Was 911 & the Cultural Aftermath/Change in National Mood Part of This Crisis Period?

[beechnut79]

(06-26-2018, 01:05 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(06-26-2018, 11:49 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: But the Watergate offenses happened more than 45 years ago, and one has to be at least 50 years old for them to have affected one;s political values. Donald Trump is doing far worse than Nixon ever did, which may be the difference between an Awakening Era (when rewards and harm are both slighter) and a Crisis, when rewards and harm are more severe). The next eighty months might be at stake in an Awakening, but the next eighty years might be at stake in a Crisis.

It's freedom or fascism today. I can easily imagine America as aright-wing mirror-image of the Soviet Union, with Ayn Rand as the prophet instead of Karl Marx, with all people responsible to some Master Class enriching itself as its alleged right, with a similar absence of a Welfare State, and similar repression, brutality, and militarism. Is that enticing? Step right up for your MAGA hat!

Yes, Watergate and the Pentagon Papers are only directly relevant to an ever decreasing percentage of the population, but when you lower the bar, it tends to stay down barring a major effort to raise it back to its former place.  We've had two generations raised entirely in the wake of those events, with nothing having been done to offset the negative effects.  Cynicism should be expected, don't you think?  Worse, most of the more powerful events that have occurred since then have only reinforced the negativity.  Stagflation, the Iran Crisis, Reagan declaring the government as the problem, recessions, wars … the list is endless, and none of the entries is fully positive.

This is the reason I believe the 4T will fail to resolve anything -- even with the worst possible example of mediocrity sitting in the Oval Office.  Its just what we expect, so no big deal.   Sad.

Unless he commits some crime much, much worse than Watergate, Trump will not be impeached. Too many are afraid that a Pence presidency might be even worse.

[David Horn]

(06-26-2018, 01:43 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: Unless he commits some crime much, much worse than Watergate, Trump will not be impeached. Too many are afraid that a Pence presidency might be even worse.

Sad but true, unless the march to impeachment originates inside the GOP. If so, can the Dems say no? I doubt it.

[Eric the Green]

(06-26-2018, 01:43 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(06-26-2018, 01:05 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(06-26-2018, 11:49 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: But the Watergate offenses happened more than 45 years ago, and one has to be at least 50 years old for them to have affected one;s political values. Donald Trump is doing far worse than Nixon ever did, which may be the difference between an Awakening Era (when rewards and harm are both slighter) and a Crisis, when rewards and harm are more severe). The next eighty months might be at stake in an Awakening, but the next eighty years might be at stake in a Crisis.

It's freedom or fascism today. I can easily imagine America as aright-wing mirror-image of the Soviet Union, with Ayn Rand as the prophet instead of Karl Marx, with all people responsible to some Master Class enriching itself as its alleged right, with a similar absence of a Welfare State, and similar repression, brutality, and militarism. Is that enticing? Step right up for your MAGA hat!

Yes, Watergate and the Pentagon Papers are only directly relevant to an ever decreasing percentage of the population, but when you lower the bar, it tends to stay down barring a major effort to raise it back to its former place.  We've had two generations raised entirely in the wake of those events, with nothing having been done to offset the negative effects.  Cynicism should be expected, don't you think?  Worse, most of the more powerful events that have occurred since then have only reinforced the negativity.  Stagflation, the Iran Crisis, Reagan declaring the government as the problem, recessions, wars … the list is endless, and none of the entries is fully positive.

This is the reason I believe the 4T will fail to resolve anything -- even with the worst possible example of mediocrity sitting in the Oval Office.  Its just what we expect, so no big deal.   Sad.

Unless he commits some crime much, much worse than Watergate, Trump will not be impeached. Too many are afraid that a Pence presidency might be even worse.

It is far more likely that impeachment (and don't forget conviction in the Senate must happen before a president is removed from office) will be stopped by Trump-loyal Republicans than by any Democrats afraid of Pence. Trump has already demonstrated he is the worst, and Pence will seem stable and rational by comparison.

I wonder if the cynicism leading up to today is worse than the attitudes leading up to the civil war, which is the nearest example of a 4T to today's. 

The idea that the US-Vietnam War, the Pentagon Papers about it, or Watergate as its domestic reflection, have left no impact on younger people, is saying that younger people do not know any history today. That's possible, but it's also true that "when you lower the bar, it tends to stay down barring a major effort to raise it back to its former place" "with nothing having been done to offset the negative effects". Many young people also have parents were were involved or injured by the war in some way or involved in the protests against it, so this is one reason it may still be an influential source of today's attitudes. 

