrup. Green here is not a mercy but a curse. Red, red --- even the mothers yearn for red now. 

[sholomar]

On 11/23/2024 at 5:26 PM, Leo Gura said:

Green cannot deliver on its values because most people are too undeveloped to be Green.

When Green really gets going most people freak out and regress to where they feel comfortable, which is some combination of Orange and Blue.

It's easy to virtue signal about Green, but when the rubber meets the road and it's time to pay taxes or surrender power or give up sex, people say, Hell no, and live at Orange or below.

People want the appearance of having Green values while actually surviving at Orange.

Seems to me one can intellectually be at one level and animalistically at another. Meaning the intellectual understanding of a subject is not embodied by the emotional/animal state. One could be a highly intelligent person who is very self aware and perhaps a serial killer. Doesn't seem to me that people can fit into a single stage, and they tend to be a mixture of stages.  Unless spiral dynamics specifically states that a stage yellow or higher must hold a higher emotional/moral state as a default and not be some emotionless psychopath, which around 5% of the population tend to be, higher in the top of the power structure (CEOs, billionaires)

Green tends to be a bit naive to human nature and get used by lower stages. They don't know how to deal with lower stages other than trying to convert them, and getting upset when the converting doesn't take hold. The type of nation building and cultural conditioning they are trying to achieve is a decades long process, and is indeed a giant work in progress. People today lack patience and have limited attention spans. They want everything done now.

 

Edited Thursday at 06:05 PM by sholomar

[BlueOak]

I'm not doing much to better mankind or the collective when I am facing poverty or survival challenges, as much of the world is.

There is a certain coming together I see around me, but it's only from those perspectives; nothing grander.