Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 7,056
» Latest member: JennaCheon
» Forum threads: 1,357
» Forum posts: 45,507

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 30 online users.
» 1 Member(s) | 29 Guest(s)
Bob Butler 54

Latest Threads
Gray Champion Predictions
Forum: Theory Related Political Discussions
Last Post: Tim Randal Walker
2 hours ago
» Replies: 90
» Views: 11,829
Time to END racism
Forum: Society and Culture
Last Post: Tim Randal Walker
2 hours ago
» Replies: 30
» Views: 392
Generational Dynamics Wor...
Forum: Theories Of History
Last Post: Bob Butler 54
2 hours ago
» Replies: 3,638
» Views: 726,461
The Partisan Divide on Is...
Forum: General Political Discussion
Last Post: Bob Butler 54
3 hours ago
» Replies: 1,250
» Views: 35,490
the best songs ever: the ...
Forum: Entertainment and Media
Last Post: Eric the Green
3 hours ago
» Replies: 490
» Views: 145,385
The Coronavirus
Forum: General Political Discussion
Last Post: David Horn
Yesterday, 03:37 PM
» Replies: 868
» Views: 16,716
Generational Talk YouTube...
Forum: General Discussion
Last Post: sbarrera
Yesterday, 02:03 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 114
A Gen Xer Rants On The La...
Forum: Generations
Last Post: David Horn
07-08-2020, 04:39 PM
» Replies: 8
» Views: 81
The Birthday Party
Forum: General Political Discussion
Last Post: David Horn
07-08-2020, 04:37 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 30
If Trump loses the next e...
Forum: General Political Discussion
Last Post: David Horn
07-08-2020, 12:35 PM
» Replies: 38
» Views: 531

 
  The Next Warrior Age - Right Under Our Noses?
Posted by: Anthony '58 - 06-19-2020, 08:45 AM - Forum: The Future - Replies (14)

The Broken Windows Theory.  The death penalty for drug dealers.  Caning as a punishment.  High wealth inequality (their Gini coefficient is about the same as ours).  A one-party state in everything but name.  Free speech and a free press - so long as it isn't "seditious."

All concentrated in this tiny country - and coming to the whole world soon?

https://thebulwark.com/misunderstanding-singapore/

Misunderstanding Singapore

What the world gets wrong about the small, economic powerhouse—and its response to the pandemic.

Having lived in Singapore for the past ten months, on this my third trip here, I sometimes think the so-called Red Dot must be the most misunderstood country on earth. Its plight is owed to the outsized improbability of the place, hence its stubborn refusal to fit neatly into categories others have designed for the purpose of taming perceived “otherness.” Indeed, Singapore is variably misunderstood, the nature and degree of misunderstanding varying according to who is trying to cram it into which pigeonholes and why.

What the Chinese get wrong about Singapore

Mainland Chinese misunderstand Singapore because they assume that since nearly three-quarters of the country’s roughly 3.5 million citizens are ethnic Chinese, Singapore is a “Chinese country.” In some ways it is. In most ways that count it isn’t.

Singapore is the only majority-ethnic-Chinese country not geographically part of historical China. That is improbable. Like Hong Kong, too, its roughly 150-year history as a British colony and mercantile hub makes it different, institutionally and attitudinally, from China. In the 19th and early 20th centuries a small but significant minority of Chinese in Singapore sought actively to modernize by adopting many British institutions and manners, including English and sometimes Christianity. Meanwhile, in China efforts to modernize traversed the 1911 Revolution on a roughly similar trajectory, but soon detoured into chaos and then Marxism. The path dependency deviation between the groups matters.

Singapore was also thrust into sovereignty suddenly and against its will, yet another mark of improbability as history goes. Malaysia kicked it out of the newly formed federation in 1965, possibly the most fraught year in recent Southeast Asian history for a tiny, still mostly poor and virtually defenseless country to survive. Singapore survived anyway, its near-death experience profoundly shaping its sense of self in ways sharply divergent from the experience of mainland Chinese.


