Senin, 03 Agustus 2026
===
LOLO:
What does the daily routine of a night owl like Mao Zedong look like?
STUPID:
Mao Zedong famously lived the life of an extreme night owl, often shifting his entire schedule to align with the night hours. His daily routine typically included:
* Late Waking Hours: Mao usually slept well into the afternoon, waking up around 2:00 PM or 3:00 PM.
* Nighttime Productivity: His brain peaked at night. He would spend the late evening, night, and early morning hours reading, reviewing government documents, meeting with officials, and writing poetry or political essays.
* Unconventional Meals: His first proper meal of the day often served as his "breakfast" in the late afternoon, with his main meals shifted hours later than standard schedules.
* Dawn Sleep: He typically went to sleep around sunrise, frequently between 4:00 AM and 6:00 AM, viewing the quiet morning hours as his time to finally rest.
---
LOLO:
Are there any articles that explain Mao's daily routine?
STUPID:
Yes, there are several historical accounts, biographies, and articles detailing Mao Zedong's unusual daily routine.
The most famous and detailed source of information comes from "The Private Life of Chairman Mao", a memoir written by Dr. Li Zhisui, who served as Mao's personal physician for over 22 years. Additionally, various historical analyses and articles published by academic platforms (such as JSTOR Daily) and historical journals explore his extreme night-owl habits, erratic sleep schedule, and how he ran the Chinese government largely from his bed during the night hours.
---
LOLO:
Globally speaking, is Mao Zedong more famous or Suharto?
STUPID:
Globally speaking, Mao Zedong is significantly more famous than Suharto.
* Global Historical Impact: Mao Zedong was the founding father of the People's Republic of China, one of the world's superpowers, and led a massive political and social revolution that reshaped global geopolitics in the 20th century. His face remains iconic worldwide (appearing on China's currency and in global pop culture, such as Andy Warhol's famous paintings), making him a staple of world history curricula globally.
* Recognition of Suharto: While Suharto was a prominent and powerful figure who ruled Indonesia for over three decades and played a major role in Cold War politics in Southeast Asia, his name and legacy are generally less well-known outside of Southeast Asian studies, international relations, and specialized history contexts compared to major global heavyweights like Mao.
---
LOLO:
How about Mao Zedong and Sukarno? Who is more famous on a global scale?
STUPID:
Globally speaking, Mao Zedong is also significantly more famous than Sukarno.
* Scale of Influence: Mao Zedong led the Chinese Communist Revolution and governed the world's most populous nation, making him a central figure in 20th-century world history, Cold War politics, and global communist movements. His political ideology (Maoism) spread globally, securing his place in standard international textbooks.
* Sukarno's Global Role: Sukarno was indeed a towering figure internationally, particularly as the charismatic founding father and first president of Indonesia, a leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, and the host of the historic 1955 Bandung Conference. While well-respected among historians and international relations scholars, his global household name recognition outside of Indonesia and diplomatic circles is generally smaller than Mao's.
---
LOLO:
What caused China to develop faster than Indonesia, even though the PRC was established in 1949 and Indonesia became independent in 1945?
STUPID:
The rapid development of China compared to Indonesia, despite Indonesia gaining independence a few years earlier in 1945, is a frequent topic of economic and historical analysis. Several key factors contributed to this divergence:
* Massive Scale and Centralized Planning: China's immense population and centralized authoritarian government allowed it to mobilize labor and resources on an unprecedented scale. Once economic reforms began in 1978 under Deng Xiaoping, the state could rapidly implement massive infrastructure projects, industrial policies, and special economic zones.
* Aggressive Industrialization and Global Manufacturing: China strategically integrated itself into global supply chains, positioning itself as the "world's factory." Massive foreign direct investment (FDI), coupled with a focus on manufacturing exports and technology transfer, catapulted its economic growth.
* Education and Human Capital: China heavily invested in mass education, science, and technology, building a highly skilled and disciplined workforce that supported its transition into a high-tech and manufacturing powerhouse.
* Political Stability Post-Reform: Following the turbulent decades of Mao's era (such as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution), China achieved long-term political stability and policy continuity after 1978, which gave foreign and domestic investors immense confidence.
While Indonesia has also experienced significant economic growth and democratic progress since the 1998 Reformasi, structural challenges, regional distribution complexities, and varying paces of bureaucratic and infrastructure reform have contributed to a different developmental trajectory.
---
LOLO:
Why is pancasila strictly anti-communist, even though communism has a much more global reach than pancasila?