The best logical conclusion of such a level of distrust in the government, is that the government is substantially changed or overthrown. That is what the sixties radicals proposed all along. The younger generations will now be the power behind this possible logical outcome. This 4T, to be fulfilled, must be a revolution.

Symbolically, this is echoed in the cycles of our planets in 2022 by the first-ever Pluto Return to its place in 1776 since King George was taken down as ruler of America.

But a violent revolution by the left against the state is a likely fail. A movement that results in dynamic and substantial change through revitalized elections is more likely, and demographic shifts seem to support it despite the efforts of the current so-called president and the Supreme Court to stem the tide. The violence then would come from the right, as it did in the civil war. And it should be more-easily suppressed this time.

The cyclic symbol of this recurrence is Neptune's Return in 2025-Jan.2026 to its place in 1861 when the civil war broke out.

[David Horn]

(06-26-2018, 07:33 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The idea that the US-Vietnam War, the Pentagon Papers about it, or Watergate as its domestic reflection, have left no impact on younger people, is saying that younger people do not know any history today. That's possible, but it's also true that "when you lower the bar, it tends to stay down barring a major effort to raise it back to its former place" "with nothing having been done to offset the negative effects". Many young people also have parents were were involved or injured by the war in some way or involved in the protests against it, so this is one reason it may still be an influential source of today's attitudes. 

The best logical conclusion of such a level of distrust in the government, is that the government is substantially changed or overthrown. That is what the sixties radicals proposed all along. The younger generations will now be the power behind this possible logical outcome. This 4T, to be fulfilled, must be a revolution.

Symbolically, this is echoed in the cycles of our planets in 2022 by the first-ever Pluto Return to its place in 1776 since King George was taken down as ruler of America.

But a violent revolution by the left against the state is a likely fail. A movement that results in dynamic and substantial change through revitalized elections is more likely, and demographic shifts seem to support it despite the efforts of the current so-called president and the Supreme Court to stem the tide. The violence then would come from the right, as it did in the civil war. And it should be more-easily suppressed this time...

I agree that a violent revolution is out.  It won't work -- not today, at least.  So that leaves the slow, messy political process, which has been purposely gummed-up by the GOP.  To get anywhere from here, we need at least 2 election cycles to get enough change in the Senate to prevent yet more loses in the SCOTUS (Note: Anthony Kennedy just waved-out, so Trump gets two appointments at least).  Assuming that the progressive wing of the Dems is able to win big in 2020 and move things along, having a majority in both Houses of Congress and the Presidency, the way is still blocked by a right-wing court.

Reapportionment happens in 2021, so the 2022 elections will have newly drawn districts, but the GOP will still have the courts to block the new maps (this is based on the already obvious extremes the court is willing to go to keep things Republican and the relative youth of the conservative members of the court).  Can the Dems do today what FDR could not in 1937 and add a few additional seats to the SCOTUS?  Unlikely.  

So we march out of the 4T having achieved a stalemate at best.

[pbrower2a]

One sure stooge for the Master Class on the Supreme Court... Make America Gilded Again!

(Pardon me if I vomit).

Some days Donald Trump and his stooges make me wish I had taken up chain-smoking as a teenager so that I would completely miss out on the America that we now know.

[TheNomad]

(06-27-2018, 01:53 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(06-26-2018, 07:33 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The idea that the US-Vietnam War, the Pentagon Papers about it, or Watergate as its domestic reflection, have left no impact on younger people, is saying that younger people do not know any history today. That's possible, but it's also true that "when you lower the bar, it tends to stay down barring a major effort to raise it back to its former place" "with nothing having been done to offset the negative effects". Many young people also have parents were were involved or injured by the war in some way or involved in the protests against it, so this is one reason it may still be an influential source of today's attitudes. 

The best logical conclusion of such a level of distrust in the government, is that the government is substantially changed or overthrown. That is what the sixties radicals proposed all along. The younger generations will now be the power behind this possible logical outcome. This 4T, to be fulfilled, must be a revolution.

Symbolically, this is echoed in the cycles of our planets in 2022 by the first-ever Pluto Return to its place in 1776 since King George was taken down as ruler of America.

But a violent revolution by the left against the state is a likely fail. A movement that results in dynamic and substantial change through revitalized elections is more likely, and demographic shifts seem to support it despite the efforts of the current so-called president and the Supreme Court to stem the tide. The violence then would come from the right, as it did in the civil war. And it should be more-easily suppressed this time...

I agree that a violent revolution is out.  It won't work -- not today, at least.  So we march out of the 4T having achieved a stalemate at best.

I always use this argument about guns in America.  To me it is pretty clear the Right to bear arms is not so murky. 