Most ethnic Chinese in Singapore, too, as also in other Southeast Asian countries, are descendants of minority dialect communities—mainly Hokkien, Hakka, Teochew, Cantonese, Hainanese, and the special category of Peranakan (a Chinese-Malay mixed group with a unique cultural style whose origins go back 15th-century Malacca). Collectively known as Nanyang (Southern Sea) or overseas Chinese, among themselves they are “Tang people” because it was during the Tang Dynasty (7th-10th centuries) that the ancestors of these groups migrated south before some headed out on Southeast Asia’s waves.

All this differentiates ethnic Chinese in Singapore from majority Han, Mandarin-speaking Chinese in China. But since 3.5 million people is less than the standard margin of error in the Chinese census, it is easy for mainland Chinese to misunderstand a thing so small that it seems almost negligible. When Singaporean diplomats and politicians insist to Chinese officials that Singapore is a multi-ethnic and multi-confessional society, as liberal an aspiration as a state is liable to adopt nowadays, Chinese officials typically smile and check their Rolexes. They are patient, and lately a little more insistent.

Singaporeans, meanwhile, understand China better than Chinese do Singapore, because they need to. This has led to muted schizophrenia. On the one hand, many Chinese Singaporeans feel proud to have tutored their big brother to the north on how to run an efficient, “smart” one-party state system, despite knowing that the sources and nature of the one party differ. On the other, many upscale Singaporean Chinese wince at mainlanders’ brusqueness, lack of worldliness, and the cloying nouveau riche behavior of wealthy Chinese whilst traveling abroad—including to Singapore’s spiffy Marina Bay Sands and Orchard Road shopping meccas
.

What Europe and the U.K. get wrong about Singapore

Many Europeans, and British if we count them separately, not only misunderstand Singapore, but some lately do so willfully. It’s been sporting to drag the country-cum-metaphor into the desultory but encompassing and protracted Brexit bust-up of the European Union. Both “remain” and “leave” factions in Britain, and diverse Continentals too, have over the past few years enjoyed tossing Singapore about by calling a would-be post-EU Britain a “Singapore on the North Sea” or a “Singapore on the Thames.”

What is usually meant by such epithets is that Britain will adopt beggar-thy-neighbor policies to get the better of its former partners. Some commentators, for example Pippa Norris in a recent Foreign Affairs essay, have specifically mentioned environmental standards, labor rights concerns, and food safety protocols. By implication, therefore, they suggest without apparently having thought it through that Singapore’s environmental standards are lower than, say, Indonesia’s; that its labor rights record, for citizens and permanent residents at least, is worse than Thailand’s; and that its food safety protocols are inferior to, say, Malaysia’s.

This is nonsense, of course. But it doesn’t matter when European scribblers do battle with each other. As with mainland Chinese not being bothered to look at real, existing Singapore, Europeans typically know little about how Singapore actually works.

Now, as far as imaginable beggar-thy-neighbor traits go, it’s true that banks in Singapore are typically more willing to ignore where large cash deposits come from, at least to a point, than is the case in the United States or Western Europe these days. After U.S. pressure on Switzerland some years ago caused changes in Swiss banking practices, Singapore moved carefully—as it turned out not carefully enough—to fill the vacuum thus created. Singapore’s government-owned DBS Bank got implicated in Malaysia’s 2015 1MDB scandal, after which the authorities backpedaled quietly but assiduously to relative safety.

It is true, too, that Singapore has a famed maximum-security private warehouse—so not a bonded warehouse within the jurisdiction of Singapore Customs—called La Freeport, nicknamed Singapore’s Fort Knox. La Freeport is for wealthy people to store and transit expensive items without taxes levied, customs fees collected, or questions asked about where the stuff came from. (Several countries have free-port facilities.)


It is true, too, that as the world’s largest maritime transshipment hub, officials know that the parade of ships lined up coming to and leaving the Port of Singapore Authority may be carrying cargos not fully listed on their manifests. But it would be extremely expensive to all concerned, if not impossible logistically, to fully inspect every ship in port, and carriers know that. So do the smugglers who pay kickbacks to some even as they bribe others into discretion.