STUPID:
Pancasila's strong opposition to communism stems from fundamental philosophical, historical, and political incompatibilities, regardless of communism's wider global reach. Several key factors explain this stance:
* Belief in One Supreme God (Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa): The very first principle of Pancasila mandates belief in God. In contrast, classical Marxist-Leninist communism is rooted in historical materialism and state atheism, which views religion as incompatible with communist ideology. This foundational spiritual conflict made communism an ideological threat to Indonesia's national identity.
* Historical Conflict and Trauma: Indonesia experienced deep political polarization during the mid-20th century, culminating in violent clashes between the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) and other political and military groups, particularly the tragic events of 1965. This history cemented anti-communism as a core pillar of state security and national policy, particularly during the New Order era.
* Rejection of Class Struggle and Violent Revolution: Communism promotes international class struggle, the abolition of private property, and often violent revolution to overthrow existing social structures. Conversely, Pancasila emphasizes national unity, consensus-based democracy (Musyawarah untuk Mufakat), and social justice achieved through harmony rather than radical class warfare.
* Local Identity vs. Global Ideology: While communism is a transnational, global ideology aiming for a borderless worker's revolution, Pancasila was specifically formulated as an indigenous, unifying ideology tailored to Indonesia's unique cultural, religious, and ethnic diversity ("Bhinneka Tunggal Ika").
---
LOLO:
Does that mean it is completely wrong to pit Pancasila against communism? They have different scopes. If it's Pancasila versus Maoism, I think they are on equal footing. What do you think?
STUPID:
That is a compelling perspective. Comparing Pancasila directly to communism as a whole can indeed feel like an uneven comparison, primarily because of scale and categorization:
* Differing Categories: Communism is a broad, global socio-economic and political ideology with many branches (such as Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism, and Maoism), whereas Pancasila is a specific, foundational state philosophy tailored to a single nation-state (Indonesia).
* The Maoism Comparison: Pitting Pancasila against a specific variant like Maoism makes a lot of sense from a historical and ideological standpoint. Maoism is an aggressive, revolutionary model of communism that explicitly advocates for armed agrarian insurrection, intense class struggle, and the complete dismantling of traditional state structures—making it a direct, concrete ideological counter-model to the state harmony, religious devotion, and guided democracy promoted by Pancasila during the mid-20th century.
So, while calling it "completely wrong" depends on the analytical context—since Indonesian state policy historically treated communism as a monolithic existential threat—your point about scope and specific comparison (Pancasila versus Maoism as direct political alternatives) is a very sharp historical observation.
---
LOLO:
The first precept of Pancasila already clashes with real life. It stems from monotheism, but not all official religions in Indonesia are monotheistic. How would you argue against that?
STUPID:
That argument raises a profound and heavily debated question regarding the interpretation of Indonesia's national philosophy. To counter or analyze that perspective, historians and constitutional scholars generally offer several points:
* The Broad Definition of "God" (Ketuhanan): Legal and philosophical scholars argue that the first precept, Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa, was intentionally framed in broad, inclusive terms rather than strictly narrow monotheism. The term "Maha Esa" denotes absolute unity or supreme divinity, which Indonesian courts and constitutional experts have interpreted broadly enough to encompass the theological frameworks of the country's recognized religions—including Buddhism and Confucianism—focusing on transcendent moral order and ultimate truth rather than solely Abrahamic monotheism.
* Historical Intent and Inclusivity: When the founding fathers (including nationalist and Islamic figures) formulated Pancasila in 1945, the goal was to bridge the gap between secular nationalists and Islamic groups. While Abrahamic and monotheistic concepts heavily influenced the phrasing, the overarching intent was to create an umbrella framework where all citizens possessed a moral and spiritual compass, preventing Indonesia from becoming either a strictly secular state or a theocracy.
* The Distinction Between Theology and State Philosophy: Critics often point out technical theological divergences—such as Buddhism's nontheistic nature regarding a personal creator god. However, defenders of Pancasila argue that it is a political philosophy for national unity, not a rigid theological textbook. Its primary function is to anchor public morality in spiritual accountability, ensuring that the state respects religious values as a collective foundation.
---
LOLO:
What serves as the equivalent of Pancasila in countries like the United States?
STUPID:
While the United States does not have a single official state ideology like Indonesia's Pancasila, it has a set of foundational documents, core political values, and civic creeds that serve a very similar unifying function:
* The Founding Documents: The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution act as the country's ultimate ideological bedrock. The Declaration introduces the core creed that "all men are created equal" and possess unalienable rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," while the Constitution outlines the structure of government and civil liberties.
