Gray Champion Predictions

[pbrower2a]

(06-27-2019, 12:54 PM)Bill the Piper Wrote: If the boomers don't produce a grey champion, the generational cycle will carry on. In such case there will be a growing trend to move away from the failed values of the millennial saeculum, though they certainly will eventually be re-discovered, maybe in another Dionysian cycle in he 22nd century.

A grey champion pope is a possibility though, if the successor of Francis is a boomer. Perhaps an African pope, who supported the national liberation movements of the 60s in his youth. I imagine such a pope preaching a synthesis of postwar progressivism with genuine Christian Democracy, continuing the work of Francis with more vigour, and purging the Church of paedophiles.

The center of gravity of the Roman Catholic Church has gone from Europe to Latin America without stopping in the USA. The Catholic Church in America has had too many scandals, and the Catholic Church is far from a majority in the USA. I can imagine a liberal getting an overwhelming majority of the Catholic vote in opposition to the godless Gospel of Greed that I associate with its apostle Ayn Rand and its political exponent in Donald Trump.

[Bill the Piper]

(06-27-2019, 01:21 PM)David Horn Wrote: H-m-m-m.  I think we may be seeing the end of the RC Church's power … at least on the grand scale.  More primitive religions, like the many evangelical Christian churches as well as the most conservative elements of Judaism, Islam and perhaps others, will hold sway in their regional power centers, but modernity will pass them by.  I'm not sure how that resolves, but I assume it will at some point.

When transhumanism arrives, mankind will split into posthuman and luddite fractions. The traditional faiths will continue among the luddites who will reject transhuman civilization. Before transhumanism, I can't imagine a world without religion.

pbrower2a Wrote:The center of gravity of the Roman Catholic Church has gone from Europe to Latin America without stopping in the USA. The Catholic Church in America has had too many scandals, and the Catholic Church is far from a majority in the USA. I can imagine a liberal getting an overwhelming majority of the Catholic vote in opposition to the godless Gospel of Greed that I associate with its apostle Ayn Rand and its political exponent in Donald Trump.

Latinos are fastest growing ethnic group in the US, and they are Catholic. Even if they don't bother with fasting or praying regularly, they still venerate the pope.

[David Horn]

(06-28-2019, 01:18 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(06-27-2019, 01:21 PM)David Horn Wrote: H-m-m-m.  I think we may be seeing the end of the RC Church's power … at least on the grand scale.  More primitive religions, like the many evangelical Christian churches as well as the most conservative elements of Judaism, Islam and perhaps others, will hold sway in their regional power centers, but modernity will pass them by.  I'm not sure how that resolves, but I assume it will at some point.

When transhumanism arrives, mankind will split into posthuman and luddite fractions. The traditional faiths will continue among the luddites who will reject transhuman civilization. Before transhumanism, I can't imagine a world without religion.

Religion is already tanking in advanced countries, and it's not limited to Christianity either. l agree that transhumanism will finish the job, but it's already started as a contest between science-based and mystical-based thinking. I hope that the less rigorous mystical-based thinking doesn't disappear entirely. There's value there that science, in its rigor, can't duplicate. That said, I'm an atheist.

Bill the Piper Wrote:

pbrower2a Wrote:The center of gravity of the Roman Catholic Church has gone from Europe to Latin America without stopping in the USA. The Catholic Church in America has had too many scandals, and the Catholic Church is far from a majority in the USA. I can imagine a liberal getting an overwhelming majority of the Catholic vote in opposition to the godless Gospel of Greed that I associate with its apostle Ayn Rand and its political exponent in Donald Trump.

Latinos are fastest growing ethnic group in the US, and they are Catholic. Even if they don't bother with fasting or praying regularly, they still venerate the pope.

After two or three generations, Latinos are much less religious than their ancestors. That's typical of the American experience.

[Bill the Piper]

(06-28-2019, 06:55 AM)David Horn Wrote: Religion is already tanking in advanced countries, and it's not limited to Christianity either.  l agree that transhumanism will finish the job, but it's already started as a contest between science-based and mystical-based thinking.  I hope that the less rigorous mystical-based thinking doesn't disappear entirely.  There's value there that science, in its rigor, can't duplicate.  That said, I'm an atheist.

Civic generations are always uninterested in mystical realms. Their passion is politics, science and engineering. So no doubt that Millennials are religiously apathetic, but something will certainly happen during the 2T.