It is provided to us (even commanded that we all arm ourselves!) to ward against federal consolidation of power.  It has nothing to do with someone stealing a chicken from your farm. 

But as you say, even if every person gathered right now and marched on washington, they would prevail.  I believe that since the events of WWII and final consolidation of federal power against/above lower entities, we turned a corner from which there is no return.

The second ammendment has been completely nullified, I don't care at all if people are out killing animals for sport or even eating them when they could go to Ralphs instead, the provision has nothing at all to do with us protecting against each other.  To the contrary, it has ALL to do with us protecting each other against washington D.C. and everything that happens there.

We cannot prevail, thus as you have elaborated we wait for the grinding process of Old Rome to decide between each other.  And in the end, what do we have but a perfect storm?  2 sides.  Democrat v Republican.  An archetype in power that is immovable and unchangeable.  And a struggle to implement their both ideologies at all cost.  Yeah, things will get done for sure.  

[Eric the Green]

(06-27-2018, 01:53 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(06-26-2018, 07:33 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The idea that the US-Vietnam War, the Pentagon Papers about it, or Watergate as its domestic reflection, have left no impact on younger people, is saying that younger people do not know any history today. That's possible, but it's also true that "when you lower the bar, it tends to stay down barring a major effort to raise it back to its former place" "with nothing having been done to offset the negative effects". Many young people also have parents were were involved or injured by the war in some way or involved in the protests against it, so this is one reason it may still be an influential source of today's attitudes. 

The best logical conclusion of such a level of distrust in the government, is that the government is substantially changed or overthrown. That is what the sixties radicals proposed all along. The younger generations will now be the power behind this possible logical outcome. This 4T, to be fulfilled, must be a revolution.

Symbolically, this is echoed in the cycles of our planets in 2022 by the first-ever Pluto Return to its place in 1776 since King George was taken down as ruler of America.

But a violent revolution by the left against the state is a likely fail. A movement that results in dynamic and substantial change through revitalized elections is more likely, and demographic shifts seem to support it despite the efforts of the current so-called president and the Supreme Court to stem the tide. The violence then would come from the right, as it did in the civil war. And it should be more-easily suppressed this time...

I agree that a violent revolution is out.  It won't work -- not today, at least.  So that leaves the slow, messy political process, which has been purposely gummed-up by the GOP.  To get anywhere from here, we need at least 2 election cycles to get enough change in the Senate to prevent yet more loses in the SCOTUS (Note: Anthony Kennedy just waved-out, so Trump gets two appointments at least).  Assuming that the progressive wing of the Dems is able to win big in 2020 and move things along, having a majority in both Houses of Congress and the Presidency, the way is still blocked by a right-wing court.

Reapportionment happens in 2021, so the 2022 elections will have newly drawn districts, but the GOP will still have the courts to block the new maps (this is based on the already obvious extremes the court is willing to go to keep things Republican and the relative youth of the conservative members of the court).  Can the Dems do today what FDR could not in 1937 and add a few additional seats to the SCOTUS?  Unlikely.  

So we march out of the 4T having achieved a stalemate at best.

It seems so. I am not wearing my rose colored glasses. And yet the real 4T years are still ahead, so there's no telling how far things will go, or how dynamic the emerging Democratic majority could be, if it happens. They could pack the Court, if there's no other option for a dynamic 4T that makes changes. A 4T in which we march out of it in stalemate has never happened yet. The Democrats could even take over the Senate in this year's elections, since 4 Republican seats are vulnerable (NV AZ TN TX). That means Trump supreme court nominees could be blocked.

[Tuss]

(06-03-2018, 04:02 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(06-02-2018, 08:23 AM)TheNomad Wrote: Was 911 and the following affect on American culture along with the several wars after 911 and the change in national mood part of the Crisis portion of this saeculum we are now in?

If not, why?

No, because America turned back quickly to an Unraveling mood. The President told people to "travel" and "go shopping", much in contrast to the response to the Pearl Harbor attack. After "the Date that will live in Infamy", America quickly put an end to luxury production and started rationing. The government pushed war bonds and military production. Young men in large numbers signed up for military service at the expense of lucrative civilian careers.

There is at least one big flaw with this argument. Pearl Harbor didn't initiate the Crisis Turning, the 1929 and the stock market crash did. In other words, the US had been in a Crisis "mood" for over a decade at that point. Of course, in December 1941 there was a lot of Day of Infamy talk that happened to land in fertile soil. FDR must have felt greatly relieved the day the Japanese eventually struck and Hitler declared war, as up to that point there was a certain shortage of legit reasons to go to war with Germany.

