I, personally, think we should separate it from the Democratic party to start. The operating paradigm is wrong there. You need to define the new ideal party and then co-opt.
Agreed. In the U.S., the two-party duopoly is a manifestation of the problem. Neither party really stands for any long-term principle anymore (if they ever did). Although both parties will still sometimes selectively campaign on some historical principle, once in power they'll strategically weaken legislation, craft loopholes, defund enforcement or stage manage their votes so nothing that really matters to their stakeholders changes meaningfully.
Anyone still invested in the Kabuki theater of party vs party, even on a 'lesser of evils' basis, is missing the real meta that's unfolding.
The most valuable part was studying formal magic theory - a rather academic specialty focused on human perception and psychology. Very few magicians ever get into it because the vast majority of magicians don't invent their own tricks. Even David Copperfield buys almost all of his tricks from specialized magical inventors you've never heard of, often under exclusive 'performance rights' contracts (which can be fairly lucrative). Most magical inventors don't actually perform magic professionally themselves, in much the same way that many great song writers and music producers aren't singers. To me, magic theory is still the most fascinating and enjoyable part of magic.
If you can identify why humanity keeps regressing to feudalism, you could perhaps introduce just the elements that make it successful and stable while keeping the egalitarian ethos of democracy.
What happened was the United States became, for all intents and purposes, post-scarcity. We had enough stuff, now it was a game of who got it.
"Feudal" approaches to running corporations and is because Democracy isn't about being the most competitive, so of course it isn't right for an economically incentivized business. It is making an intentional trade-off from efficiency for long-run stability and human dignity. Feudalism is playing a finite game (you must win). Democracy is trying to play an infinite one (you must make it to the next turn).
It's the game theory playing on individuals' personal interests. The feudal system is aimed at assuring the status-quo for each participant in the power pyramid. The king relies on the high nobles to keep him and themselves in power, the high nobles rely on lesser nobles in the same way, and so on, everyone having to acknowledge and pledge loyalty/protection to someone else in order to get a modicum of security for their stance. Of course, everyone also has to extract and share resources upward. The collective interest is only secondary and this fact, for better or worse, keeps the life simple and fits the human psychic very well.
However, I do not agree that feudal social order is efficient. The nature of relations between people made things very transactional and specific, which imposed hard limits on the amount and degree of mobilizing and engaging people for pretty much anything.
Normally, that would also make it easier to model, but feudalism also tends to gain entropy through inbreeding.
I agree that it has less productive efficiency - democracies usually have stronger economies, often much stronger, than feudal societies. I suspect that this is actually related to the previous point. The increased decision-making efficiency of feudalism comes from a reduced need to get buy-in from people, but if you don't have buy-in from the people doing the work, they will probably half-ass the work. You see this throughout history: the serf works less than the freeholding peasant, the feudal society does not innovate, new inventions get shot down by the social hierarchy, industrialism does not take hold or when it does it's in inefficient top-down forms, etc.
There's still an unresolved contradiction here in that this would imply that feudalism would be more successful in times of quick change, but the historical record is that feudalism becomes very entrenched during times of stasis or decline, but often gets outcompeted in times of rapid growth and innovation. I still have no idea what's up here; perhaps it has to do with the existence of feudal-structure organizations (eg. corporations) within a democratic framework.
There are some good bits in this writing, it did point out some of the core problems, I was going to discuss some of those points, but the sentences kept rolling by, losing focus and getting sidelined into heroic drama like the quote above.
Actually, there's nothing new, those who taste power want more of it, and since power corrupts, attaining absolute power requires absolute corruption, at some point it must be made legal, based on some theory of rightful oppresiosn and cannot be allowed to be called corruption - "1984" was written long time ago.
It's kind of disturbing to see something so simple and ancient being effectively deployed with absolutely nothing realistically useful against it.
It's time to stop acting surprised that this is happening in America, the Constitution won't defend itself, and Hollywood drama isn't the way to defended it.
We need politics 101, streetwise edition, which ironically, isn't about going to the streets. The first step is to to discuss the policies of the Democratic party, motivations aside, they appear to be more of an aid than a deterrent of the process unfolding before us.