I was also thinking about the desire for personal immortality. Liberalism and consumerism cannot promise that, so if transhumanism doesn't arrive even Millennials will start looking for God when they are old.

[AspieMillennial]

(06-30-2019, 02:48 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(06-28-2019, 06:55 AM)David Horn Wrote: Religion is already tanking in advanced countries, and it's not limited to Christianity either.  l agree that transhumanism will finish the job, but it's already started as a contest between science-based and mystical-based thinking.  I hope that the less rigorous mystical-based thinking doesn't disappear entirely.  There's value there that science, in its rigor, can't duplicate.  That said, I'm an atheist.

Civic generations are always uninterested in mystical realms. Their passion is politics, science and engineering. So no doubt that Millennials are religiously apathetic, but something will certainly happen during the 2T.

I was also thinking about the desire for personal immortality. Liberalism and consumerism cannot promise that, so if transhumanism doesn't arrive even Millennials will start looking for God when they are old.

Weren't Civics in America religious in the post war era? Wasn't that when Church membership was through the roof?

[Bill the Piper]

(06-30-2019, 03:02 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote: Weren't Civics in America religious in the post war era? Wasn't that when Church membership was through the roof?

I think they went to Church for a sense of community, rather than for mystical experiences. But the shock of the war and A-bomb must have caused many of them to question the optimistic secularism of their youth. The interest in Buddhism also started to rise during the High, with authors like Philip Kapleau (G.I.)

If the Digital Transformation ends in something really sinister, millennials might turn to Jesus.

[Bill the Piper]

(06-30-2019, 03:38 AM)taramarie Wrote: I am a millennial and I am interested in spiritualism for internal help due to cptsd. Don't know if that counts for something. But sure, I am an atheist. I rather science over what I consider make believe. My partner who is a fellow millennial is a Christian however.

I'm a fan of Olaf Stapledon, a 1920s English philosopher and futurist who said a perfect human would have the head of an Enlightenment sceptic and the heart of a Christian saint. I invite you to read more:
https://web.archive.org/web/201304220204...alues.html

Longing for personal immortality is a weakness, but it often results in a more moral lifestyle, so I don't feel compelled to preach against it.

I also agree with Neil deGrasse Tyson that a cosmic perspective is a necessary condition of healthy spirituality in the modern age. It's sad that Tyson didn't practice what he preached when he molested women

[Bill the Piper]

(06-30-2019, 04:21 AM)taramarie Wrote: I would say it depends on what type of enlightenment. One focused on pragmatic down to earth internal self awareness is pretty good in my books. So called enlightenment cults however are a different sort of creature to be cautious of. Otherwise I am with you on it. Tyson did what?! Good grief if so I have lost all little respect I had for him.

If it isn't clear, in the recent posts I meant Enlightenment as in Voltaire, Locke, etc. and not the Buddhist one.

Buddhism has its merits as well since it teaches self-discipline, compassion and non-violence but I'm worried by the passivity it teaches. In predominantly Buddhist societies best members of society withdraw into meditation, instead of bettering the world.

[Bill the Piper]

(06-30-2019, 04:52 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(06-30-2019, 04:44 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(06-30-2019, 04:21 AM)taramarie Wrote: I would say it depends on what type of enlightenment. One focused on pragmatic down to earth internal self awareness is pretty good in my books. So called enlightenment cults however are a different sort of creature to be cautious of. Otherwise I am with you on it. Tyson did what?! Good grief if so I have lost all little respect I had for him.

If it isn't clear, in the recent posts I meant Enlightenment as in Voltaire, Locke, etc. and not the Buddhist one.

Buddhism has its merits as well since it teaches self-discipline, compassion and non-violence but I'm worried by the passivity it teaches. In predominantly Buddhist societies best members of society withdraw into meditation, instead of bettering the world.

And isn't the world shaped first by the mind then the action that follows the mind?

If action follows then yes.

Actually my comments on Buddhism were based on a patchy understanding. I now recall a conversation with a Buddhist teacher from 2 years ago. The Buddha taught two types of meditation. One is aimed at pursuit of nirvana, or liberation from suffering by means of dissolving in non-existence. The need for action is transcended, which results in the passivity I criticised.

The other type is for those who want to become a "bodhisattva" which in fact is very similar to a Christian saint. The Buddhist saint refrains from nirvana as long as there are suffering beings in the Cosmos. In popular Far Eastern imagination famous saints are considered benevolent gods. This type of Buddhist enlightenment is laudable, and everybody should aim at it. 