In this Fourth Turning, the sequence of events was reversed, foreign first and domestic second, but as 9/11 hardly had the scope of Pearl Harbor, we shouldn't be surprised it wasn't as clearcut a watershed event. So instead of abrubtly falling into it, after the initial shock the western world rather slid into a 4T mood over the following months and years, but arguably long before the 2008 financial crisis.

Also, as is well known, an argument could at least be made that in a similar way, after the 1929 stock market crash, America slid into the 4th Turning during the Hoover years.

I don't see why such a reasoning would be so hard to accept. Most great historical turning points are more like symbols while the actual casuality of events are smeared out across a wider span of time. But we still need the symbols to pin the narrative on something.

[TheNomad]

(09-21-2018, 06:23 AM)Tuss Wrote: the US had been in a Crisis "mood" for over a decade at that point. Of course, in December 1941 there was a lot of Day of Infamy talk that happened to land in fertile soil. FDR must have felt greatly relieved the day the Japanese eventually struck and Hitler declared war, as up to that point there was a certain shortage of legit reasons to go to war with Germany.

So odd how war was what was needed, we didn't want to get involved, and FDR was "relieved" PH happened...  the word "convenient" used in the post struck me strange.  Churchill just breathed a sigh of relief too (along with FDR) that the attack happened.  All so relieved their woes could be solved neatly.

dare not speak it

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-21-2018, 08:28 AM)TheNomad Wrote:

(09-21-2018, 06:23 AM)Tuss Wrote: the US had been in a Crisis "mood" for over a decade at that point. Of course, in December 1941 there was a lot of Day of Infamy talk that happened to land in fertile soil. FDR must have felt greatly relieved the day the Japanese eventually struck and Hitler declared war, as up to that point there was a certain shortage of legit reasons to go to war with Germany.

So odd how war was what was needed, we didn't want to get involved, and FDR was "relieved" PH happened...  the word "convenient" used in the post struck me strange.  Churchill just breathed a sigh of relief too (along with FDR) that the attack happened.  All so relieved their woes could be solved neatly.

dare not speak it

Well, a navy guy decided a war was needed, and prepped a memo on how to provoke Japan.  There was a list of a bunch of things that could start a war, such as freezing oil.  They never proved FDR saw the memo,  but all the things suggested by it were done...

The only suspense was whether Hitler would declare war on the US, which he conveniently did.

[TheNomad]

(09-21-2018, 12:12 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-21-2018, 08:28 AM)TheNomad Wrote:

(09-21-2018, 06:23 AM)Tuss Wrote: the US had been in a Crisis "mood" for over a decade at that point. Of course, in December 1941 there was a lot of Day of Infamy talk that happened to land in fertile soil. FDR must have felt greatly relieved the day the Japanese eventually struck and Hitler declared war, as up to that point there was a certain shortage of legit reasons to go to war with Germany.

So odd how war was what was needed, we didn't want to get involved, and FDR was "relieved" PH happened...  the word "convenient" used in the post struck me strange.  Churchill just breathed a sigh of relief too (along with FDR) that the attack happened.  All so relieved their woes could be solved neatly.

dare not speak it

Well, a navy guy decided a war was needed, and prepped a memo on how to provoke Japan.  There was a list of a bunch of things that could start a war, such as freezing oil.  They never proved FDR saw the memo,  but all the things suggested by it were done...

The only suspense was whether Hitler would declare war on the US, which he conveniently did.

Un-American much? 

We don't do things like that. 

how dare you

But Iran/ayrabs who want to kill us cuz were free = Japan?  "Axis" recreated in new Turning?  It's no leap.

PH=WTC?

[Eric the Green]

(09-21-2018, 06:23 AM)Tuss Wrote:

(06-03-2018, 04:02 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(06-02-2018, 08:23 AM)TheNomad Wrote: Was 911 and the following affect on American culture along with the several wars after 911 and the change in national mood part of the Crisis portion of this saeculum we are now in?

If not, why?

No, because America turned back quickly to an Unraveling mood. The President told people to "travel" and "go shopping", much in contrast to the response to the Pearl Harbor attack. After "the Date that will live in Infamy", America quickly put an end to luxury production and started rationing. The government pushed war bonds and military production. Young men in large numbers signed up for military service at the expense of lucrative civilian careers.

There is at least one big flaw with this argument. Pearl Harbor didn't initiate the Crisis Turning, the 1929 and the stock market crash did. In other words, the US had been in a Crisis "mood" for over a decade at that point. Of course, in December 1941 there was a lot of Day of Infamy talk that happened to land in fertile soil. FDR must have felt greatly relieved the day the Japanese eventually struck and Hitler declared war, as up to that point there was a certain shortage of legit reasons to go to war with Germany.