Look, we’re talking here about a society heavily populated by overseas Chinese in a place that before World War II had a well-deserved reputation for over-the-top gambling, prostitution, opium dens, and more. The current generation, while hardly the same as their precursors, has not jumped completely out of its cultural skin. Boy Scouts they aren’t.

It is also true that corporate taxes are low in Singapore. But what attracts large corporations to site their Southeast Asian operations here is not mainly the tax rate or any banking “courtesies.” It’s the presence of ample talented human capital available to work for multinational enterprises, Singapore’s lack of “friction” (read: bureaucratic corruption), its safety, political and fiscal stability, and willingness to invest in itself.


Indeed, if one looks functionally at Singapore, it resembles less a typical country than a multinational corporation with global reach that just happens to have a flag, a U.N. seat, and an anthem. It doesn’t so much have an industrial policy, epitomized by the state-owned collection of sectoral-critical companies under the umbrella of Temasek, as it is an industrial policy. With assets of about $320 billion, Temasek’s only shareholder is the Singapore Ministry of Finance. That, too, is improbable.

Together with Singapore’s more conventional sovereign wealth fund, the GIC (Government of Singapore Investment Corporation), with estimated assets of $440 billion, a back-of-the-envelope calculation of Singapore’s deployable surplus financial assets comes out to around $218,000 in the black for every Singaporean man, woman, and child. (The exact numbers are not published so as to discourage currency speculation by local and international traders.)

A post-Brexit “Singapore on the Thames,” or for that matter any individual European Union member-state these days, should be so lucky—or so provident and economically competent—to have that kind of liquidity at the ready. They could really use it about now.


What the U.S. gets wrong about Singapore

So what of a United States, with a national debt of nearly $25 trillion—which translates into $75,757 per capita in the red? How do Americans misunderstand Singapore? Let us count a few of the ways.

Singapore is an authoritarian state, right? Well, Singapore is a one-party state, but not much less so than Japan has been since it re-emerged as a sovereign state in 1951. No one claims that Japan isn’t a democracy, so why Singapore? There are regular elections . . . which the People’s Action Party happens always to win.

Singapore is a “managed” democracy, and let’s be frank about what that means: The opposition is not going to win political power short of pigs flying and the moon audibly whistling “Majulah Singapura.” The system is subtly but effectively rigged—I mean protected—against that. So Singapore is not a liberal democracy by law or constitutional guarantee. There are limits on due process, for example, that Americans would not tolerate. But despite that, Singapore produces mainly liberal outcomes. Aside from its both principled and pragmatic quest for ever more multi-ethnic and multi-confessional harmony, people here are free to leave the country and return at will, to read anything they like, and to write and say anything they like so long as it doesn’t cross the line into potentially incendiary bigotry or intolerance. The line can move this way and that if the authorities think it needs to, so most critics self-police.

Once you’ve been here a while, you understand the reasons for this. Given its location and multi-ethnic composition, Singapore lacks the buffers of external security and social stability that America has typically—but obviously not always—enjoyed. For various reasons, Americans tolerate more individuated noise and ambient disorder than most people; Singaporeans, like most East Asians, place a higher premium on conformity and risk-avoidance. Americans demand political agency and voice; in Singapore those qualities rank lower on the priority list. Younger people sometimes chafe at this, but not enough yet to approach any significant tipping point. China will not pluralize its politics in a Western sense anytime soon, and Singaporean elites will not abandon their paternalist outlook either.

But Singapore has the death penalty! Yes, and so do thirty U.S. states. Singapore has not used that penalty much lately, and it still has virtually no violent crime or serious drug problem. It has no gun violence either, because tens of thousands of guns aren’t lying around.