There are also Tibetan forms of Buddhism which incorporate a lot of black magic and Satanism, but I won't waste my time on discussing that. It's enough to say these practices don't come from the Buddha.

[pbrower2a]

(06-30-2019, 03:02 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(06-30-2019, 02:48 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(06-28-2019, 06:55 AM)David Horn Wrote: Religion is already tanking in advanced countries, and it's not limited to Christianity either.  l agree that transhumanism will finish the job, but it's already started as a contest between science-based and mystical-based thinking.  I hope that the less rigorous mystical-based thinking doesn't disappear entirely.  There's value there that science, in its rigor, can't duplicate.  That said, I'm an atheist.

Civic generations are always uninterested in mystical realms. Their passion is politics, science and engineering. So no doubt that Millennials are religiously apathetic, but something will certainly happen during the 2T.

I was also thinking about the desire for personal immortality. Liberalism and consumerism cannot promise that, so if transhumanism doesn't arrive even Millennials will start looking for God when they are old.

Weren't Civics in America religious in the post war era? Wasn't that when Church membership was through the roof?

Civics loved formal organizations from the PTA to Masonic lodges, the VFW and American Legion... and above all, labor unions! Religion adapted to fit that. This fits the first generation in American history in which Scouting was generally available to youth. Politics, science, and engineering themselves are highly organized in nature. The GI Generation was likely to insist upon rationality in religion so that it would be coherent.

It could be that Millennial young adults will see a depraved and inequitable social order, see something missing, and promote some minimal religion as a means of instilling some morality and economic decency in society. The minimal religion will not have 'believe it or burn' tests of faith such as young-earth creationism or acceptance of the world-wide flood as historical fact. Maybe religion will be one means of giving dignity to people in economic distress while castigating the flamboyant excesses of elite indulgence.

If not Christianity, then it could be an 'Americanized' Islam or Buddhism. Such would be heretical to orthodox Islam or Buddhism, but Civic types are rarely purists unless extremists. Extremism does badly in a 2T, whether Jacobinism, Communism, or the KKK. I can easily see Millennial adults who know what went wrong with Boomers trying to instill the parts of the Bible that they understand (the ethical teachings of the Hebrew prophets, and with that the Sermon on the Mount if Christian) as instruction on how to treat people. That is before I introduce such secular guides as Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People. Millennial adults will not want to raise a generation of Trump-like playboys, even among the elites.

[pbrower2a]

(06-26-2019, 11:47 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(06-25-2019, 09:29 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(06-25-2019, 02:09 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(06-19-2019, 08:26 AM)Skabungus Wrote: The Gray Champion...  From the very first time I read S&H I made the assumption that the Gray Champion did not refer to a certain individual, but rather intended a broad reference to many persons of a certain age that possessed the knowledge, foresight and fortitude to serve in the role.  I still believe that is how S&H intended the term "Gray Champion" to be interpreted and applied.  I find the idea of a singular GC to be awfully simplistic.  In the 21st century shouldn't we be beyond seeking "the anointed one"?

Exactly!  Expecting to find a single human to fill that role is expecting a miracle.  Of course, citing examples of GC behavior is something we should be doing.  Just keep it at that level.

Some that I propose as Grey Champions for their countries:

• Otto von Bismarck, Germany
  
• Meiji, Japan
  
• Giuseppe Garibaldi, Italy
  
• Abraham Lincoln, USA
  
• Benito Juarez, Mexico
  
• Winston Churchill, UK
  
• Franklin Roosevelt, USA
  
• Karl Mannerheim, Finland
  
• Karl Renner, Austria
  
• Mohandas Gandhi, India
  
• Konrad Adenauer, German Federal Republic
  

These men (what is to say that a woman could not do this?) are all Idealists who got their countries through or out of Crises, reshaping their countries in lasting ways. They are all Idealists, and they utterly dominated the political process without being discredited.

Serving as foci of resistance to occupiers? There are Haakon VII of Norway, Christian X of Denmark, and Wilhelmina of the Netherlands. All three of these were royals as heads of democratic orders.

All valid, but less helpful to us today.  What we need is a list of potential GCs who will/may influence the direction of the current 4T, its climax and the emerging 1T.  Other than Trump and Bernie Sanders, the list is pretty short.  I guess Elizabeth Warren may make the cut, but she's more of a policy wonk than inspirational leader.  We also used to have culture leaders, but I can't think of any that makes the list today … none!  It's like the entire nation is in a state of limbo, with drift being the most pronounced direction.