In this Fourth Turning, the sequence of events was reversed, foreign first and domestic second, but as 9/11 hardly had the scope of Pearl Harbor, we shouldn't be surprised it wasn't as clearcut a watershed event. So instead of abruptly falling into it, after the initial shock the western world rather slid into a 4T mood over the following months and years, but arguably long before the 2008 financial crisis.

Also, as is well known, an argument could at least be made that in a similar way, after the 1929 stock market crash, America slid into the 4th Turning during the Hoover years.

I don't see why such a reasoning would be so hard to accept. Most great historical turning points are more like symbols while the actual casuality of events are smeared out across a wider span of time. But we still need the symbols to pin the narrative on something.

Our current 4th turning was also domestic first. The crash and Great Recession of 2008 is the exact repeat of the crash and Great Depression of 1929.

9-11 did not start a turning, and did not create anything more than taking us back to business as usual before the Berlin Wall fell. Americans were encouraged to go shopping in order to show the terrorists we were not cowards. 9-11 was compared to the Wall Street bombing of 1919 by S&H, and appropriately so. Terrorists were already the bane of the 3rd turning, and this continued. 

There was no 4T mood until we were on the verge of falling off a veritable financial cliff. Only lessons learned from the last crash saved us from an identical fate. The economic recession worldwide in 2008 and thereafter, along with climate change, drove the series of middle east and worldwide revolutionary outbreaks from 2011 to 2015, and this in turn created the immigration crisis that has spawned reactionary ethnic nationalism, Trump and Brexit. In this 4T, tyranny has made a comeback, and Russia again is a threat.

Meanwhile, reactionary movements in the USA, born in the 2T, have continued, and resistance to them is growing now. A confrontation looms, and the pendulum is swinging. The domestic conflict may erupt violently before this 4T is over in 2028-29. And we may face more war abroad when the war cycle comes around again too. I expect the year 2025 to see the outbreak of the crisis climax, and continuous build up to it until then.

In the double rhythm, our 4T is more domestic the foreign. We are recycling through the 1850s now, and 1861 looms ahead in 2025. Perhaps lessons learned will help make our cold civil war stay reasonably cold, just as our great depression only became a great recession because of lessons learned, and thus state intervention happened sooner to keep us from going entirely off the financial cliff.

[pbrower2a]

Also: FDR was a cusp Missionary-Lost, and Obama was a cusp X-Boom. FDR was spectacularly successful as a President because he got inaugurated as the Depression was at a point nearly as bad as it could get. Americans had no delusion that the world was spectacularly different late in 1932 from what it was in the middle of 1929, and about every demographic was ready for real change. The financial assets of shareholders were cut to 1/8 of their original value, and businesses were more concerned about getting their profit margins and share prices in recovery than in buying the political system.

Obama got inaugurated in the equivalent of early 1931, when share prices had been cut by a little more than half. Obama, like FDR, backed the banks... but Corporate America still had enough money with which to buy the political process. Almost a decade later the United States is, aside from some oil-rich monarchies in which the royal family controls the revenue from oil extraction, the purest plutocracy on Earth. Economic inequality has intensified to the point that most people would have been materially better off nearly fifty years ago.

Maybe there is a generational difference: Boomer elites are much more narcissistic than Missionary elites. Boomer elites mostly inherited power from GI and Silent elites, but Missionaries were more likely to have been self-made. Boomer elites have done well in ensuring that people not always in the elite get no chance in bureaucratic organizations, setting up rigid barriers to advancement in career to those who have ever been poor. Those who have been poor might do something horrible, like show empathy for people who have known hardship and allow talented people to get ahead. Boomer elites have supported the most reactionary causes (except perhaps racism) with lavish funding. They are also the worst business executives ever in treatment of subordinates.

The current Boomer elites must fail so spectacularly that they face political and administrative purges, get shoved out of power, or die off before America can make real progress in its institutions -- political, educational, and economic.

[TheNomad]

(09-22-2018, 07:58 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Obama got inaugurated in the equivalent of early 1931, when share prices had been cut by a little more than half. Obama, like FDR, backed the banks... but Corporate America still had enough money with which to buy the political process. Almost a decade later the United States is, aside from some oil-rich monarchies in which the royal family controls the revenue from oil extraction, the purest plutocracy on Earth. Economic inequality has intensified to the point that most people would have been materially better off nearly fifty years ago.

I do enjoy these kind of posts, they are appropriate here, to show what is happening NOW compared to a similar past cycle.