But Singapore is a police state! Really? Then where are the police? Except during the famous annual Formula One race, where the cops are out in force to protect people against large numbers of drunken foreign chowderheads, you rarely see any. Maybe they’re sunk down in their cop-lairs watching the CCTV monitors that are ubiquitous here. Indeed, that might be why women of any age can walk anywhere, day or night, without fear of assault. And why there is virtually no graffiti or petty vandalism.

But the caning! Singaporeans did not invent caning as a punishment; the British did. I dislike the paternalism it represents, but I’m not a Singaporean so it’s none of my business. As for the infamous 1994 case involving then-18-year old Michael Fay, few Americans know that, beyond stealing road signs and squirreling them away in his room for no particular reason, Fay said “Fuck you” to the judge during his trial. Had he done that in, say, Kentucky or Texas, he’d have longed for a mere four switch swats on his asinine teenage ass.


But the chewing gum ban! That’s just Singapore’s way of implementing James Q. Wilson’s “broken windows” theory, which holds that public order is seamless and associative. It worked in the New York City subway system, and it works in Singapore.

Singapore and COVID-19

Ah, but efficient, technocratic, shiny, chip-on-shoulder Singapore has screwed up the COVID-19 crisis big time, hasn’t it? The U.S. media reports that number of cases has skyrocketed lately, and numbers don’t lie.

It’s true that numbers don’t lie, but it’s equally true that those who rely on numbers without sociological filters to tell them social truths are muttonheads. Recent U.S. press reports on Singapore’s handling of the pandemic have been misleading.


Let’s summarize the record. Singapore felt the foul winds from Wuhan very early in what became the pandemic. If Americans generally or the U.S. government had been paying attention to what was happening here, they wouldn’t have been caught with their britches down. But ’merkins, as Lyndon Johnson used to pronounce it, pretty much never care about, pay attention to, or deign to listen to foreigners—especially one from such a teeny little place as this. You play with and pet a cute little bunny, you don’t seek advice from it or respect its capacity to teach you anything.

The last public lecture sponsored by the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Nanyang Technological University, my host for the year, took place on January 31. I should know because I delivered it. From mid-January through mid-March, Singapore kept its infection curve fairly flat, as effectively as—if not more so than—Taiwan, South Korea, and Hong Kong, by using similar methods: temperature monitoring, testing, tracking, selective isolation, and a judicious use of masks. But schools and businesses remained open, and the economy hummed as usual. At the university, classes continued, as did smaller-scale meetings. I could feel some ambient tension, but trust in government and amid society—both earned from having endured the SARS ordeal in 2003, and some lesser public health scares thereafter—remained high.

By mid-March the pandemic had spread to Europe, the Middle East, and North America. So, like many countries, Singapore imposed international travel restrictions. Now, my wife and I experienced this shift in tactics personally. We had long since planned to visit Western Australia in mid-March, travel to Bali to mark a birthday, and then return to Singapore on March 25. We made it to Perth on March 15 just a half-hour before mandatory 14-day quarantine for all international travellers to Australia went into effect. We never made it to Bali; all our flights were canceled out from beneath our toes. So we hastened our return to Singapore and made it back to Changi Airport on March 19 about 15 minutes before Singapore’s 14-day mandatory quarantine kicked in.

Otherwise, frankly, the virus had its fortuitous uses: We enjoyed Cambodia’s Siem Reap in early February without having to vie for oxygen with the usual hordes of Chinese tourists, and we happily floated back and forth to Batam Island in Indonesia during the last week in February to visit a Bali-themed spa, and all but had the place to ourselves.

But by mid-March a large number of Singaporean students abroad, their semesters kyboshed by the virus, sought to return home. The government was not about to refuse them entry, but despite careful precautions, some imported cases made it through, and a small but frightening number of community-to-community cases inside the country eluded tracking.