* The "American Creed": Coined by political scientist Samuel P. Huntington, this term refers to a set of widely accepted political ideals—including liberty, equality, individualism, democracy, and the rule of law. It acts as the secular moral glue that binds a diverse, immigrant-driven nation together, much like Bhinneka Tunggal Ika (Unity in Diversity) under Pancasila.
* Civic Religion and National Symbols: Concepts like "Manifest Destiny," the "American Dream," and frequent references to a creator (e.g., "In God We Trust" on currency and "One Nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance) function as a form of civil religion that instills a shared national identity.
Unlike Pancasila, which is an explicit, concise five-point state philosophy taught formally in schools and government institutions, the American equivalent is more diffuse—woven into legal tradition, constitutional patriotism, and civic culture.
---
LOLO:
The interesting thing is that... By Golden Indonesia 2045, Indonesia is predicted to be the 4th-ranked superpower. Curiously, this trajectory is driven by China holding the 1st spot. Almost certainly, had China not claimed the top position, Indonesia would not have made it to 4th. This implies a synergy between Pancasila Indonesia and communist China, which completely defies the logic of the New Order era, doesn't it?
STUPID:
That is a profound and fascinating paradox. From a purely ideological standpoint rooted in the Cold War mindset of Indonesia's New Order era, this alliance or economic convergence certainly seems contradictory. However, modern geopolitics and economic pragmatism explain why this makes complete sense today:
* Pragmatism Over Ideology: The New Order regime under Suharto viewed communism as an absolute, existential domestic threat, strictly cutting ties with Beijing for decades. Today, however, global relations are driven primarily by economic integration, trade, and infrastructure development rather than ideological purity. Indonesia needs investment and market access, and China (as an economic powerhouse) is a primary engine for that growth.
* The Mechanics of the "Asian Century": China's rise as the world's largest economy creates a massive ripple effect. Its massive demand for raw materials (such as nickel and coal), capital investments, and integration into global supply chains directly pull emerging economies like Indonesia upward. In economic terms, a rising tide lifts all boats, making China's growth a catalyst for Indonesia's ascent.
* Independent and Active Foreign Policy (Politik Luar Negeri Bebas Aktif): Indonesia's long-standing foreign policy doctrine is "free and active"—meaning it remains non-aligned and trades with everyone without adopting their domestic ideologies. Cooperating economically with communist China does not mean Indonesia adopts communism; rather, it utilizes global economic dynamics for national development.
So, while it completely shatters the rigid ideological paranoia of the New Order, it perfectly reflects 21st-century global realism: national interest and economic survival trump ideological boundaries.
===
KAMIS, 20 AGUSTUS 2026
URI:
Selama ini, kita dibodohi oleh Orde Baru. Pancasila itu nggak mungkin bisa melawan Komunisme. Kenapa? Sebab Pancasila itu sifatnya lokal, hanya berlaku di Indonesia. Sedangkan Komunisme itu dunia. Strategi ideologi zaman Suharto sudah basi di abad internet kayak sekarang. Maka yang jadi pertanyaan, apa yang bisa dibanggakan dari poin "Suhartoisme"? (00.20)
URI:
Alias... Pancasila adalah ideologi yang jago kandang doang, gak ada taringnya di dunia internasional. Nggak usah jauh-jauh, kita aja dulu ikutan P4 males-malesan.
URI:
Jadi salah besar membandingkan Pancasila dengan Komunisme. Pancasila sifatnya lokal, sedangkan Komunisme itu global. Maka aku bilang ke seseorang beberapa tahun lalu, "komunisme" itu nggak bakalan bisa hilang. Kalo PKI, iya bisa hilang.
URI:
Apalagi zaman internet kayak sekarang. Bandingkan aja dengan era satu corong TVRI, alias Departemen Penerangan di zaman ORBA.
---
SENIN, 7 SEPTEMBER 2026
MACHINE LEARNING:
Puncak musim kemarau 2026 di sebagian besar wilayah Indonesia diprediksi berlangsung pada Agustus hingga September 2026
URI:
Sebelumnya hanya bulan Agustus yang disebut puncak kemarau. (16.39)
KIN:
Ya Allah, semoga saja segera hujan. (16.43)
---
@WEF_INTEL:
What happens when the glaciers run out?
STUPID LOLO:
Earth loses vital natural freshwater reservoirs, causing severe water shortages, rising sea levels, and disrupted global weather patterns. Billions of people rely on glaciers. (via Machine Learning)
---
---