The question may be whether one key political figure defines the Gray Champion. In the examples that I suggested, the political figures dominated the political process in defining the Crisis in their countries. There was no single charismatic figure leading in the American Revolution; political power was more dispersed.

Donald Trump is not the Gray Champion; he is too divisive

[Warren Dew]

(06-30-2019, 03:50 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The question may be whether one key political figure defines the Gray Champion. In the examples that I suggested, the political figures dominated the political process in defining the Crisis in their countries. There was no single charismatic figure leading in the American Revolution; political power was more dispersed.

Donald Trump is not the Gray Champion; he is too divisive

Lincoln, FDR, and Churchill were just as divisive.  It's just that after the crisis, the divisiveness is written out of the history books.

[LPDec63]

I personally can't imagine Trump in any pantheon with Lincoln, FDR or Churchill if only for my personal revulsion of him.

Also having trouble imagining Biden in the role.

But there was one recent event that felt like a Gray Champion crowning of sorts. And that came from Jim Clyburn in South Carolina. The Democratic Race seemed to be in a muddle until Jim Clyburn endorsed Biden. The voters in South Carolina didn't ask any questions. They voted for Biden in a resounding fashion apparently based on that endorsement, because the polls were not showing Biden heading towards such an overwhelming victory until that endorsement.

Only a few days later multiple candidates dropped out of the race, endorsed Biden and most of the states on Super Tuesday followed suit. It was like one endorsement lead to a cascade of events that lead to Biden becoming the presumptive nominee.

Voters weren't in the mood for uncertainty. They stopped arguing and fell in line starting with the South Carolina voters. Anyway, I thought that entire sequence felt exactly like Fourth Turning behavior. Individual voters lined up based on the word of one respected man whether they thought Biden was the best candidate or not.

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-30-2019, 06:21 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Lincoln, FDR, and Churchill were just as divisive.  It's just that after the crisis, the divisiveness is written out of the history books.

Well, not entirely out.  It is true that in the high there is a strong tendency to stomp on the conservative mind set of before the crisis.  The problems that the society faced were solved in the crisis heart.  The solutions are set in stone at the crisis high cusp.  There is a tendency to stomp extra heavy on the conservative mind set that did quite well before the crisis, so that society frowns on kings, slaveowners and dictators.  Been there.  Done that.  Time to move on.

But we don’t forget the stereotype of the former rich cussing at FDR as ‘that man in the White House.’

I do remember a historian interviewing a descendant of Nathan Bedford Forrest, an outstanding Confederate general and a founder of the KKK.  The historian waxed poetic about Lincoln and Forrest being two of the greatest minds of the Civil War, each exemplifying their sides in the conflict.

In response to this flattering comparison, there was a brief silence, then…

“We don’t mention that man around here.”  Well over a century after things were decided, there were still remnants of the old conflict.

I for one think some people never learn, and will cling to the old way of thinking even after the crisis is solved.  Kings, slaves, dictators and robber barons, hurrah!  The high mentality doesn’t so much wipe out memory of the old values, but puts such a condemnation into the culture that the older way of thinking can do very little harm.  Even then they come back with stuff like Jim Crow, the Southern Strategy and the like.

[Eric the Green]

(06-30-2019, 06:21 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(06-30-2019, 03:50 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The question may be whether one key political figure defines the Gray Champion. In the examples that I suggested, the political figures dominated the political process in defining the Crisis in their countries. There was no single charismatic figure leading in the American Revolution; political power was more dispersed.

Donald Trump is not the Gray Champion; he is too divisive

Lincoln, FDR, and Churchill were just as divisive.  It's just that after the crisis, the divisiveness is written out of the history books.

Trump is a demon. Demons are not gray champions. Trump is a contributing cause of the crisis; a personification of it. Personifications and causes of the Crisis are not gray champions.

Lincoln, FDR and Churchill divisive during the crisis? Yes, they were. And I don't think that was written out; we know. A crisis is a fight. The good guys have always won. This time, if Trump the bad guy wins, that will break a 540-year streak.

Is our generational constellation inferior to all those who came before? Only in that case will Trump and his minions win the crisis fight. But, maybe we are just too spoiled; too flabby; too ruined by success.