As a result, the government rolled out its pre-planned “Circuit Breaker” intervention on April 6. The new restrictions emphasized social distancing. The government also distributed free masks to all Singaporeans, permanent residents, and work visa holders. While economic and cultural activity slowed, Singapore has never imposed the strict lockdowns characteristic of most Western countries that got a late start dealing with the problem. Buses and rail still run, though largely empty, and there’s traffic aplenty on the PIE (Pan-Island Expressway, the same one you saw in “Crazy Rich Asians”) that we can see here on the edge of the NTU campus.

The government has tried to ride the crest of the wave, keeping the infection curve flat without flattening the economy. The tracking and monitoring methodology has produced actionable near-real-time data, and the government has acted as the data suggested it should. It’s possible to fine-tune responses on a small island with a technocratic mentality, a good track record, and an adequate reservoir of social trust. Alas, size matters.

This fine-turning, close-to-real time reaction mode, has worked, too. The one glitch so far has concerned the foreign migrant-worker dormitories, where some 300,000 Bangladeshis, Tamils from India, and a smattering of mainland Chinese live. And this is the glitch that the U.S media has mischaracterized.

These are dormitories for temporary contract workers, so it’s close-quartered housing. Far be it from me to defend the way the government and the less-than-diligent managers of the dormitories have tended to treat these workers over the years, who in the main do construction and landscaping jobs. But the workers themselves mostly consider themselves fortunate to have the work considering their alternatives. Once the virus made it into the dorms, it spread fast and wide, accounting for the sharp spike in the raw number of cases. The government made haste to limit the contagion once its extent became known, and the number of new dormitory-related cases has come down.

The key piece of information here that the U.S. media failed to report is that the foreign temporary workers live and work mainly separate from the rest of the population, and they have not functioned as infection vectors into it. Because they are overwhelmingly healthy young men, their cases have been asymptomatic or mild. None has died from COVID-19 or even required ICU care, and only a few have required hospitalization. The number of new cases per day in the general population has actually fallen since the workers’ dormitory problem erupted. The number of ICU cases as a whole has remained steady or has fallen.

Total deaths from COVID-19 in Singapore went from 2 on March 21 to 23 as of May 28—out of a total of about 5.7 million people on the island. The result is that Singapore’s record, measured by deaths per million to date, stands at 4. The number for the United States at present is 306. Yes, numbers don’t lie.

Seeing Singapore for what it is


We all know how people like to describe their closest friends—informally, endearingly—as “crazy.” We know what that really means: that we know someone well enough to see and appreciate their unique idiosyncrasies. That’s part of the wonderment of real friendship.


Something roughly similar, if less intimate, happens with countries. You can’t really appreciate them, for better and not, until you know them well enough to see their unique characteristics. Once you do, the boxes that people back home say they fit into begin to look shabby and all but silly. Singapore is more improbable than most countries, true; but the same observation applies, I think, in the round.

Luckily or not, this year I’ve experienced Singapore both in normal times and now in the throes of COVIDaggedon. And from this perch one degree north of the equator I can look, virtually at least, upon my own country and city—Washington, D.C.—and what I see fills me with dismay. I don’t fear the planned trip home in about seven weeks’ time. I fear what kind of semi-stunned society I’ll find once I get there. The virus is almost incidental.

Adam Garfinkle is the founding editor of The American Interest. He is spending the current academic year as a distinguished visiting fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at the Nanyang Technological University in Singapore.

Print this item

  Hey everyone nice forum :)
Posted by: Jamesavalk - 06-11-2020, 06:16 AM - Forum: General Discussion - No Replies

Hey everyone nice forum Smile

Print this item

  Hey everyone nice forum :)
Posted by: Henrybop - 06-10-2020, 06:18 AM - Forum: General Discussion - Replies (1)

Hey everyone nice forum Smile

Print this item

  Thoughts on the mixed race, globalised world of the future
Posted by: Isoko - 06-09-2020, 02:59 PM - Forum: General Discussion - Replies (40)

So there was a post earlier by Eric the Green stating his usual left wing kingdom of heaven beliefs. Basically the how the world is going to continually be globalised and how everyone is going to be one big mixed race blob in the future with no countries or identies.

