In the post-WW2 period there was a lot of anti-technology sentiments. Beatniks and hippies wanted to go back to nature, 1970 anarchists destroyed computers and after the Chernobyl disaster anti-nuclear sentiments became mainstream.

And then millennials came, trusting technology as no generation since the GIs. I know this is what S&H predicted, but what specific reasons made millennials develop this way?

We had the Xers from 1961-86, the Millies from 1982-2004 (probably), and since then the Homelanders. Except for the latter, these aren't Artist generations.

But we know after all: It doesn't depend on the birth year to become a certain Archetype, but on the concrete experiences of people.

The experiences of the Artists started in a time when most fathers were either away fighting in Europe and the Pacific, or working double shifts in factories etc. In nay case, mothers had more influence on the children than anyone else. Explains the tendency of the Artists towards sensitivity.

My point: Since the so-called Consciousness Revolution (ConRev, anyone?), many kids grew up with single mothers. And without a father. Often, that lead to problems later in life.

Since fatherless kids are in that regard a bit like e.g. the Silents - can we say that all fatherless kids are a bit like Artists? Especially those who were smothered by their mothers.

A new poll shows what really interests 'pro-lifers': controlling women

Quote:According to self-identified “pro-life” advocates, the fundamental divide between those who want to outlaw abortion and those who want to keep it legal comes down to one question: when does life begin? Anti-abortion advocacy pushes the view that life begins at conception; the name of their movement carefully centers the conceit that opposition to abortion rights is simply about wanting to save human lives.

A new poll shows that’s a lie. The “pro-life” movement is fundamentally about misogyny.

A Supermajority/PerryUndem survey released this week divides respondents by their position on abortion, and then tracks their answers to 10 questions on gender equality more generally. On every question, anti-abortion voters were significantly more hostile to gender equity than pro-choice voters.

Do men make better political leaders than women? More than half of anti-abortion voters agreed. Do you want there to be equal numbers of men and women in positions of power in America? Fewer than half of abortion opponents said yes – compared with 80% of pro-choicers, who said they want women to share in power equally.

Anti-abortion voters don’t like the #MeToo movement. They don’t think the lack of women in positions of power impacts women’s equality. They don’t think access to birth control impacts women’s equality. They don’t think the way women are treated in society is an important issue in the 2020 election.

In other words, they don’t believe sexism is a problem, and they’re hostile to women’s rights. Pro-lifers are sexists in denial – yes, the women too.

I want to float the idea that Trump's tariff wars fulfill a Prophet archetype role. In the 4T, the Prophet leader is supposed to push society to resolve long developing issues of the 3T. The rise of China in unfair competition with the U.S. could be thought of as one such issue. Certainly many complained about it in the 3T. The loss of manufacturing jobs, the theft of intellectual property, human rights abuses - China is blamed for these.


Trump is confronting the issue with his trade war. The rising price of consumer goods and decline of the stock market that come with the tariffs are a sacrifice we as Americans must make in solidarity with our 4T leadership. That is also part of the Prophet's role in the 4T - demanding sacrifice.


Whether or not his policy will work, and whether or not he is a good person is not the point. The point is Trump is leading in a manner consistent with what turnings theory predicts for his generation in this turning.

We've talked all around the subject of the new politics, but haven't addressed it as such.  There's a lot to unwind here, so let's make a list, expand on it, and discuss as appropriate.  In no special order:

• The end of the economy as we know it.  Whatever else we can say, it's now blatantly obvious that the economy is not going to return to anything resembling the form it held in the post-war era.  Sure, the titans of the universe swear that they're going to lead their economic behemoths in new more human friendly ways, but are they serious or simply cynical in the extreme.  In any case, how can they reverse the irreversible march toward automating away the productive work we all have assumed is the basis for a good and valuable life?
  
• Populism and the new political alignments.  This is now a worldwide phenomenon, one that didn't really start in the US but is now driven by the Trump Presidency.  The realignment is in full force, and seems to be the Know Nothings versus the Know-It-Alls.  Is this even viable over more than the short term, with both groups encompassing widely diverse belief systems (moreso among the Know-It-Alls).  And what happens to the obvious disconnect between the 0.1% and the rest of us, if that group of rare-air breathers also splits between the camps?
  
• Religion and tyranny. Here's a topic that still baffles me: how can the religiously committed be so firmly in the right-wing populist corner?  We've seen Trump, but what about other populists, like Bolsonaro in Brazil, Duterte in the Philippines or Erdogan in Turkey? How does the belief in feeding the hungry and lifting-up the poor align with autocrats and oligarchs?  Color me baffled.
  
• The total lack of vision.  Without pushing this too far, I can't see any political person or group that has a real vision of a viable future and a plan to get there, no matter how flimsy.  Everything is reduced to the next election, in democratic countries, and to a new stasis in the autocratic ones.  It's as if nothing that is happening is expected to have any impact on politics.  Nothing!  Which brings me to my last topic for now
  
• Rising war tensions and global climate change.  We all have been acting like these potentially society ending processes are either not happening at all, or are so easily managed that they can be ignored until some time in the not-too-immediate future.  This is irresponsible in the extreme, but voters seem totally disengaged.  Politicians that are engaged are marginalized.  Why?

Whenever I log in, I get remembered by the forum software that the connection is insecure. Can we get this changed? Certificates don't cost the world.

Just a really cool video including recordings of people telling their account of the civil war. Fascinating and priceless video recordings and stories.

Where are they?

A few surprises - real surprises.

We know that when the Boomers were kids, most mothers stayed housewifes to care for their kids. As a result, most Boomers had a way closer relationship to their mothers than to their fathers.

At the end, this hurt the [G.I.] fathers: The Boomer kids saw their mothers doing housework (and these mothers were the last generation of housewives who didn't have vacuum cleaners, washing machines etc. At least not all the time.). But the Boomers never saw their fathers at work.

This must have contributed to the Boomers rebelling against their fathers, and supporting feminism.

Despite the fact that many male feminists were crooks of the worst kind. Like Sol Wachtler who helped making rape during marriage a crime (until then, wives had the duty to agree with sex), and later harassed a woman himself. Fucking hypocrite.

Trump official revises Statue of Liberty poem to defend migrant rule change


A top US immigration official has revised a quote inscribed on the Statue of Liberty in defence of a new policy that denies food aid to legal migrants.
The head of Citizenship and Immigration Services tweaked the passage: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free".
The official added the words "who can stand on their own two feet and who will not become a public charge".
It comes as Trump officials debuted a regulation that denies aid to migrants.
Ken Cuccinelli, the Trump administration's acting head of Citizenship and Immigration Services, announced on Monday a new "public charge" requirement that limits legal migrants from seeking certain public benefits such as public housing or food aid, or are considered likely to do so in the future.

The new regulation, known as a "public charge rule", was published in the Federal Register on Monday and will take effect on 15 October.
The rule change is intended to reinforce "ideals of self-sufficiency", officials said. Critics argue that it will prevent low-income US residents from seeking help.

• Trump targets legal migrants who get food aid
  

• What's the state of illegal immigration in US?
  
  
• Six surprising statistics about immigrants in the US