So please bring us to speed with your interpretation, then, about where this goes: the cycle playing out, economic inequality, inflation (which is not the numeric guide but rather the idea of "wealth" purchasing less and less over time.  Because <---- is what can make real and actual inequality grow over time even if circumstances seem to remain the same.

[pbrower2a]

Also: FDR was a cusp Missionary-Lost, and Obama was a cusp X-Boom. FDR was spectacularly successful as a President because he got inaugurated as the Depression was at a point nearly as bad as it could get. Americans had no delusion that the world was spectacularly different late in 1932 from what it was in the middle of 1929, and about every demographic was ready for real change. The financial assets of shareholders were cut to 1/8 of their original value, and businesses were more concerned about getting their profit margins and share prices in recovery than in buying the political system.

Obama got inaugurated in the equivalent of early 1931, when share prices had been cut by a little more than half. Obama, like FDR, backed the banks... but Corporate America still had enough money with which to buy the political process. Almost a decade later the United States is, aside from some oil-rich monarchies in which the royal family controls the revenue from oil extraction, the purest plutocracy on Earth. Economic inequality has intensified to the point that most people would have been materially better off nearly fifty years ago.

Maybe there is a generational difference: Boomer elites are much more narcissistic than Missionary elites. Boomer elites mostly inherited power from GI and Silent elites, but Missionaries were more likely to have been self-made. Boomer elites have done well in ensuring that people not always in the elite get no chance in bureaucratic organizations, setting up rigid barriers to advancement in career to those who have ever been poor. Those who have been poor might do something horrible, like show empathy for people who have known hardship and allow talented people to get ahead. Boomer elites have supported the most reactionary causes (except perhaps racism) with lavish funding. They are also the worst business executives ever in treatment of subordinates.

The current Boomer elites must fail so spectacularly that they face political and administrative purges, get shoved out of power, or die off before America can make real progress in its institutions -- political, educational, and economic.  They will lose educational influence as educational administrators retire to enjoy the good life of retirement among the well-off. Economic? People with a worldview much like that of Henry Clay Frick do not really retire. Political? Watch elections of 2018 and 2020. The Millennial generation will be running for plenty of public offices and could win some. The best and brightest usually make themselves known when in their mid-30s.

[pbrower2a]

(06-27-2018, 01:53 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(06-26-2018, 07:33 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The idea that the US-Vietnam War, the Pentagon Papers about it, or Watergate as its domestic reflection, have left no impact on younger people, is saying that younger people do not know any history today. That's possible, but it's also true that "when you lower the bar, it tends to stay down barring a major effort to raise it back to its former place" "with nothing having been done to offset the negative effects". Many young people also have parents were were involved or injured by the war in some way or involved in the protests against it, so this is one reason it may still be an influential source of today's attitudes. 

The best logical conclusion of such a level of distrust in the government, is that the government is substantially changed or overthrown. That is what the sixties radicals proposed all along. The younger generations will now be the power behind this possible logical outcome. This 4T, to be fulfilled, must be a revolution.

Symbolically, this is echoed in the cycles of our planets in 2022 by the first-ever Pluto Return to its place in 1776 since King George was taken down as ruler of America.

But a violent revolution by the left against the state is a likely fail. A movement that results in dynamic and substantial change through revitalized elections is more likely, and demographic shifts seem to support it despite the efforts of the current so-called president and the Supreme Court to stem the tide. The violence then would come from the right, as it did in the civil war. And it should be more-easily suppressed this time...

I agree that a violent revolution is out.  It won't work -- not today, at least.  So that leaves the slow, messy political process, which has been purposely gummed-up by the GOP.  To get anywhere from here, we need at least 2 election cycles to get enough change in the Senate to prevent yet more loses in the SCOTUS (Note: Anthony Kennedy just waved-out, so Trump gets two appointments at least).  Assuming that the progressive wing of the Dems is able to win big in 2020 and move things along, having a majority in both Houses of Congress and the Presidency, the way is still blocked by a right-wing court.

Reapportionment happens in 2021, so the 2022 elections will have newly drawn districts, but the GOP will still have the courts to block the new maps (this is based on the already obvious extremes the court is willing to go to keep things Republican and the relative youth of the conservative members of the court).  Can the Dems do today what FDR could not in 1937 and add a few additional seats to the SCOTUS?  Unlikely.  

So we march out of the 4T having achieved a stalemate at best.

Stalemate? No. Stalemate is the end of the game (chess), one in which opposing sides are locked in an unsatisfying position. One side is spared a loss that the other side probably could have inflicted with better play, and the other side is denied what may have seemed a likely win... or both sides are practically defeated for having no means of winning.