Now I've heard this what I'd like to call left wing kingdom of heaven beliefs before. So I recoiled in horror at such a prospect, saying how I'll be glad to be dead before such a world comes into existence. I have no shame in saying this and I would like to elaborate more on thoughts here about this concept.

The truth is, why would we want to live in such a world? Would it make the world a better place to live in? Why would such a world become better and more desirable then the previous one? There is a naive delusion amongst the left that if we mix everyone together, then all problems vanish and we can love one another. But Human beings are what they are and would simply find another reason to hate.

If we were to follow this version to the fullest, I think overall we would end up in the India scenario. There would be a lighter brown elite at the top and a darker brown proletariat at the bottom, fighting for whatever meager resources are available. How would it be an improvement on what we have now? Would it merely be a repeat of the past?

To be honest, this belief actually frightens me to think people actually believe this would make the world a better place. I will share you my ideal world and it is one that is common in the Russian Federation. It is designed on centre right thinking but I think it is a better ideal then the one I have just discussed.

A world of borders with different people and ethnic groups that learn to cooperate with each other. Imagine it like a street and we have different houses in the street. Do we all live in the same house? No. But we all live on the same street and look out for one another. Every house is different too and has its own unique vibrancy and taste.

You know, the Russian Federation is a nation of many different tribes and nations. Yet they do not mix together en masse but they live together peacefully as neighbours. As a result, a lot of traditions and identities are passed down through the generations and continue to do so. 

What is better I ask you all? A world government where everybody looks the same, acts the same, wears the same clothes? Where there is no Japan? No Russia? No Angola? Wouldn't that be a boring world to live in? 

Wouldn't real progress be living in peace with each other but preserving what we have to make the future even brighter? This I think is a real test of Humanity and if we could achieve this without the destruction of "progress", then boy, wouldn't we have achieved something? The preservation of the old combined with the new.

Is it wrong to dream this way? Is it unrealistic? I don't know. Does it make me racist for not desiring the left wing future? Or maybe an idealist perhaps?

Maybe it is but a sad and depressing reality. Maybe we are all destined to become the same. Depresses me a lot to think about actually. Always has done. I never saw any light in it.

Dunno if anyone feels the same way but give me a shout out if you do think it would be a sad reality.

Print this item

  1990s: cynical or optimistic?
Posted by: Blazkovitz - 06-09-2020, 04:23 AM - Forum: Turnings - Replies (18)

How do you view the decade? I have seen it characterised in both ways.

Cynical side:
-popularity of dark subcultures: goths, punks, metalhead
-high crime rates all over the Western world
-sinister movies like the Matrix

Optimistic side:
-the "smiley face" trend
-upbeat pop music like the Spice Girls

It seems the cynicism was more prevalent in the early to mid 90s, and the optimism in late 90s. It might represent a transition from Xer to Xennial culture.

Print this item

  Why we are nowhere near the end of the fourth turning
Posted by: Mickey123 - 06-08-2020, 08:05 PM - Forum: General Political Discussion - Replies (31)

In reading through this forum, there are many people here who either believe that we are near the end of the crisis, or that whatever is left of the crisis will feature minor problems like political protests or electing different people or defeating the coronavirus.  I think this is all completely wrong, that we can't be anywhere near the end of the crisis.

A first turning is a time of conformity, a time of cultural conservatism, a time when minority groups do their best to fit in, and who if not allowed to fit in will fight to show that they should be allowed to fit in.  It's a time when the group is more important than the individual.  A time when government and societal organizations are respected.

We are so far from that that it would seem impossible to get there from here. 

If the radical right succeeds to the farthest extent, they would expel many racial and religious minority groups entirely from western nations.  The remaining people would decide that, for better or worse, it was finished and it was time to move on with the new society.  We are clearly nowhere close to that happening, although it is a possibility in upcoming years.