[Kinser79]

(06-30-2019, 06:21 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(06-30-2019, 03:50 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The question may be whether one key political figure defines the Gray Champion. In the examples that I suggested, the political figures dominated the political process in defining the Crisis in their countries. There was no single charismatic figure leading in the American Revolution; political power was more dispersed.

Donald Trump is not the Gray Champion; he is too divisive

Lincoln, FDR, and Churchill were just as divisive.  It's just that after the crisis, the divisiveness is written out of the history books.

Warren as usual here PBR is projecting the reality he wishes for not the reality that is.  Conversely Later on we have Bob engaging in Whig History.  It does make me question why this new person grave dug this thread when it seems he had very little to add.  The Democrats in the know, already know, they have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election--why not let a demented member of the neoliberal faction take the fall then perhaps they can run an AOC or a Younger Bernie or even a Yang when they aren't facing a Trump juggernaut.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-20-2020, 09:53 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Warren as usual here PBR is projecting the reality he wishes for not the reality that is.  Conversely Later on we have Bob engaging in Whig History.  It does make me question why this new person grave dug this thread when it seems he had very little to add.  The Democrats in the know, already know, they have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election--why not let a demented member of the neoliberal faction take the fall then perhaps they can run an AOC or a Younger Bernie or even a Yang when they aren't facing a Trump juggernaut.

It's as much turning theory.  [understatement]  In the heart of a crisis, the conservatives don't do so well.  [/understatement]  This time around, with most favoring life over dollars thus calling for a science based response to COVUS 19, the Trump campaign doesn't look much like a juggernaut.

Besides, I figure there are more Trumps that will be running in 2024.  The way the establishment Republicans were rejected, a few like Palin and Trump have taken over what is left of the Republican Party. The Trump brand will likely take a lump, so another of that ilk may rise.  I don't know.  We will see.

I also don't think we have only one partisan wishful thinking rather than predicting. It is common for someone with a political mindset to see what he wants to see.

[TnT]

(05-21-2020, 04:15 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Besides, I figure there are more Trumps that will be running in 2024.  The way the establishment Republicans were rejected, a few like Palin and Trump have taken over what is left of the Republican Party. The Trump brand will likely take a lump, so another of that ilk may rise.  I don't know.  We will see.

One possibility that makes sense to me is Bolton.  This book he wrote could be his "running-for-president" book that most candidates write.  His "conservative" credentials are pretty darn solid, if indeed any real conservatives of the Dick Cheney type and/or Newt Gingrich types still obtain.

Clearly, he has intelligence and he can read. He is a student of history.  His belief system strikes fear into me, but he could be just the sort of "Republican" who could do a lot.  He knows the intricacies of the Bureaucracy forwards and backwards.

His one BIG difference is that he is NOT an isolationist.  And I don't think he would rattle swords; I think he would deploy and use them.

If we use the Model as guidance, and assume that all cards are on the table during this Crisis, and that it could go either way, and if it happened to swing to the right, Bolton could be The Man.

[David Horn]

(07-09-2020, 01:57 PM)TnT Wrote:

(05-21-2020, 04:15 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Besides, I figure there are more Trumps that will be running in 2024.  The way the establishment Republicans were rejected, a few like Palin and Trump have taken over what is left of the Republican Party. The Trump brand will likely take a lump, so another of that ilk may rise.  I don't know.  We will see.

One possibility that makes sense to me is Bolton.  This book he wrote could be his "running-for-president" book that most candidates write.  His "conservative" credentials are pretty darn solid, if indeed any real conservatives of the Dick Cheney type and/or Newt Gingrich types still obtain.

Clearly, he has intelligence and he can read. He is a student of history.  His belief system strikes fear into me, but he could be just the sort of "Republican" who could do a lot.  He knows the intricacies of the Bureaucracy forwards and backwards.

His one BIG difference is that he is NOT an isolationist.  And I don't think he would rattle swords; I think he would deploy and use them.

If we use the Model as guidance, and assume that all cards are on the table during this Crisis, and that it could go either way, and if it happened to swing to the right, Bolton could be The Man.

I hope not.  There should be a requirement that anyone associated with the Project for a New American Century is automatically ineligible.  Should  be, but isn't. 

[Tim Randal Walker]

Anybody who pushes for an active foreign policy-any sort of activist foreign policy-will have to figure out where the support will come from. Difficult at best, if the mood of the country is isolationist.

And I would not assume that the country is eager to get into another war.