It's more like Zugzwang, a situation in which both sides seem evenly matched, but one side is compelled to make a move that puts him in defeat. Chess is a complex game, but it is emotionally brutal. So is politics. Maybe you remember me saying at one time that Obama plays chess and his opponents play slots. Maybe we will find out in 2020 which other Democrat plays the political equivalent of chess. Donald Trump is reckless enough that he could never play chess. Obama is no longer President and will not be again, but as President emeritus he could have a role practically as Minister without Portfolio. He is a decent-enough fellow, but you do not want him as an enemy, as Osama bin Laden demonstrates.

[Marypoza]

(06-27-2018, 01:53 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(06-26-2018, 07:33 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The idea that the US-Vietnam War, the Pentagon Papers about it, or Watergate as its domestic reflection, have left no impact on younger people, is saying that younger people do not know any history today. That's possible, but it's also true that "when you lower the bar, it tends to stay down barring a major effort to raise it back to its former place" "with nothing having been done to offset the negative effects". Many young people also have parents were were involved or injured by the war in some way or involved in the protests against it, so this is one reason it may still be an influential source of today's attitudes. 

The best logical conclusion of such a level of distrust in the government, is that the government is substantially changed or overthrown. That is what the sixties radicals proposed all along. The younger generations will now be the power behind this possible logical outcome. This 4T, to be fulfilled, must be a revolution.

Symbolically, this is echoed in the cycles of our planets in 2022 by the first-ever Pluto Return to its place in 1776 since King George was taken down as ruler of America.

But a violent revolution by the left against the state is a likely fail. A movement that results in dynamic and substantial change through revitalized elections is more likely, and demographic shifts seem to support it despite the efforts of the current so-called president and the Supreme Court to stem the tide. The violence then would come from the right, as it did in the civil war. And it should be more-easily suppressed this time...

I agree that a violent revolution is out.  It won't work -- not today, at least.  So that leaves the slow, messy political process, which has been purposely gummed-up by the GOP.  To get anywhere from here, we need at least 2 election cycles to get enough change in the Senate to prevent yet more loses in the SCOTUS (Note: Anthony Kennedy just waved-out, so Trump gets two appointments at least).  Assuming that the progressive wing of the Dems is able to win big in 2020 and move things along, having a majority in both Houses of Congress and the Presidency, the way is still blocked by a right-wing court.

Reapportionment happens in 2021, so the 2022 elections will have newly drawn districts, but the GOP will still have the courts to block the new maps (this is based on the already obvious extremes the court is willing to go to keep things Republican and the relative youth of the conservative members of the court).  Can the Dems do today what FDR could not in 1937 and add a few additional seats to the SCOTUS?  Unlikely.  

So we march out of the 4T having achieved a stalemate at best.

-- Thomas Jefferson said the country should have a revolution 180 yrs or so to clean house, so to speak. The Consciousness Revolution came along 190 yrs later, but it was incomplete- it was mainly a social revolution, its major political aspect, ending the War, caused the power elites to double down (gawd 4bid that we the ppl should put a stop to their precious wars) on the political status quo so that the country is in its current sorry situation.

So yes, to finish the cycle, or saeculum, their has to be some sort of political revoultion, or perhaps more accurately a transformation. That's what Pluto in Capricorn is- tranforming (Pluto) the Govt (Capricorn) l agree with the 2 of you that it won't be a full blown war. But l can see a guerilla war of attrition if these cops don't change their murderous ways. Unless they start remembering who pays their salaries & that they are public servants, l can easily see the public arming themselves to defend themselves against them. This could escalate into martial law, & the clamping down on personal freedoms could lead to a guerilla warfare mess. Or not.

Could be simply that as the Millies age & start taking over the elected offices, they will transform the Govt thru law. Parasites like the Koch Bros will have to be neutralized however

David, l still like your idea of a schism where the wingnuts are still stuck in the 3T while the rest of us are slogging thru the 4T. Maybe the resolution of this 4T is to jettison the wingnuts

[Marypoza]

(07-20-2018, 11:49 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-27-2018, 01:53 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(06-26-2018, 07:33 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The idea that the US-Vietnam War, the Pentagon Papers about it, or Watergate as its domestic reflection, have left no impact on younger people, is saying that younger people do not know any history today. That's possible, but it's also true that "when you lower the bar, it tends to stay down barring a major effort to raise it back to its former place" "with nothing having been done to offset the negative effects". Many young people also have parents were were involved or injured by the war in some way or involved in the protests against it, so this is one reason it may still be an influential source of today's attitudes. 