So what does the left winning the culture wars look like?  It means the end of feminism, the end of the civil rights movement, the end of anti-capitalist sentiment.  Having achieved their goals, all of this has to stop.  There can be no more "smashing the patriarchy", as the patriarchy must be determined to no longer exist.  There can be no "defunding the police", as the police must be seen as a positive force in society.  It also means that the alt-right and other such groups must be thoroughly destroyed and discredited, so the new High conservatives will be conserving the new values.

Assuming the left is going to win (as it's safe to say this forum doesn't want to root for the alternative), how do we possibly get there from here?

The fact is that people are not ever going to be less sexist than they are now.  Men and women are going to continue to be different (and in fact, will be seen as far more different in the high than they are today), which will result in men's and women's careers having different outcomes.  Women are going to continue to dominate careers involving caring for small children, men will dominate jobs which are stressful and physically dangerous.  Unless some highly authoritarian system is put into place forcing everyone to work the job that society tells them to, men will continue to make more money than women do.  This will be accepted in the next High.

The police are not going to ever be any better than they are today.  Police officers are what they are, you can go anywhere across the world across time and you'll see the same thing.  They are rough, aggressive, and authoritarian, as this is the sort of person who wants to be a police officer, and they deal with criminals all day, which increases their already existing tendencies.  The way that police officers are will be accepted in the next High.

People in general will never be less racist than they are today, as the tendency to stick with one's own group and be mistrustful of outsiders is built into us.  Human beings were never designed to live in large societies of millions of people, and are doing their best to deal with it as well as they do today.

On the other hand, the left's goals of decreasing wealth disparity certainly can be achieved.  When individuals and corporations are expected to serve society, instead of everyone "doing your own thing", CEO salaries will be far lower than they are, and tax rates for the wealthy will be far higher, as this will be seen by all as being good for society.  Any number of social programs to decrease wealth disparity could be put into place which would redirect the wealth of society to the many instead of the few.

So how do we get there from here?  What sort of events have to take place which result in the current political right's goals being utterly invalidated and abandoned and a new society being born where feminism and civil rights protests are seen as no longer needed?  Whatever these events are, they will have to shake the foundations of the nation, far more than anything happening today.

Print this item

Smile My thoughts on the George Floyd protests
Posted by: Isoko - 06-08-2020, 05:47 AM - Forum: General Discussion - Replies (29)

So, I am sure most of you have read my thoughts relating to how I feel about what has been happening in America. Most will probably be shocked and even accuse me of racism, to which I don't really care because I'm not being racist about it, just offering my own insights into how I feel.

With that aside, I'd like to offer my opinion on what the real problem is.

The truth is - America is just a basket case and always has been. It started out being founded on white supremacy as did all of the European colonies. However it never reached South African levels of white supremacy, which would shock even an American black living under segregation. Wrong side of the bus? Try living with your ancestral home crushed by a bulldozer and forced to live in a cramped shack with no basic sanitation, just so a white guy could have a better beach. You get the picture.

What the whites did in America to the blacks is wrong. The lynchings were evil. The outright racism was wrong and I agree, it was bad and did oppress black people. 

However, times have moved on now. Whilst I am sure there are racist police still out there, the fact remains the racism is now being focused on the white community and white people there are grovelling like slaves for forgiveness. What the blacks once were, cowed and frightened people, has now become the white man.

Unfortunately many blacks there have formed a ghetto mindset and are heavily involved in violent crime through choice, despite there being opportunities to better themselves aplenty. Only white people claim this is because of injustices when in reality, they are not helping themselves.

When it comes down to it, I blame both white and black Americans for not coming together to build a better society. I blame whites for the past oppression and the present babying. I blame blacks for taking advantage of this and not trying better. Both are equally to blame in this and how much more grovelling will it take to make people realise - this ain't working?

Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter. The day when the two groups can stop bitching and being stupid with each other and build a better society will be a miracle.

What I saw in America reminded me how pathetic a nation it really is. You guys have really got to sort it out and build a better, brighter future. Not engaging in religious rituals in the street begging for forgiveness.

Print this item

  I'm a sceptic that the 4th Turning started in 2008
Posted by: Isoko - 06-06-2020, 11:09 AM - Forum: Turnings - Replies (107)

Honestly, I just cannot see it.

From my own perspective, 2020 is shaping up to be the 1929 event of our time. The world in my eyes is going to start to change radically after this. We could be facing another great depression. This could be the event that ultimately leads to the downfall of the West. It could lead to many events but honestly in my eyes this is a trigger.

The problem with 2008 is that if felt like one big continued unraveling. Life still went on, as I have explained to others on here. Nothing actually radically changed. Others say this was our version of 1929 and this is the climax but let us be honest here - was it? Was it really?

The year 1929 proved to be the ultimate trigger and events became even more radical after that, leading to the climax that is World War 2. When that event happened, it just spiraled everything into place very quickly and suddenly. It radically changed people's lives.

2020 has all the hallmarks for this. 2008 simply does not. If I am to be honest, if 2020 is indeed the start and not the climax, then that means 2020 - 2040 is the period of the 4T. Obviously this is not a popular opinion on here but I think it in my eyes it is pretty clear.

As for the BRICs however, I expect that this crisis will lead to a huge 2T event in these societies. You can start to see what is happening in Belarus as a precursor to what is likely going to take shape in the others.

So what am I predicting? 2020 leads to the downfall of the West and a new sort of Putinist era in these countries. Strong leadership will be required to restablish order in these societies.

East is going liberal this time around. I expect more nascent democracies to be established in Russia, China, Turkey, Belarus, even Iran. The trends seem to be pretty evident this time around. Now how long these Democracies will last until the next big crisis is a question on anyone's lips.

Print this item

  Why do S&H start Civic generations so early?
Posted by: Blazkovitz - 06-06-2020, 03:02 AM - Forum: Generations - Replies (14)

Let's compare

According to S&H's dates:
The oldest Silents (1925) were 21 when their 1T started
The oldest Boomers (1945) were 19 when their 2T started.
The oldest Xers (1961) were 23 when their 3T started.

But the oldest Millennials (1982) were 26 when their 4T started. Same for GIs. The oldest GIs were 28 in 1929. Shouldn't both generation start later? Or does it have something to do with nature of the Civic archetype or the 4T?

Print this item

  Problem with Gen Z monikers
Posted by: Ghost - 06-05-2020, 07:28 PM - Forum: Homeland Generation/New Adaptive Generation - Replies (6)

Zoomers: More of a coincidence if anything that people are using Zoom for educational purposes. Even though this term predates the coronavirus pandemic by at least three years, no one born in 1997 and earlier was probably required to use Zoom at all for education purposes. People born in 1998-2001 used Zoom for college classes and anyone born from 2002-2005 used Zoom for high school.

Homelanders: Yes, 1997-2002 is usually viewed as Gen Z, but they were born before the establishment of Homeland Security. 2003 is literally the definition of a Homelander, as they were the first to be born after the establishment of Homeland Security. Similar to how 1982 is the literal definition of a Millennial because they graduated high school after Y2K.

Quaranteens: People born in 1997-1999 were never teens during the pandemic, as they were 20-22 when it started. 2000-2001 were still teens, but they were already legal adults. 

Quarantines: People born in 1990 were the first to start elementary school after the Oklahoma City bombing and people born in 1994 were the first to start elementary school after the Columbine shootings. Both were events (other than the pandemic and 9/11) that led to children being more sheltered, and were arguably turning points when it came to parenting. There were also other events that predate all of these that led to children being more sheltered. There is no "earliest starting year" you can use for this. Sheltering children more has been going on since the dawn of man.

iGen: People born in 1997-1998 (for the most part) were born before the iMac came out. People born in 1997-2001 (for the most part) were born before the iPod came out. People born in 1997-2006 were born before the iPhone came out. It's very ambiguous.

Echo Busters: Another bad one. Someone born in 2001 can easily have Baby Boomer/Prophet parents and someone born in 1989 can easily have Generation X/Nomad parents.

Print this item