The best logical conclusion of such a level of distrust in the government, is that the government is substantially changed or overthrown. That is what the sixties radicals proposed all along. The younger generations will now be the power behind this possible logical outcome. This 4T, to be fulfilled, must be a revolution.

Symbolically, this is echoed in the cycles of our planets in 2022 by the first-ever Pluto Return to its place in 1776 since King George was taken down as ruler of America.

But a violent revolution by the left against the state is a likely fail. A movement that results in dynamic and substantial change through revitalized elections is more likely, and demographic shifts seem to support it despite the efforts of the current so-called president and the Supreme Court to stem the tide. The violence then would come from the right, as it did in the civil war. And it should be more-easily suppressed this time...

I agree that a violent revolution is out.  It won't work -- not today, at least.  So that leaves the slow, messy political process, which has been purposely gummed-up by the GOP.  To get anywhere from here, we need at least 2 election cycles to get enough change in the Senate to prevent yet more loses in the SCOTUS (Note: Anthony Kennedy just waved-out, so Trump gets two appointments at least).  Assuming that the progressive wing of the Dems is able to win big in 2020 and move things along, having a majority in both Houses of Congress and the Presidency, the way is still blocked by a right-wing court.

Reapportionment happens in 2021, so the 2022 elections will have newly drawn districts, but the GOP will still have the courts to block the new maps (this is based on the already obvious extremes the court is willing to go to keep things Republican and the relative youth of the conservative members of the court).  Can the Dems do today what FDR could not in 1937 and add a few additional seats to the SCOTUS?  Unlikely.  

So we march out of the 4T having achieved a stalemate at best.

It seems so. I am not wearing my rose colored glasses. And yet the real 4T years are still ahead, so there's no telling how far things will go, or how dynamic the emerging Democratic majority could be, if it happens. They could pack the Court, if there's no other option for a dynamic 4T that makes changes. A 4T in which we march out of it in stalemate has never happened yet. The Democrats could even take over the Senate in this year's elections, since 4 Republican seats are vulnerable (NV AZ TN TX). That means Trump supreme court nominees could be blocked.

-- don't bet on it. Eric, those f-ing Dems are already moving 4ward to get Kavanaugh confirmed 

[David Horn]

(09-23-2018, 08:16 AM)Marypoza Wrote: David, l still like your idea of a schism where the wingnuts are still stuck in the 3T while the rest of us are slogging thru the 4T. Maybe the resolution of this 4T is to jettison the wingnuts

OK, but jettison how and where?  They're here and they're, er, odd, but the fact still stands.  A large number of wingnut types are embedded in our society, and they aren't going anywhere.  The only solution that splits society into sane and insane is schism, which has no advocates at this time.  I think many of the wingnuts would be happy with that choice, so the selling needs to concentrate on the non-wingnuts.  Still, I don't see it.  

Remember, both sides have wingnuts, though it's more a matter of magnitude than anything.  The Right has nurtured and encouraged their wingnuts, much more than the Left, so a lot more exist on that side.  So, if we split the baby, and the RW wingnuts get their own piece of heaven (as they see it), where do the LW wingnuts go?  And what about the folks on the right who aren't wingnuts, but don't fit in a Progressive world either?

It's hard to see how this gets resolved by a handshake and a kiss on the check.

[Marypoza]

(09-23-2018, 11:04 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-23-2018, 08:16 AM)Marypoza Wrote: David, l still like your idea of a schism where the wingnuts are still stuck in the 3T while the rest of us are slogging thru the 4T. Maybe the resolution of this 4T is to jettison the wingnuts

OK, but jettison how and where?  They're here and they're, er, odd, but the fact still stands.  A large number of wingnut types are embedded in our society, and they aren't going anywhere.  The only solution that splits society into sane and insane is schism, which has no advocates at this time.  I think many of the wingnuts would be happy with that choice, so the selling needs to concentrate on the non-wingnuts.  Still, I don't see it.  

Remember, both sides have wingnuts, though it's more a matter of magnitude than anything.  The Right has nurtured and encouraged their wingnuts, much more than the Left, so a lot more exist on that side.  So, if we split the baby, and the RW wingnuts get their own piece of heaven (as they see it), where do the LW wingnuts go?  And what about the folks on the right who aren't wingnuts, but don't fit in a Progressive world either?

It's hard to see how this gets resolved by a handshake and a kiss on the check.

-- l don't know where to jettison the wingnuts either, l'm just throwing out ideas. It's not gonna get resolved by a handshake & a kiss on the cheek. More likely some kind of hive like guerilla war of attrition until the Millies are old enough, & numerous enough to take control of society & have their way with it